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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues support for the above new claim (i.e., claim 8) may be found in Applicant’s specification as filed, inter alia, Figs. 9-10 and the accompanying description in the specification (see Applicant’s remarks on page 1, first paragraph). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Figs. 9-10 and accompanying description in the specification describes power transmitting coil 21 is housing in processor unit 20 (see also figure 1, paragraphs 0011, 0040-0044). Neither figs. 9-10 and the accompanying description no the entire originally-filed specification has support for newly added limitation of claim 8 including “the processor comprises a processor connector having a housing in which the power receiving coil is housed, the scope comprises a scope connector having an outer housing in which the power transmitting coil is housed,…”.
Applicant further argues amended claim 1 recites that an outer diameter of the power transmitting coil is smaller than inner diameter of power receiving coil, and the power transmitting coil is insertable into the power receiving coil such that the processor and the scope are in a joint state to each other. Kinouchi and Kato each fail to disclose at least the above feature because each of these references disclose a reverse configuration (i.e., an outer diameter of the power transmitting coil is larger than the inner diameter of the power receiving coil, and the power receiving coil is insertable into the power transmitting coil), which is contrary to amended claim 1 (see page 2-3).
In response, it is noted that the teaching of an outer diameter of the power transmitting coil is smaller than inner diameter of power receiving coil, and the power transmitting coil is insertable into the power receiving coil is well-known in connecting electronic devices to provide power from power supply to power receiving device. For example, outer diameter of a connector/protrusion at the end of power transmitting/supply cable or charger from an outlet of a wall to laptop, television, phone, etc. is smaller than inner diameter of the power receiving part of the laptop, television, etc. and the end of the power supply cable/charger is insertable into power receiving part of a laptop, television, phone, etc. so that the power cable/charger and processor of laptop, television, phone are in joint state of each other so that the laptop, television, phone, etc. can receive power from the cable/wire from the power source/power outlet.
Higaki (US 20180166286: see for example, figures 5-7, paragraphs 0057, 58) is relied on as an example that the teaching of an outer diameter of the power transmitting coil is smaller than inner diameter of power receiving coil, and the power transmitting coil is insertable into the power receiving coil such that devices are in a joint state to each other is well-known in the art.
See also Lee et al. (US 20210169145: see paragraph 0172).
For the reason given above, rejections of claims 1-8 are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites limitation “the processor comprises a processor connector having a housing in which the power receiving coil is housed, the scope comprises a scope connector having an outer housing in which the power transmitting coil is housed,…” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention (see discussion regarding support of newly added limitation of claim 8 in the “response to arguments” above).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1, line 5-6, recites limitation “he power receiving coil” is indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are unknown. This limitation is interpreted as best understood as – the power receiving coil –
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 fails to specify further limitation of the subject matter claimed in claim 1. In particular, dependent claim 8 recites “the processor comprises a processor connector having a housing in which the power receiving coil is housed, the scope comprises a scope connector having an outer housing in which the power transmitting coil is housed,…” appears to conflict with the subject matter in claim 1 that power transmitting coil is housed in the processor and the power receiving coil is housed in the scope (i.e., “processor including a power transmitting coil”, “a scope including a power receiving coil”).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinouchi (US 20230000320) in view of Higaki et al. (US 20180166286).
Regarding claim 1, Kinouchi discloses an endoscope device (the first modification of the first embodiment as described at 0078-0084 also with reference to the superseding first embodiment where appropriate; figs 8-11 ) comprising:
a processor (processor 3) including a power transmitting coil (a power transmitting primary coil 52 ) and a control board (the computational circuitry within processor unit 3) (see figures 1,5, paragraph 0058); and
a scope including a power receiving coil and an endoscope (scope unit 8a including a secondary power coils 37 and an endoscope – figures 1, 3, 10, paragraphs 0065-0066, 0078, 0080);
wherein power transmitting coil and power receiving coil are connected such that the processor and the scope are in a joint state to each other (see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 10, paragraphs 0072, 0084);
while the processor and the scope are in the joined state to each other, the power transmitting coil and the power receiving coil at least partially overlap each other in an axial direction, such that contactless power supply from the power transmitting coil to the power receiving coil is enabled (when connector for endoscope 8A is inserted into the receptacle 40 of the scope processor 3, the primary coil 52 arranged along the inner side surface of the first cylindrical 46 and the secondary coil 37 on the outer side surface of the first cylindrical portion 31 are electromagnetically connected – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 10, paragraphs 0072, 0084. As the primary coil 52 on the inner surface of the receptable 40 and the secondary coil 37 arranged along on outer surface of the cylindrical portion 31 of the endoscope faces adjacently to each other when electromagnetically connected to provide power, the primary coil 52 and the secondary coil 37 at least partially overlap each other in an axial direction – see also figure 10).
Kinouchi does not explicitly disclose an outer diameter of power transmitting coil is smaller than an inner diameter of the power receiving coil, and the power transmitting coil is insertable into the power receiving coil.
Higaki discloses an outer diameter of the power transmitting coil is smaller than an inner diameter of power receiving coil (outer diameter of electric-power transmitting coil 44 is smaller than the inner diameter of the electric-power receiving coil 54 – see figures 5-7, paragraphs 0057-0059),
the power transmitting coil (electric-power transmitting coil 44) is insertable into the power receiving coil (electric-power receiving coil 54) such that components connected with the electric-power transmitting coil 44 and electric-power receiving coil 54 are in join state to each other (figures 5-7, paragraphs 0057-0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kinouchi with the teaching of outer diameter of power transmitting coil is smaller than inner diameter of power receiving coil and power transmitting coil is insertable into the power receiving coil as taught by Higaki in order to yield predictable result such as achieving a design choice of power transmitting coil is insertable into power receiving coil for components are in a joint state to each other.
Regarding claim 2, Kinouchi in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, wherein the power transmitting coil and the power receiving coil are wound along a cylindrical surface (the secondary coil 37 are arranged the outer side surface of the first cylindrical portion 31. Examples of the structure of the secondary coil 37 may include a structure including an arc surface and a coil portion wound spirally or helically on the arc surface (see Kinouchi: figure 8,10, paragraphs 0080, 0084), the primary coil 52 are arranged on the inner side surface of cylindrical hole 46 and corresponding to the coil 37 (see Kinouchi: figure 10, paragraphs 0082, 0084). Thus, primary coil 52 and secondary coil 37 are wound along a cylindrical surface.
See also disclosure in Higaki: figures 2, 5, 10, paragraphs 0013, 0047).
Regarding claim 3, Kinouchi in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, wherein one of the processor and the scope includes a protruding surface having a cylindrical shape (e.g., endoscope 8A includes a protrusion portion with cylindrical portion 31 – see include, but are not limited to, figure 10 3, paragraph 0084; Higaki: figures 2, 5, 10, paragraphs 0013, 0047) ,
the other of the processor and the scope includes a recessed surface having a cylindrical shape (the receptacle 40 includes a hole reception hole having a cylindrical shape – see include, but are not limited to, Kinouchi: figure 5, paragraphs 0059, 0084; Higaki: figures 6-7),
the power transmitting coil and the power receiving coil are both arranged along the protruding surface or the recessed surface, and the protruding surface and the recessed surface are fitted to each other while the processor and the scope are in the joined state to each other (see Kinouchi: figures 6, 10, paragraphs 0060, 0070, 0084; Higaki: figures 5-7, paragraphs 0057-0059).
Regarding claim 5, Kinouchi in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, Kinouchi further discloses wherein one of the processor and the scope includes a light-emitting element (0058 describes an illumination light source such as a halogen lamp), the other of the processor unit and the scope unit includes a light-receiving element (processor unit comprises light diode/light source and the endoscope has light receiving element through guide light 50 see figures 5-6, paragraph 0063, and
the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are allowed to transmit and receive an optical signal while the processor and the scope are in the joined state to each other (see figures 5-6, paragraphs 0063, 0070).
Regarding claim 6, Kinouchi in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, Kinouchi further discloses wherein each of the processor and the scope includes an optical path for illumination light, and
the optical paths of the processor and the scope are joined while the processor and the scope are in a joined state to each other (optical path with optical fiber 36a, optical fiber plug 36, optical fiber insertion hole 51, etc. for proving lights when the endoscope and the processor are connected – see figures 5-6, 10, paragraphs 0063-0064, 0070-0071, 0081).
Regarding claim 8, Kinouchi in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1. Kinouchi further discloses wherein: the processor comprises a processor connector having a housing in which the power coil is housed (processor 3 comprises connector having a housing such as receptable 40 in which the power coil is housed – see include, but are not limited to, Kinouchi: figure 5, paragraph 0066, 0075, 103, 132),
the scope comprises a scope connector having an outer housing in which the power coil is housed (scope 8a comprises a scope connector having an outer housing in which power coil 37 is housed – see for example, figures 1, 3, paragraphs 0086, 0075), and
the outer housing of the scope connector fits the housing of the processor connector (see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 6, paragraphs 0066, 0075).
Kinouchi in view of Higaki further discloses the outer housing of the scope connector fits inside the housing of the processor connector (see Kinouchi’s disclosure of the scope connector and processor connector as discussed above and Higaki: figures 5-7, paragraphs 0013, 0057-0059 for teaching of outer housing for connector housing the transmitting power coil fits inside the housing of the connector having the power receiving coil).
Official notice is taken that the teaching of processor connector having a housing in which power receiving coil is housed, and connector having an outer housing in which the power transmitting coil is housed is well-known in the art. For example, the example, of processor of a television, phone, laptop, etc. having a connector having a housing/hub in which power receiving part is housed for connecting to power supply cable/wire and the connector of a power cable/charger in which the power transmitting part from the power supply source is provided as given as discussed in “response to argument” above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the well-known teaching of processor connector having a housing in which the power receiving coil is housed, and connector having the outer housing in which the power transmitting coil is housed in order to yield predictable result of achieving a design choice of processing receiving power.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 20120088970 A1) in view of Higaki et al. (US 20180166286).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses an endoscope device (see the first embodiment paragraphs 0033-0103, figures 1-7) comprising:
a processor (extracorporeal device 5 and extracorporeal side connector 14 – see figure 2) including a power transmitting coil (primary coil ring 36 – see figure 2) and a control board (a system control device 33– see figure 2, paragraph 0045); and
a scope (endoscope scope insertion portion 4 and scope-side connector 13 – see figure 2) including a power receiving coil (secondary coil 35 – see figure 2) and an endoscope (insertion portion 4– see figures 1-2, paragraphs 0043, 0046);
wherein the power transmitting coil and the power receiving coil are connected by inserting such that the processor and the scope are in a joint state to each other (see figure 4, paragraph 0074, 0083, 0091), and
while the processor and the scope are in the joined state to each other, the power transmitting coil and the power receiving coil at least partially overlap each other in an axial direction, such that contactless power supply from the power transmitting coil to the power receiving coil is enabled (while the extracorporeal-side connector 14 and the scope side connector 13 are connected together, the primary coil ring 36 of the extracorporeal-side connector 14 and the secondary coil ring 35 of the scope-side connector 13 at least partially overlap each other in an axial direction, and contactless power supply from the primary coil ring 36 to secondary coil ring 37 is enabled – see figure 4, paragraph 0074, 0083, 0091).
Kato does not explicitly disclose an outer diameter of power transmitting coil is smaller than an inner diameter of the power receiving coil, and the power transmitting coil is insertable into the power receiving coil.
Higaki discloses an outer diameter of the power transmitting coil is smaller than an inner diameter of power receiving coil (outer diameter of electric-power transmitting coil 44 is smaller than the inner diameter of the electric-power receiving coil 54 – see figures 5-7, paragraphs 0057-0059),
the power transmitting coil (electric-power transmitting coil 44) is insertable into the power receiving coil (electric-power receiving coil 54) such that components connected with the electric-power transmitting coil 44 and electric-power receiving coil 54 are in join state to each other (figures 5-7, paragraphs 0057-0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato with the teaching of outer diameter of power transmitting coil is smaller than inner diameter of power receiving coil and power transmitting coil is insertable into the power receiving coil as taught by Higaki in order to yield predictable result such as achieving a design choice of power transmitting coil is insertable into power receiving coil for components are in a joint state to each other.
Regarding claim 2, Kato in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, Kato further discloses wherein the power transmitting coil and the power receiving coil are wound along a cylindrical surface (primary coil ring 36 and secondary coil ring 35 are wound along a cylindrical surface - see for example, figures 4-5, paragraphs 0055, 0062, 0015).
Regarding claim 3, Kato in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, Kato further discloses wherein one of the processor (extracorporeal 5 and extracorporeal-side connector 14) and the scope (insertion portion 4 and scope-side connector 13)includes a protruding surface having a cylindrical shape (the insertion portion 4 and scope-side connector 13 includes a protruding surface of the scope-side connector 13 having a cylindrical shape – see figures 1, 4, paragraphs 0055-0056, 0059), the other of the processor and the scope includes a recessed surface having a cylindrical shape (the extracorporeal device 5 and extracorporeal connector 14 includes a recessed surface of the extracorporeal-side connector 14 having a cylindrical shape to encircle the outer circumferential surface of the scope-side connector 13 – see figures 1,4, paragraphs 0055, 0064), the power transmitting coil and the power receiving coil are both arranged along the protruding surface or the recessed surface, and the protruding surface and the recessed surface are fitted to each other while the processor and the scope are in the joined state to each other (primary coil ring 36 and the secondary coil ring 35 are both arranged along the protruding surface connector 13 or recessed surface of the processor-side connector 14, and the protruding surface of scope-side connector 13 and the recessed surface of processor-side 14 are fitted to each other while the processor unit and the scope unit are connected by connector 13 and connector 14- see figure 4, paragraphs 0055, 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 5, Kato in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1. Kato further discloses wherein one of the processor and the scope includes a light-emitting element (extracorporeal device 5 and extracorporeal-side connector 14 includes light emitting device through light guide 58 – see figure 4, paragraphs 0067, 0075), the other of the processor and the scope includes a light-receiving element (the insertion portion 4 and scope-side connector 13 includes scope-side light guide 53 – figure 4, paragraph 0075), and the light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are allowed to transmit and receive an optical signal while the processor and the scope are in the joined state to each other (when the scope-side connector 13 and the extracorporeal-side connector 14 are connected together, the end surface of the scope-side light guide 53 and the end surface of the extracorporeal-side light guide 58 are facing each other. As a result, illimitation light is able to be transmitted from the extracorporeal-side light 58 to the scope-side light guide 53 - see figures 4, paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 6, Kato in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, Kato further discloses wherein each of the processor and the scope includes an optical path for illumination light, and the optical paths of the processor and the scope are joined while the processor and the scope are in the joined state to each other (optical paths of the guide lights 53 and 58 are jointed when the processor unit and the scope unit are connected to each other - see figure 4, paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 8, Kato in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1. Kato further discloses wherein: the processor (5) comprises a processor connector (14) having a housing in which the power coil is housed (see figure 1-2, 4, paragraphs 0055-0056, 0064),
the scope (4) comprises a scope connector having an outer housing in which the power coil is housed (scope 8a comprises a scope connector (13) having an outer housing in which power coil is housed – see for example, figures 1-2, 4, paragraphs 0055-0056,0064), and
the outer housing of the scope connector fits the housing of the processor connector (see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-2,4).
Kato in view of Higaki further discloses the outer housing of the scope connector fits inside the housing of the processor connector (see Kato’s disclosure of the scope connector and processor connector in figures 1-2, 4 and discussed above, and Higaki: figures 5-7, paragraphs 0013, 0057-0059 for teaching of outer housing for connector housing the transmitting power coil fits inside the housing of the connector having the power receiving coil).
Official notice is taken that the teaching of processor connector having a housing in which power receiving coil is housed, and connector having an outer housing in which the power transmitting coil is housed is well-known in the art. For example, the example, of processor of a television, phone, laptop, etc. having a connector having a housing/hub in which power receiving part is housed for connecting to power supply cable/wire and the connector of a power cable/charger in which the power transmitting part from the power supply source is provided as given as discussed in “response to argument” above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the well-known teaching of processor connector having a housing in which the power receiving coil is housed, and connector having the outer housing in which the power transmitting coil is housed in order to yield predictable result of achieving a design choice of processing receiving power.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinouchi in view of Higaki as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Shimomura (US 20190082930).
Regarding claim 4, Kinouchi in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, wherein the processor includes the power transmitting coil (primary coil 52 – see Kinouchi: figures 5-6, paragraphs 0065-0066. See also Higaki: figures 5-7, paragraphs 0013, 0057-0059), and the scope includes a plurality of the power receiving coils (e.g., two secondary coils 37 are arranged along the outer peripheral surface of the first cylindrical portion 31 – see Kinouchi paragraph 0080, see also Higaki: paragraphs 0013, 0057-0059, figures 5-7).
Kinouchi further discloses the primary coil 52 is disposed in a position corresponding to the secondary coil 37 and in a position along and adjacent to the inner peripheral surface of the first cylindrical hole 46 (paragraph 0082) and two secondary coils 37 arranged along the outer peripheral surface for the first cylindrical portion 31 (paragraph 0080). See also Higaki: figures 5-7, paragraphs 0013, 0057-0059. However, Kinouchi does not explicitly disclose processor includes a plurality of power transmitting coils.
Shimomura discloses processor includes a plurality of power transmitting coils (processor and navigation device includes plurality of generation coils 39 – see figure 2, paragraphs 0077-0078); and
scope includes a plurality of power receiving coils (scope unit includes a plurality of respective detection coils – see figure 2, paragraphs 0057-0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kinouchi with the teaching of processor includes plurality of power transmitting coils as taught by Shimomura in order to yield predictable result of providing more power bandwidth and faster charging.
Claim 4 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20120088970) in view of Higaki et al. (US 20180166286) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Shimomura (US 20190082930).
Regarding claim 4, Kato in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1, wherein the processor includes the power transmitting coil (primary coil ring 36 – see figures 2, 4), and the scope includes the power receiving coil (secondary coil ring 35 – see figures 2, 4). See also Higaki: figures 5-7, paragraphs 0013, 0057-0059.
However, Kato does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor includes a plurality of power transmitting coils, and the scope includes a plurality of power receiving coils”.
Shimomura discloses a processor includes a plurality of power transmitting coils (processor and navigation device includes plurality of generation coils 39 – see figure 2, paragraphs 0077-0078); and
scope includes a plurality of power receiving coils (scope unit includes a plurality of respective detection coils – see figure 2, paragraphs 0057-0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kato with the teaching of processor includes plurality of power transmitting coils and scope includes a plurality of power receiving coils as taught by Shimomura in order to yield the predictable result of providing more power bandwidth and faster charging.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinouchi in view of Higaki as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Shimomura et al. (US 20170172400).
Regarding claim 7, Kinouchi in view of Higaki discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1. Kinouchi also discloses when the endoscope is inserted or connected with the receptable of the endoscope processor, the light, or power or primary coil and secondary coil are connected (see paragraphs 0072-0074). However, Kinouchi does not explicitly disclose “at least one of the processor and the scope includes a joint detection switch that detects that the processor and the scope have been joined to each other”.
Shimomura discloses at least one of processor and scope includes a joint detection switch that detects that the processor and the scope have been joined to each other (processor device for endoscope include control section 76 detects whether or not the processor side connector 12 and the scope side connector 18 are connected to each other. For instance, an LG (Light Guide) detection switch can be arranged in the vicinity of the processor side connector 12 of the processor device 11 detects the scope unit and the processor device 11 are connected/jointed to each other – see include, but are not limited to, figure 5, paragraphs 0127, 0129-0130, 0132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Kinouchi with the teaching of at least one of processor and scope includes a joint detection switch that detects that the processor unit and the scope unit have been joined to each other as taught by Shimomura in order to yield predictable result of providing status information of the connected state to the user.
Claim 7 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 20120088970) in view of Higaki as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Shimomura et al. (US 20170172400).
Regarding claim 7, Kato discloses the endoscope device according to claim 1. Kato also discloses when the scope-side connector 13 is connected with the extracorporeal-side connector 14, the light, or power or primary coil and secondary coil are connected (see paragraph 0074-0075). However, Kato does not explicitly disclose at least one of the processor and the scope includes a joint detection switch that detects that the processor and the scope have been joined to each other.
Shimomura discloses at least one of processor and scope includes a joint detection switch that detects that the processor and the scope have been joined to each other (processor device for endoscope include control section 76 detects whether or not the processor side connector 12 and the scope side connector 18 are connected to each other. For instance, an LG (Light Guide) detection switch can be arranged in the vicinity of the processor side connector 12 of the processor device 11 detects the scope unit and the processor device 11 are connected/jointed to each other – see include, but are not limited to, figure 5, paragraphs 0127, 0129-0130, 0132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Kato with the teaching of at least one of processor unit and scope includes a joint detection switch that detects that the processor and the scope have been joined to each other as taught by Shimomura in order to yield predictable result of providing status information of the connected state to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20210169145) discloses a diameter of component (200) with power transmitting coil (220) is smaller than the inner diameter of component (100) with power receiving coil (130) and inserting the connector with power transmitting coil (220) into the connector of power receiving coil (see paragraph 0172, figures 8-9).
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 AN SON P HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
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, ANH TUAN T. NGUYEN can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights