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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 05/18/2026 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 § 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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morishima et al. (US 2021/0145265 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morishima discloses a device fully capable of functioning as an otoscope (Abstract), otoscope, comprising:
a sensing part the sensing part is considered the distal portion of the device) which comprises:
a housing (Fig. 7B, ref. 112); and
a sensing head disposed in the housing (ref. 120, Fig. 7B) and comprising:
at least one light source tight-emitting diode (ref. 127) disposed on a front end face (Fig. 7B) of the sensing head; and
a sensing element (ref. 124, paragraph [0092]) disposed on the front end face, wherein the housing of the sensing part is columnar (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 6, Morishima discloses the otoscope according to claim 1, wherein the sensing part is configured to be detached from a main body part (Fig. 7b, ref. 110a).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima et al. (US 2021/0145265 A1) in view of Wang (US 2021/0321862 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Morishima discloses the otoscope according to claim 1, further comprising air supply (paragraph [0088]) engaged with a cavity (ref. 112b, 32 Fig. 7B) and an outlet (ref. 121b) for receiving air, but is silent regarding 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 the cavity (ref. 121b) of the sensing head, and an outlet of the air supply tube is located on the front end face.
Wan teaches an 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 device of Morishima 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]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima et al. (US 2021/0145265 A1) in view of Wang (US 2021/0321862 A1) and further in view of Hunter et al. (US 2024/0326379 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Morishima 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 Morishima in view 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 Morishima et al. (US 2021/0145265 A1) in view of Fowler (US 2010/0081875 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Morishima discloses the otoscope according to claim 1, except wherein the at least light-emitting diode 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-emitting diode (LED) of Morishima such that the 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima et al. (US 2021/0145265 A1) in view of Manohara et al. (US 2009/0187072 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Morishima discloses the otoscope according to claim 1, except wherein the front end face has a diameter of 3.5 millimeters.
Manohara teaches an analogous device (Abstract) having a diameter of 3.5 millimeters (paragraph [0021] discloses a diameter of less than, or equal to, about 4 millimeters). 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 to be 3.5 millimeters, as taught by Manohara, for the purpose of aiding in minimally invasive procedures and minimizing tissue disruption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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