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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 3, 6 – 8 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the main body part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 6, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruppersberg et al. (US 2015/0374208 A1) in view of Berbee et al. (US 2016/0374546 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ruppersberg discloses an otoscope (Title), comprising:
a sensing part (Fig. 1, ref. 14) which comprises:
a housing (ref. 32, Fig. 1); and
a sensing head (ref. 20) disposed in the housing (Fig. 1) and comprising:
at least one light source (ref. 42) disposed on a front end face (ref. 38, Figs. 1 – 2) of the sensing head; and
a sensing element disposed (refs. 40.1, 43, paragraph [0228]) on the front end face (Figs. 1 - 2),
but is silent regarding the housing of the sensing part being columnar, and having a constant diameter.
Berbee teaches an analogous otoscope (Abstract) comprising a second part (Fig. 2, ref. 28) having a housing (Fig. 3, ref. 24) that is columnar and has a constant diameter (see Figs. 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the housing of Ruppersberg to be columnar and have a constant diameter, as taught by Berbee, for the purpose of ease of manufacture.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ruppersberg in view of Berbee discloses the otoscope according to claim 1, wherein the sensing part is configured to be detached from the main body part (Ruppersberg, Fig. 1 shows the parts as separate and detachable via ref. 28).
Regarding claim 7, Ruppersberg in view of Berbee discloses the otoscope according to claim 1, wherein the at least one light source is a light-emitting diode (paragraphs [0066-67]).
Regarding claim 10, Ruppersberg in view of Berbee discloses the otoscope according to claim 1, except wherein the front end face has a diameter of 3.5 millimeters. However, Ruppersbeg does disclose a diameter of 4 mm (paragraph [0057]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the front end face of Ruppersberg in view of Berbee such that the diameter is 3.5 mm to better fit smaller ear canals, such as in children and, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruppersberg et al. (US 2015/0374208 A1) in view of Berbee et al. (US 2016/0374546 A1) and in view of Wang (US 2021/0321862 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ruppersberg in view of Berbee discloses the otoscope according to claim 1, except for further comprising an air supply device, wherein the air supply device comprises an air supply tube and an air bag connected to the air supply tube, wherein the air supply tube passes through a cavity of the sensing head, and an outlet of the air supply tube is located on the front end face.
Wan teaches an analogous otoscope (Abstract) comprising an air supply device, comprising an air supply tube and an air bag connected to the air supply tube (Fig. 4, paragraph [0029]), wherein the air supply tube passes through a cavity of a sensing head (refs. 11 & 12, Fig. 4), and an outlet of the air supply tube (paragraph [0029] discloses a jet port/outlet on the wall of ref. 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the otoscope of Ruppersberg in view of Berbee to include the air supply device, wherein the air supply device comprises an air supply tube and an air bag connected to the air supply tube, wherein the air supply tube passes through a cavity of the sensing head and an outlet, as taught by Wan, for the purpose of observing the effect of airflow in the body or to push open apertures of the body (paragraph [0029]). Please note that the outlet of the air supply tube is located on the front end face along outlet ref. 36 of Ruppersberg.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruppersberg et al. (US 2015/0374208 A1) in view of Berbee et al. (US 2016/0374546 A1) and in view of Wang (US 2021/0321862 A1) and further in view of Hunter et al. (US 2024/0326379 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ruppersberg in view of Berbee and in view of Wang discloses the otoscope according to claim 2, except wherein the air supply tube comprises stainless steel.
Hunter teaches surgical tubing usable with medical scopes (paragraph [0003]) wherein an air supply tube comprises stainless steel (paragraph [0117]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air supply tube of Ruppersberg in view of Berbee and in view of Wang to comprise a stainless-steel tube, as taught by Hunter, for the purpose of benefiting from stainless steels high strength and thus better withstanding internal air pressure.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruppersberg et al. (US 2015/0374208 A1) in view of Berbee et al. (US 2016/0374546 A1) and in view of Fowler (US 2010/0081875 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ruppersberg in view of Berbee discloses the otoscope according to claim 7, except wherein the at least one light source has a color temperature of 6500K or 3500K.
Fowler teaches a scope usable as an otoscope (paragraph [0054]) wherein the scope comprising a light source in the form of an LED (paragraph [0097]) wherein the light source has a color temperature of 6500K (paragraph [0097]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Ruppersberg in view of Berbee such that the light source/LED has a color temperature of 6500K, as taught by Flowler, for the purpose of providing an LED with a low power and cost, high efficiency and small package size and long lifespan (paragraph [0097]) and for the benefit of providing a daylight similar white light that would improve visibility of fine details in the target view.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892.
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 TESSA M MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8817. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am - 1pm.
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.
/TESSA M MATTHEWS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights