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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-19, there should be commas after the claim numbers in the preambles.
In claims 13 & 18, “fluorescence guided surgery” should read –fluorescence-guided surgery--.
In claim 15, “generated by first light source” should read –generated by the first light source--.
In claim 18, “fluorescently labelled structures” should read –fluorescently-labelled structures--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15-16 recite the limitation “the second light source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that this second light source refers to the further light source introduced in claim 11.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being Yampolsky (US 2021/0093412).
Regarding claim 1, Yampolsky teaches an endoscope (medical instrument 510, [0115]) comprising:
a set of one or more optical fibers (optical fiber 518, [0115]) connecting a proximal end of the endoscope to a distal end of the endoscope (Figure 21), wherein the set of one or more optical fibers is arranged to receive, at the proximal end of the endoscope, light generated by a light source (light source 520, [0115], Figure 21); and
a phosphor (phosphor, [0115]) arranged at the distal end of the endoscope ([0115], Figure 21) to: receive light from the set of one or more optical fibers ([0115], Figure 21), and emit light having a different spectrum to the light from the light source ([0115]).
Regarding claim 2, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, further comprising a light interface (one or more optical elements, [0118]) configured to receive the light generated by the light source and provide the light to the set of one or more optical fibers at the proximal end of the endoscope ([0118]).
Regarding claim 3, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the light source is a laser ([0118]).
Regarding claim 4, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the diameter of the set of one or more optical fibers is less than 500 µm ([0120]), and wherein the endoscope is flexible along at least a portion of its length from the proximal end to the distal end ([0130]).
Regarding claim 5, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the spectrum of the light generated by the light source has a peak within a range of wavelengths from 400 nm to 500 nm ([0125] & [0132]), and wherein the light emitted from the phosphor has a wider range of wavelengths than the light generated by the light source ([0132]).
Paragraph [0132] details the range of wavelengths that a specific color may have. Because white is the presence of all visible spectrum wavelengths, the white light emitted by the phosphor has a wider range of wavelengths than the blue light source.
Regarding claim 6, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein according to a human visual system, the light generated by the light source is perceived to be blue light ([0125] & [0132]) and the light emitted from the phosphor is perceived to be white light ([0119], [0125], & [0132]).
Regarding claim 10, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the set of one or more optical fibers has just a single optical fiber ([0115] & Figure 21).
Regarding claim 17, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the endoscope is a surgical endoscope configured to illuminate and image ([0127]) a surgical site during a surgical operation ([0114]).
Regarding claim 18, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 17, wherein the endoscope is further configured to detect fluorescently-labelled structures during fluorescence-guided surgery ([0127]).
Regarding claim 19, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the proximal end of the endoscope is configured to be attached to a distal end of a surgical robot arm (one or more robotic arms 12, [0035], Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Yampolsky teaches a method of operating an endoscope (medical instrument 510, [0115]) which comprises a set of one or more optical fibers (optical fiber 518, [0115]) connecting a proximal end of the endoscope to a distal end of the endoscope (Figure 21), the method comprising:
receiving light generated by a light source (light source 520, [0115]) at the set of one or more optical fibers at the proximal end of the endoscope ([0115], Figure 21);
receiving, from the set of one or more optical fibers, light at a phosphor (phosphor, [0115]) located at the distal end of the endoscope ([0115], Figure 21); and
emitting light from the phosphor, wherein the light emitted from the phosphor has a different spectrum to the light from the light source ([0115]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yampolsky, as applied to claim 1, above, in view of Talbert (US 2020/0397239).
Regarding claim 7, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the endoscope further comprises a camera (camera, [0085]-[0086] & [0105]).
However, Yampolsky fails to disclose that the phosphor is arranged to emit light over a range of angles that is greater than a range of angles included within a field of view of the camera.
Talbert teaches that the phosphor (fiber, [0196]) is arranged to emit light over a range of angles ([0196] & Figure 11) that is greater than a range of angles included within a field of view of the camera (camera, [0202]) ([0196] & [0202]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that the phosphor is arranged to emit light over a range of angles that is greater than a range of angles included within a field of view of the camera, as taught by Talbert. This ensures that the entire field of view of the camera is illuminated and able to receive image data.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yampolsky, as applied to claim 1, above, in view of Koenig (US 2008/0081950).
Regarding claim 8, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1.
However, Yampolsky fails to disclose that the endoscope further comprises one or more mirrored surfaces at the distal end of the endoscope, positioned around the phosphor to reflect light that is emitted backwards from the phosphor.
Koenig teaches that the endoscope further comprises one or more mirrored surfaces (mirror coating 10, [0098], Figure 6) at the distal end of the endoscope ([0098], Figure 6), positioned around the phosphor (fiber 4, [0098]) ([0098], Figure 6) to reflect light that is emitted backwards from the phosphor (Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that the endoscope further comprises one or more mirrored surfaces at the distal end of the endoscope, positioned around the phosphor to reflect light that is emitted backwards from the phosphor, as taught by Koenig. This ensures that any light emitted backwards can reflect forward from the endoscope, increasing the amount of light present in the object being imaged.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yampolsky in view of Koenig, as applied to claim 8, above, in further view of Bornstein (WO 2010/019800).
