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 .
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 reads that the first, second, and third LED’s are “in a 2x2 matrix”. If there are three LED’s how are they in a 2x2 matrix? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 16, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosoda et al. (JP 11267099, hereinafter Hosoda).
Re claim 1, Hosoda discloses, an endoscope comprising: a distal tip (2) including a light emitter (4 and/or 10) and a camera (11) with an optical axis, the light emitter comprising: a light guide (section enclosing 3, 4, 5, fig 1) comprising a light entry end and a light exit end; a first light emitting diode (LED, 4B, par [0011], fig 2) configured to emit light with a first spectral distribution, the first LED positioned to emit the light into the light entry end of the light guide; a second LED (4G, par [0011], fig 2) configured to emit light with a second spectral distribution different from the first spectral distribution, the second LED positioned to emit the light into the light entry end of the light guide (fig 1, pars [0016]-[0017] and [0087]); and a diffuser (3) arranged transverse to the optical axis distally of the light entry end of the light guide such that the lights emitted by the first LED and the second LED pass through the light guide and also through the diffuser (fig 1).
Re claim 2, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the distal tip comprises a light emitter window (section surrounding 3), wherein the light guide and the light emitter window are comprised in a one-piece part such that light from the light exit end passes through the light emitter window, wherein the light emitter window comprises an external surface facing away from the light guide, and wherein the diffuser is provided at the external surface of the light emitter window (fig 1).
Re claim 3, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 2 including wherein the diffuser is formed at, and forms, the external surface during molding of the one-piece part (3, figs 1 and 4).
Re claim 4, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the distal tip comprises a light emitter window, wherein the light guide and the light emitter window are molded in a one-piece part with the light exit end of the light guide contiguous to an inner surface of the light emitter window without a seam surface therebetween, wherein the light emitter window comprises an external surface opposite the inner surface and facing distally away from the light guide, and wherein the diffuser is provided at the external surface of the light emitter window (fig 4).
Re claim 9, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the light emitter comprises a third LED configured to emit light with a third spectral distribution which is different from the first and second spectral distributions (4R, par [0011], fig 2).
Re claim 16, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 1 including further comprising a first cable electrically connected to the first LED and a second cable electrically connected to the second LED, the first cable and the second cable configured to supply power, respectively, to the first LED and the second LED separately such that a light intensity from each of the first and the second LEDs can be independently adjusted (7 figs 1 and 2).
Re claim 17, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the distal tip comprises a housing (31) including a support for positioning the camera, where the support is non-transparent to prevent stray-light into the image sensor (fig 10).
Re claim 21, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 1 including a system comprising the endoscope of claim 1, a monitor and a control unit (35 and 36).
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.
Claim(s) 10-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Re claim 10, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 9 but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light emitter comprises a fourth LED configured to emit light with a fourth spectral distribution which is different from the first, second and third spectral distributions.
Official Notice is taken to note that utilizing a fourth LED with a fourth spectral distribution is notoriously well known and used in the related art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the light emitter comprises a fourth LED configured to emit light with a fourth spectral distribution which is different from the first, second and third spectral distributions with the endoscope of Hosoda in order to produce a more versatile light capable of properly lighting a greater range of scenarios.
Re claim 11, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 9 including wherein the first, second, and third LEDs are arranged proximally of the light entry end of the light guide in a matrix (figs 1, 2, 5, and 11).
Official Notice is taken to note that arranging LEDs in a 2x2 matrix is notoriously well known and used in the related art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine arranging LEDs in a 2x2 matrix with the endoscope of Hosoda in order to produce a more compact endoscope by reducing the amount of space needed for LEDs.
Re claim 12, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 9 but fails to disclose wherein the first LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 405 – 425 nm, wherein the second LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 520 – 540 nm, and wherein the third LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 550 – 670 nm.
Official Notice is taken to note that selecting R, G, B LEDs to have a first LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 405 – 425 nm, a second LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 520 – 540 nm, and a third LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 550 – 670 nm is notoriously well known and used in the related art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine selecting a first LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 405 – 425 nm, a second LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 520 – 540 nm, and a third LED has a peak of light emitted in the range 550 – 670 nm with the endoscope of Hosoda in order to produce a wide range of lighting conditions suitable for various scenarios.
Claims 13-15 are rejected for the same reason as claim 12.
Re claim 18, Hosoda discloses the limitations of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose the precise size and dimensions of the light guide. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the light guide comprises a length extending from the light entry end to the light exit end and a width transverse to the length, wherein the length of the light guide is at least twice the width but not larger than 8 times the width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reason as claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Re claim 5, Hosoda fails to disclose “wherein the distal tip comprises a light emitter window positioned distally of the light guide such that light from the light exit end passes through the light emitter window, wherein the light emitter window comprises an external surface facing away from the light guide and an inner surface opposite the external surface, and wherein the diffuser is provided at the light emitter window or at the light exit end of the light guide”.
Claims 6-8 depend on an allowable claim.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL W FOSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3728. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/JOEL W FOSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639