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 § 102
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, 2, 9, 11, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niwa et al. (2020/0154982).
Regarding claim 1, Niwa discloses a relay adapter, comprising:
a first connector (51) extending in a first direction, the first connector configured to be connected to a first receptacle of a power supply device (40); and
a main body (50) including:
a lateral body extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction (note the layout direction of the converter 50 and the endoscope 22 in Fig. 5), and
a second receptacle (52) configured to be connected to a second connector (23) of a medical device (21),
wherein an outer shape of the lateral body (51) is configured to fit with an outer shape of the first receptacle (42).
Regarding claim 2, Niwa discloses an entire length of the lateral body in the second direction is longer than an entire length of the lateral body in the first direction (note Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Niwa discloses the lateral body includes: a first lateral portion extending in the second direction, the first lateral portion being at a first side of the lateral body, and a second lateral portion extending opposite to the first lateral portion in the second direction with respect to the second receptacle, the second lateral portion being at a second side of the lateral body, the second direction intersects an axis of the first connector at an intersection portion, and the first side and the second side are on opposite sides of the intersection portion (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, Niwa discloses that the connector (23) of the medical device (13) has a first shape, the first receptacle (42) has a second shape, and the second receptacle (52) has a third shape, and the second shape prevents the connector of the medical device from being connected to the first receptacle and the third shape allows the connector of the medical device to be connected to the second receptacle (the sizes of 51 and 52 are different from each other as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, Niwa discloses that the outer shape of the lateral body is configured to fit with a cutout (42) provided in the first receptacle.
Regarding claim 22, Niwa discloses that the cutout is provided in a protrusion (42) located around a periphery of the first receptacle, and wherein the protrusion surrounds at least a portion of a side surface of the relay adapter when the first connector is connected to the first receptacle (note 42 in Fig. 3 after insertion of 51 into the receptacle 42).
Regarding claim 25, Niwa discloses the main body further includes a grip provided at least one of (i) in an end surface of the lateral body in the second direction or (ii) between the second receptacle and the end surface (note the surfaces in 50 provide a grip when held by a user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3-4, 17-18, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (20200154982) in view of Konishi et al. (CN1993078A).
Regarding claim 3, Niwa does not disclose the main body further includes an electrical circuit substrate disposed inside the lateral body, the electrical circuit substrate includes a power supply circuit and a signal conversion circuit, the power supply circuit is configured to supply power transmitted from the power supply device to the medical device, and the signal conversion circuit is configured to: convert a first signal transmitted from the power supply device into a first converted signal compatible with the medical device and transmit the first converted signal to the medical device, and convert a second signal transmitted from the medical device into a second converted signal compatible with the power supply device and transmit the second converted signal to the power supply device as claimed. However, in paragraph 59, Niwa states that various kinds of control signals and image pickup signals are transmitted and received between the endoscopes and the video system through the converter 50.
Konishi, from the similar field of endeavor, discloses a well known endoscopic converter 4 (processor) showing a power supply circuit (11) and a signal conversion circuit (11, 21, 24, 25, 26). The CCD driver 11 provides both a power supply signal and a converted control signal to the CCD sensor 9A.
Therefore, knowing that the converter 50 in Niwa can be any conventional endoscopic converters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Konishi into Niwa to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Konishi discloses the lateral body includes a sensor (14), and wherein the electrical circuit substrate is mounted with a reading apparatus (14) being configured to read external code information (13) via the sensor or the electrical circuit substrate is mounted with a signal input apparatus (14) being configured to receive an external signal (13) via the sensor.
Regarding claims 17-18, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Regarding claim 23, in addition to rejection to claim 3, the orientation of the electrical circuit substrate would have been an obvious design choice since it could be placed in any direction.
Regarding claim 24, in addition to rejection to claim 23, Niwa does not disclose that the main body further includes a plurality of electrical circuit substrates extending in the second direction, and the plurality of electrical circuit substrates are stacked on one another in the first direction as claimed. However, Konishi discloses a plurality of circuits (Fig. 1), and these circuits need to be stacked together to form a compact package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack the circuits in Konishi so that a compact package could be formed in Niwa. The packaging would have been a matter of obvious design choice since the circuits can be arranged in different manner to desired.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (20200154982) in view of Kawabata et al. (JP2007208777a).
Regarding claim 10, Niwa does not disclose the main body further includes a plurality of grips, the plurality of grips including a first grip in a first end surface of the first lateral portion and a second grip in a second end surface of the second lateral portion as claimed. Kawabata, from the similar field of endeavor, discloses a plurality of grips (30R, 30L, 40R, 40L). These grips enable the user to hold the camera safely. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the well known plurality of grips as taught by Kawabata onto Niwa so that the converter 50 as shown in Fig. 5 could be handled by the user readily.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to rejection to claim 10, Kawabata further discloses the grip is recessed-shape portion (31, 41), and the finger hook surface grips (32, 42) as claimed.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (20200154982) in view of Konishi et al. (CN1993078A), and further in view of Ohki (2009/0076327).
Regarding claim 6, Niwa or Konishi does not disclose the electrical circuit substrate further includes: a detection circuit configured to detect whether the second connector is connected to the second receptacle, and a switch circuit configured to stop supplying power from the power supply circuit to the medical device when the detection circuit detects that the second connector is not connected to the second receptacle.
Ohki, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the detection circuit (26), and the switch circuit (24) as claimed. It should be noted that the cap detection for 15c and 15b is also applied for 14a and 14b as illustrated in Figs. 1a, 1b, and 3 as (14b). The CAP insertion and extraction detecting circuit 26 in Fig. 2 also depends on the two detected signals from 14b and 15b. By using the detecting circuit 26, the power supply and driving signals to the CCD sensor can be disabled automatically when the endoscope is not inserted. Without providing power supply and driving signals to the CCD sensor, the energy consumption of the system can be lowered, and the safety and conveniences of the overall system can be further improved.
Hence, knowing that the power supply and driving signals to the CCD sensor in Niwa is not regulated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Ohki into the combination of Niwa and Konishi so that the energy consumption, safety, and convenience of the system could be further enhanced.
Regarding claim 7, Niwa discloses a light guide body (23a; 24a) configured to receive an illumination light supplied from the power supply device via the first connector and to transmit the illumination light from the first connector to the second receptacle (note par. 55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new limitations to the claims are not disclosed in Niwa, the examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejections above, the receptacle 42 meets the outer shape of the lateral body as claimed and the connector 51 meets the outer shape of the first receptacle as claimed.
With respect to applicant’s arguments to claims 10 and 12, Kawabata is provided to show the grips are well known in the art.
In view of above arguments, applicant fails to overcome Niwa and the combinations with Konishi and Ohki. As a result, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights