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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the grating of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Page 8 lines 15-16 reads: “The rotating wheel 40 drives the bending sections 211 to move through the pull wires 41”. This is clearly a drafting error, as the pull wires are drawn to move through the bending sections in Fig.1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Accordingly, the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is obtained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, the claim reads "the detection device obtains a rotation angle” [lines 12-13], the processor receives” [line 15], “calculates" [line 16]. It is clear the applicant intended to recite functional characteristics of the detection device and processor rather than recite method steps in a device claim.
In claim 4, the claim reads “the processor adjusts” [line 2]. It is clear the applicant intended to recite functional characteristics of the processor rather than recite method steps in a device claim.
In claim 8, the claim reads “the rotating wheel is driven” [line 2]. It is clear the applicant intended to recite functional characteristics of the rotating wheel rather than recite method steps in a device claim.
Appropriate corrections are required. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)
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 2-4 and 11 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 2-3, the claim recites parameters of an equation by which the processor obtains the lens pose, and an equation by which it determines a normal at the lens, but does not fully describe the parameters of the equation. As such, the intended metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined without undue speculation.
Since claims 2-3 fail to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, no rejection on the art may be rendered. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) ("If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious-the claim becomes indefinite."). See MPEP 2173.06
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2013/0261392) in view of Tanaka (US 2011/0275896).
In regards to Claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a steerable orthopedic [para.29: the endoscope could be used in this way] endoscope system with navigation function, comprising:
a handle [30, Fig.1, para.31];
an endoscope body, comprising a rod portion [25, Fig.1, para.32] connected to the handle, a bendable portion [23, Fig.1, para.32] located at a front end of the rod portion, and a distal end portion [21, Fig.1, para.32-34] located at a front end of the bendable portion, wherein the bendable portion is internally provided with bending sections [“the distal end portion of the bendable portion 23”, and also the “node rings”, para.34, para.39-40: These are connected to the node rings in the same sense that the applicant’s pull wires are connected to the applicant’s bending sections 211 in Fig.2 and page 8], whereby the bendable portion is capable of bending at different angles [para.45-47];
a rotating adjustment component, comprising a rotating wheel [37LR or 37UD, Fig.2b, para.34] and two pull wires [the pair of 38LR or 38UD, Fig.2b, para.37] arranged on two sides in a radial direction of the rotating wheel respectively, wherein the two pull wires are connected to the bending sections [para.39-40] to adjust a bending degree of the bendable portion;
an angle detection component [63, 67, Figs.2b-d], comprising a marker [67, Figs.2c-d, para.53-54] arranged on the rotating wheel and a detection device [63, Figs.2b-d, para.54-55] configured to identify the marker, wherein the detection device obtains a rotation angle of the rotating wheel by detecting changes of the marker; and
a processor [141, Fig.5, para.91-92], electrically connected to the angle detection component, wherein the processor receives rotation angle information obtained by the angle detection component, and calculates a pose of the distal end portion relative to the rod portion according to the rotation angle information, and the pose comprises coordinates and a direction angle of the distal end portion [this is equivalent to calculating the shape of the bendable portion 23].
However, Yamamoto does not positively disclose that the distal end portion comprises a lens, or that the processor is electrically connected to the rotating adjustment component.
Yamamoto further discloses wherein the endoscope captures images [para.29].
Yamamoto further does not particularly discuss the means by which the rotating wheel is driven, describing it as a “bending operation drive unit” [para.38].
Tanaka teaches an analogous steerable endoscope system with navigation function [Figs.1-2, abstract], wherein a distal end portion [15, Figs.1-2, para.42] distal to a bending portion [16, Fig.2, para.42] comprises a lens [32, Fig.2, para.50] affixed therein. Tanaka teaches the lens is provided for the purpose providing imaging light to an imager [33, Fig.2, para.50] in the distal end portion for image capture [para.50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the distal end portion disclosed by Yamamoto to have the lens and imager in accordance with the teachings of Tanaka. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
This would further create a system wherein the processor calculates the pose of the lens relative to the distal end portion, as given a known position of the lens within the distal end portion, finding the pose of the distal end portion is mathematically equivalent.
Tanaka further teaches wherein analogous rotation adjustment components [54a-b, Fig.2] may be electrically connected to an analogous processor [5a, Figs.2-4, para.3, 65, 90, 94-95] for calculating the pose of the lens. Tanaka teaches that this is done for the purpose of controlling the rotation adjustment components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the processor and rotation adjustment component of Yamamoto in view of Tanaka to be electrically connected in accordance with the teachings of Tanaka. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
In regards to claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Tanaka teaches the steerable orthopedic endoscope system with navigation function according to claim 1, comprising an optical navigation component [Tanaka: 33, Fig.2, para.50], wherein the processor adjusts an origin of the optical navigation component based on pose information of the lens [mathematically equivalent to Yamamoto: para.54-55], whereby a field of view of the optical navigation component is the same as a field of view of the lens [Tanaka: Fig.2, para.50].
In regards to claim 7, Yamamoto in view of Tanaka teaches the steerable orthopedic endoscope system with navigation function according to claim 1, wherein the marker is a grating [Yamamoto: 67, Figs.2c-d], and the detection device is a sensor [Yamamoto: 63, FIgsx.2b-d, para.54-55] that matches the grating.
In regards to claim 8, Yamamoto in view of Tanaka teaches the steerable orthopedic endoscope system with navigation function according to claim 1, however does not positively disclose wherein the rotating wheel is driven by a motor, and the motor is embedded in the handle.
Yamamoto further does not particularly discuss the means by which the rotating wheel is driven, describing it as a “bending operation drive unit” [para.38].
Tanaka further teaches wherein analogous rotation adjustment components [54a-b, Fig.2] may be driven by motors [55a-b, Fig.2, para.65] embedded within the handle 12, Figs.1-2, para.41].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bending operation drive unit taught by Yamamoto in view of Tanaka to be a motor as taught by Tanaka. This would be done as Tanaka shows that this is known in the art.
In regards to claim 9, Yamamoto in view of Tanaka teaches the steerable orthopedic endoscope system with navigation function according to claim 1, however does not positively disclose wherein a button configured to start or stop the motor is arranged on the handle.
Tanaka further discloses where a button [19, Fig.1, para.43] configured to start or stop the motor is arranged on the handle [if the manual bending instruction requires no further bending, and automatic control requires further bending, this would result in start/stop of the motor when pressing button 19.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the handle taught by Yamamoto in view of Tanaka to have a button in accordance with the teaching of Tanaka. This would be done as Tanaka shows that this is known in the art.
In regards to claim 10, Yamamoto in view of Tanaka teaches the steerable orthopedic endoscope system with navigation function according to claim 1, comprising an electromagnetic navigation component [Yamamoto: 18a, 19, 83a-b, 99, Figs.1, 3a, para.61: this utilizes electromagnetic waves], providing reference coordinates for the lens [Yamamoto: para.62], and the electromagnetic navigation component comprises an electromagnetic positioning sensor [Yamamoto: 89, Fig.3a, para.66: this is a component of an electromagnetic positioning sensor] arranged at the front end of the bendable portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach, among other features, a steerable endoscope system comprising:
a handle, an endoscope body, a bending mechanism, an angle detector, an optical navigation component and a processor,
the endoscope body comprising a rod connected to the handle, a bending part at a distal end of the rod, and a lens at a distal end of the bending part, where the bending part is provided therein with bending sections, the bending part capable of bending at different angles,
the bending mechanism comprising a pulley wheel and two pull wires respectively arranged on two sides of the pulley wheel in a radial direction thereof, the two pull wires connected to the bending sections such that they are configured to bend the bending part,
the angle detector comprising a marker on the pulley wheel, and comprising a sensor configured to identify the marker, the sensor configured to obtain a rotation angle of the rotating wheel by detecting changes of the marker,
the optical navigation component comprises a reference frame and a reflection sphere arranged on the handle, a field of view of the optical navigation component the same as a field of view of the lens,
the processor electrically connected to the angle detector and the bending mechanism, the processor configured to
receive the rotation angle from the angle detector,
calculate a pose of the lens relative to the rod according to the received rotation angle, the pose comprising coordinates and a direction angle of the lens,
adjust an origin of the optical navigation component based on the calculated pose.
Hibino et al. (US 4,982,725) discloses a steerable endoscope system with an optical angle detector monitoring rotation of a pulley wheel of a bending mechanism.
Tanaka (US 2011/0275896) discloses the above except for the sensor and marker, or that the optical navigation component comprises a reference frame and a reflection sphere arranged on the handle.
Yamamoto et al. (US 2013/0261392) discloses the above except for the optical navigation component, the lens, or that the processor is electrically connected to the rotating adjustment component.
In obvious combination, Yamamoto in view of Tanaka discloses the above except for that the optical navigation component comprises a reference frame and a reflection sphere arranged on the handle.
There is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Hibino et al. (US 4,982,725)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights