DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
3. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
4. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
5. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claim 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12207788 in view of Kostenich et a. (WO 2012/107884). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same scope of the invention, but using different variations; for instance;
Claim 1 of the instant application is directed to, “A light source device comprising: a light emission control section configured to control emission of illumination light irradiated to an observation region, the illumination light including amber light having a wavelength band with a peak wavelength between a wavelength at which a hemoglobin absorption coefficient becomes a smallest value and a wavelength at which the hemoglobin absorption coefficient becomes a first maximum value on a short wavelength side of the wavelength at which the hemoglobin absorption coefficient becomes the smallest value and light belonging to a blue region or a green region when visible light is divided into three primary colors, and the light belonging to the green region having a band width of 40 nm to 80 nm”, and similarly patented claim 1 of ‘788, covers the same scope of the invention. The difference is, the light belonging to the green region having a band width of 40 nm to 80 nm.
However, the above feature is known and used in the conventional prior art of the record, such as, Kostenich, indicating; wavelength range has a bandwidth of at least about 5 nm, at least about 10 nm, at least about 20 nm, at least about 40 nm and even at least about 80 nm. Therefore; it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching. Similar analysis also applies to claims 8 and 15 of the instant application.
It is noted that, claims 1,8 and 15 of the instant application are broader than the corresponding patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IGARASHI MAKOTO (WO 2013/145408) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/125334) and Kostenich et a. (WO 2012/107884).
Regarding claim 1, Makoto teaches a light source device comprising: a light emission control section configured to control emission of illumination light irradiated to an observation region (e.g., abstract, fig. 1, control circuit, light source 4, disclosed throughout the disclosure), the illumination light including amber light having a wavelength band with a peak wavelength between a wavelength at which a hemoglobin absorption coefficient becomes a smallest value and a wavelength at which the hemoglobin absorption coefficient becomes a first maximum value on a short wavelength side of the wavelength at which the hemoglobin absorption coefficient becomes the smallest value (e.g., figs. 5,1-11, narrow band light having peaks at 600nm and 630 nm disclosed throughout the disclosure, also first narrowband light NL1 and the second narrowband light NL2 are preferably wavelengths in the range of 580 to 620 nm, and/or 585, e.g., equivalent to Amber light, since amber light is a narrow band with around 585-595 nm) and light belonging to a blue region or a green region when visible light is divided into three primary colors (e.g., corresponding to the green narrow band light, narrowband light near the wavelength of 540 nm is assigned to the B channel, narrowband light near the wavelength of 600 nm is assigned to the G channel, throughout the disclosure, also figs. 5 and 9-12).
Makoto, as discussed in the above action, teaches a light source, such as LED, that irradiates a subject with at least one illuminating light having a prescribed wavelength in the range of 580 to 620 nm, and/or 585, e.g., equivalent to Amber light, since amber light is a narrow band with around 585-595 nm. For further clarification;
Makoto, may not explicitly indicate amber light.
However, the use of amber light in the same field of endeavor is well known and used in the conventional prior art of the record, such as; Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/125334) indicating, an example in which four LEDs 42 to 45 that generate four colors of light are employed will be described. However, the types of colors and the number of colors are not limited to the present embodiment. In the present embodiment, a plurality of types of LEDs may be used. For example, an LED that generates amber light may be added.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching.
Makoto, further is silent to explicitly teach, the light belonging to the green region having a band width of 40 nm to 80 nm.
However, Kostenich in the same field of endeavor and throughout the disclosure teaches, … illuminating the area of interest with light comprising … at least one discrete wavelength within the first wavelength range (e.g., with a light-emitting diode emitting yellow, green or blue light) …, using wavelength filters such as green, red or blue …, and further indicates, the first wavelength range has a wide bandwidth, allowing more light to be gathered to acquire the first image …., In some such embodiments, the first wavelength range has a bandwidth of at least about 5 nm, at least about 10 nm, at least about 20 nm, at least about 40 nm and even at least about 80 nm, thus consider to be equivalent to the above claimed limitation.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Kostenich, into the endoscope apparatus of Makoto, in order to achieve the desired improvement in image quality, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Makoto, Tanaka and Kostenich teach the light
source device according to claim 1, the peak wavelength of the amber light belonging to a range from 585 nm to 615 nm (e.g., disclosure of Makoto, indicating; Narrowband light having a distribution in a predetermined width range and narrowband light having a wavelength in the range of … even more preferably, each having a wavelength of585 to 615 nm).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Makoto, Tanaka and Kostenich teach the light source device according to claim 1, the peak wavelength of the amber light being in a wavelength band near 600 nm (e.g., disclosure of Makoto, peak wavelength of … signal is narrowband light near a wavelength of 600 nm, etc. ).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Makoto, Tanaka and Kostenich teach the light
source device according to claim 1, the peak wavelength of the amber light belonging to a range from 585 nm to 615 nm (e.g., see claim 2 above), the light emission control section being configured to perform control to emit light belonging to a red region as the illumination light, and a peak wavelength of the light belonging to the red region belonging to a range from 610 nm to 730 nm (e.g., claim 5 of Makoto, the peak wavelength of the image signal is between wavelengths 610 to 730 nm).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Makoto, Tanaka and Kostenich teach the light source device according to claim 4, the peak wavelength of the light belonging to the red region being in a wavelength band near 630 nm (e.g., disclosure of Makoto, in the wavelength band R within the wavelength band R …, narrow band light having a wavelength of around 630 nm; furthermore; The signal of the narrowband light near the wavelength of 630 nm to be assigned to the R channel …).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Makoto, Tanaka and Kostenich teach the light source device according to claim 4, the light emission control section being configured to perform control to emit the illumination light to the observation region simultaneously (e.g., disclosure of ‘884, the illuminator is configured to simultaneously illuminate an area of interest with light …; also disclosure of ‘334, the control unit 41 as the light amount control unit …), the illumination light being the light belonging to the blue region, the light belonging to the green region, the light belonging to the red region, and the amber light, and the light emission control section being configured to perform control to emit at least one of the light belonging to the blue region, the light belonging to the green region, and the light belonging to the red region, and the amber light simultaneously (e.g., disclosure of ‘334, The control unit 41 as the light amount control unit simultaneously performs the flow …).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Makoto, Tanaka and Kostenich teach the light source device according to claim 4, the light emission control section being configured to perform control to emit the illumination light to the observation region sequentially, the illumination light being the light belonging to the blue region, the light belonging to the green region, the light belonging to the red region, and the amber light, and the light emission control section being configured to perform control to emit at least one of the light belonging to the blue region, the light belonging to the green region, and the light belonging to the red region, and the amber light sequentially (e.g., time series and sequential irradiation, disclosed throughout the disclosure of ‘408).
Regarding claim 8, most of the claimed limitations has been addressed in claim 1 above. As for additional limitation, an imaging device configured to receive light reflected from the observation region irradiated with the illumination light emitted from the light source device and output corresponding image signal; and a processing device configured to generate a display image based on the image signal from the imaging device and output the display image to a display device (e.g., please see, figs. 1,3,8-9, abstract, and disclosure of Makoto).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations claimed has been addressed in the above action, please see claim 1 above. The combination may not explicitly indicate, selectively emit light belonging to a blue region. However, examiner take official notice to indicate that, the above feature is notoriously well known and used in the conventional prior art of the record, such as, Zuzuki, Takayuki (US 6028622), in the same field of endeavor, teaches, The observation apparatus for endoscopes according to the present invention is provided with a light source in which two kinds of light including components with wavelengths of light ranging from an ultraviolet to a blue region and white light are selectively emitted. Which is equivalent to the above limitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching, based on desired application.
Regarding claims 9-14 and 16-20; the limitations claimed has been addressed in the above claims 1-7.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482