Regarding claim 9, Yampolsky in view of Koenig teach the endoscope of claim 8, and Koenig further teaches that said one or more mirrored surfaces form an open cylinder around the phosphor (Figure 6), with the one or more mirrored surfaces comprising: one or more other mirrored surfaces forming side walls of the open cylinder around the phosphor ([0098], Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that said one or more mirrored surfaces form an open cylinder around the phosphor, with the one or more mirrored surfaces comprising: one or more other mirrored surfaces forming side walls of the open cylinder around the phosphor, as taught by Koenig. This ensures that any side-propagated light can reflect forward from the endoscope.
However, Yampolsky in view of Koenig fail to disclose a first mirrored surface, which is flat and circular, and positioned behind the phosphor, wherein the first mirrored surface has a hole in which a portion of the set of one or more optical fibers is positioned.
Bornstein teaches a first mirrored surface (first mirror 18; Page 124, Line 27; Figure 26), which is flat and circular (Figure 26), and positioned behind the phosphor (optical fiber 12, Page 124, Lines 26-27) (Figure 26), wherein the first mirrored surface has a hole (aperture 24; Page 124, Line 29; Figure 26) in which a portion of the set of one or more optical fibers is positioned (Page 124, Lines 28-29; Figure 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky and Koenig to include a first mirrored surface, which is flat and circular, and positioned behind the phosphor, wherein the first mirrored surface has a hole in which a portion of the set of one or more optical fibers is positioned, as taught by Bornstein. This ensures that any back-propagated light can reflect forward from the endoscope, while the hole allows the fiber to be completely surrounded, preventing any loss of light.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yampolsky, as applied to claim 1, above, in view of Onobiri (US 2023/0240521).
Regarding claim 11, Yampolsky teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the phosphor is further arranged to: scatter the light ([0126]).
However, Yampolsky fails to disclose that the set of one or more optical fibers is further arranged to receive at the proximal end of the endoscope, further light from a further light source, and wherein the phosphor is further arranged to: receive the further light from the set of one or more optical fibers.
Onobiri teaches that the set of one or more optical fibers (optical fiber, [0038]) is further arranged to receive at the proximal end of the endoscope (endoscope, [0038]), further light from a further light source (light source 1, [0027]), and wherein the phosphor (phosphor layer, [0040]) is further arranged to: receive the further light from the set of one or more optical fibers ([0038] & [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that the set of one or more optical fibers is further arranged to receive at the proximal end of the endoscope, further light from a further light source, and wherein the phosphor is further arranged to: receive the further light from the set of one or more optical fibers, as taught by Onobiri. An additional light source increases the wavelength range the endoscope is able to produce, as different wavelengths carry different advantages.
Regarding claim 12, Yampolsky in view of Onobiri teach the endoscope of claim 11, and Onobiri further teaches that the further light source is a laser ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that the further light source is a laser, as taught by Onobiri. The light source in Yampolsky is a laser, so making the further light source a laser when incorporating the teachings of Onobiri into Yampolsky would be the most obvious option.
Regarding claim 13, Yampolsky in view of Onobiri teach the endoscope of claim 11, and Onobiri further teaches that the further light is fluorescence excitation light for fluorescence-guided surgery ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that the further light is fluorescence excitation light for fluorescence-guided surgery, as taught by Onobiri. Fluorescence-guided surgery is well-known in the art, and it is well-known that fluorescence excitation light is used to perform this.
Regarding claim 14, Yampolsky in view of Onobiri teach the endoscope of claim 13, and Onobiri further teaches that the endoscope further comprises a filter (optical filter, [0052]) at the distal end of the endoscope (Figure 3), arranged to filter the fluorescence excitation light to attenuate components of the fluorescence excitation light at a fluorescence detection wavelength ([0052] & [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that the endoscope further comprises a filter at the distal end of the endoscope, arranged to filter the fluorescence excitation light to attenuate components of the fluorescence excitation light at a fluorescence detection wavelength, as taught by Onobiri. Because fluorescent agents emit fluorescence at a different wavelength than the wavelength that excites them, filtering out the detection wavelength from the excitation light ensures that any detection wavelength detected is from the fluorosphere, and not the phosphor.
Regarding claim 15, Yampolsky in view of Onobiri teach the endoscope of claim 13, and Onobiri further teaches that the second light source generates the fluorescence excitation light with a different peak wavelength to the peak wavelength of the first light generated by the first light source ([0028]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that the second light source generates the fluorescence excitation light with a different peak wavelength to the peak wavelength of the first light generated by the first light source, as taught by Onobiri. There are different advantages to different wavelengths, so using multiple wavelengths allows the endoscope to have a greater versatility in imaging.
Regarding claim 16, Yampolsky in view of Onobiri teach the endoscope of claim 13, and Onobiri further teaches that the second light source generates the fluorescence excitation light with a wavelength in a range from 700 nm to 850 nm ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Yampolsky such that the second light source generates the fluorescence excitation light with a wavelength in a range from 700 nm to 850 nm, as taught by Onobiri. Infrared light penetrates tissue deeper than light in the visible spectrum, so this allows for a greater range of imaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798