DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the second lens element has the positive refracting power”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (i.e., “the positive refracting power”) in the claim. Further it is unclear if “the positive refracting power” refers to the positive refracting power of the first lens element, the third lens element, or the fifth lens element, each recited in parent claim 1, or a different positive refracting power. For examination purposes, claim 7 is interpreted as reciting ---wherein the second lens element has a positive refracting power---.
Claim 8 is rejected due to dependency on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 , 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moehring (US 2020/0107813 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moehring teaches an otoscope (shown in part to include speculum 400 in Figs. 4A-B; para. 0091, 0102), comprising a sensing part (400; Fig. 4A), wherein the sensing part comprises:
a case (shell 451; Figs. 4A-B; para. 0092);
a plurality of light sources (“one or more fiber optics or one or more tubular light guides” for directing light into light transmitting core 452 of case/shell 451; Figs. 4A-B; para. 0092); and
an optical sensing device (including lenses 422, 424; Fig. 4A; para. 0095-0096), disposed in the case, and along an optical axis (central, longitudinal axis of case 451; Fig. 4A) from an object side to an image side sequentially comprising (from right side at exit aperture 440 to the left side, as viewed in Fig. 4A): a first lens element (422; Fig. 4A; para. 0095) and a second lens element (424; Fig. 4A; para. 0096);
wherein the plurality of light sources are configured to emit light toward the object side (light emitted from the plurality of fiber optics or tubular light guides through core 452 of the case 451 emit light toward the object side at exit aperture 440; Fig. 4A; para. 0092).
In the embodiment described above, Moehring does not disclose the optical sensing device sequentially comprising along the optical axis from the object side to the image side:
a first lens element, having a positive refracting power;
a second lens element, having a refracting power;
a third lens element, having a positive refracting power;
a fourth lens element, having a refracting power; and
a fifth lens element, having a positive refracting power,
wherein the otoscope has a total of five lens elements having refracting power.
In another exemplary embodiment, Moehring teaches an optical sensing device (see Figs. 2A-B, para. 0083-0087), sequentially comprising along the optical axis from the object side to the image side (from the left side at exit aperture 240 to the right side at imaging plane 230, as viewed in Fig. 2B. lenses co-axially aligned as described in para. 0083 and 0087):
a first lens element (222; Figs. 2A-B; para. 0083), having a positive refracting power (first lens 222 shown as a convex lens in Fig. 2B for converging light rays, i.e. having a positive refracting power);
a second lens element (224; Figs. 2A-B), having a refracting power (second lens 224 understood to have a refracting power; Fig. 2B);
a third lens element (226; Figs. 2A-B), having a positive refracting power (third lens 226 shown as a convex lens in Fig. 2B for converging light rays, i.e. having a positive refracting power);
a fourth lens element (228; Figs. 2A-B), having a refracting power (fourth lens 228understood to have a refracting power; Fig. 2B); and
a fifth lens element (229; Figs. 2A-B), having a positive refracting power (fifth lens 229 shown as a convex lens in Fig. 2B for converging light rays, i.e. having a positive refracting power),
wherein the otoscope has a total of five lens elements having refracting power (as shown in Figs. 2A-B, described in para. 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the otoscope speculum casing of Moehring (i.e., in Figs. 4A-B) by replacing the two-lens optical sensing part with the five-lens optical sensing part described by Moehring in another embodiment (i.e., in Figs. 2A-B), because Moehring teaches these optical systems as each being sufficient for magnification and examination of a body part such as an ear (see Moehring, para. 0006-0027, 0059).
Regarding claims 2-6, Moehring teaches the otoscope according to claim 1, and further discloses [claim 2] wherein the first lens element is plano-convex (Figs. 2A-B depict positive first lens 222 as a planoconvex lens element; para. 0011 also describes the lenses of the optical assembly as possibly comprising planoconvex lenses), [claim 3] wherein the second lens element is plano-convex (Figs. 2A-B depict second lens 224 as a planoconvex lens element), [claim 4] wherein the third lens element is plano-convex (Figs. 2A-B depict positive third lens 226 as a planoconvex lens element), [claim 5] wherein the fourth lens element is biconvex (Figs. 2A-B depict fourth lens 228 as a doublet lens, including a biconvex lens element on the TM object side thereof), and [claim 6] wherein the fifth lens element is biconvex (although Fig. 2B depicts fifth lens 229 as a planoconvex lens, para. 0011 describes that the lens may comprise a convex lens, understood to include a biconvex lens configuration).
Regarding claim 7, Moehring teaches the otoscope according to claim 1, wherein the second lens element has the positive refracting power (second lens 224 shown as a convex lens in Fig. 2B for converging light rays, i.e. having a positive refracting power).
Regarding claim 9, Moehring teaches the otoscope according to claim 1, wherein an optical effective diameter of the second lens element is larger than an optical effective diameter of the first lens element (as shown in Figs. 2A-B, optical effective diameter of second lens 224 larger than that of first lens 222).
Regarding claim 10, Moehring teaches the otoscope according to claim 1, wherein the fourth lens element has the positive refracting power (fourth lens 228 shown as a convex lens in Fig. 2B for converging light rays, i.e. having a positive refracting power).
Regarding claim 16, Moehring teaches the otoscope according to claim 1, wherein the case (451; Fig. 4A) comprises a light entrance hole (440; Fig. 4A) and a front-end plane (plane defined at aperture 440; Fig. 4A) that surrounds the light entrance hole, the plurality of light sources are disposed on the front-end plane, and the first lens element is disposed at the light entrance hole (where lens assembly 422, 424 in Fig. 4A has been replaced with lens assembly shown in Figs. 2A-B, as described in the modification above, first lens element 222 is located at, i.e. near, light entrance hole 440).
Regarding claim 20, Moehring teaches the otoscope according to claim 1, wherein a focus range of the otoscope is less than or equal to 25 mm (optical assembly comprises a focus range from 12-25 mm from a distal tip of the otoscope; para. 0010, 0013, 0024; claims 12, 19).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moehring (US 2020/0107813 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kirma (US 2023/0161147 A1).
Regarding claims 11-15, Moehring teaches the otoscope according to claim 1
Moehring also contemplates the lenses comprising “one or more concave, convex, planoconcave, or planoconvex lenses” (see para. 0011), and teaches the first through fifth lenses each comprising a positive refracting power, as described above (regarding the embodiment of Figs. 2A-B).
However, Moehring does not specifically disclose [claim 11] wherein the first lens element is spherical, [claim 12] wherein the second lens element is spherical, [claim 13] wherein the third lens element is spherical, [claim 14] wherein the fourth lens element is spherical, and [claim 15] wherein the fifth lens element is spherical.
Kirma, in analogous art, is directed towards an optical sensing assembly for an endoscope comprising a plurality of lens elements (see Figs. 4A-C; para. 0098-0099), the lenses including various convex lenses having positive refracting power (see at least plano-convex lenses 431, 432 and bi-convex lens 433 in Fig. 4A; see Table T1). Kirma also notes, in para. 0116, that “[all] lenses are optionally spherical” (see para. 0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moehring’s convex first through fifth lens elements to be spherical, as claimed and as taught by Kirma, because Kirma recognizes that lenses configured in such a manner for medical examination purposes may optionally be spherical (see Kirma, para. 0116).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moehring (US 2020/0107813 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Carr (US 2017/0027448 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Moehring teaches the otoscope according to claim 1.
Moehring also, in other embodiments, contemplates the inclusion of a detector such as a photodiode, an optical sensor, etc. (see para. 0081).
However, Moehring does not specifically disclose the otoscope further comprising an optical sensor, wherein the optical sensor comprises indium gallium arsenide.
Carr, in analogous art, is directed towards an otoscope (shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising an optical lens assembly (40; Fig. 2; para. 0034), and discloses the otoscope comprising an optical sensor (detector 18; Figs. 1-2; para. 0033) comprising indium gallium arsenide (“detector 18 can be an Indium Gallium Arsenide (InGaAs) detector” as recited in para. 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moehring’s otoscope device to include Carr’s sensor comprising InGaAs, as claimed, because Carr recognizes that such a detector can be used to detect or capture images, or video, of light which transmits through an optical system (see Carr, para. 0033).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other relevant references can be found in the attached PTO-892, including Davis (US 2013/0267783 A1) and Goldfain (US 2005/0027169 A1), both of which disclose an otoscope having a total of five lens elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA VICTORIA LITTLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-6p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571)272-4719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA V. LITTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773