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 claim(s) 6 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’s amendment has broadened claim 6 and as such claim 6 is rejected in view of Iwasaka, see below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/3/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 14-30 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, 14, 25 should each recite “wherein the optical element is held in the instrument by a mount which extends in [[the]] a distal direction beyond the optical element and [[there]] forms a distal edge” to make the clause clearer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 6, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasaka WO 2014/111990 (see English Translation attached).
Regarding Claim 6, Iwasaka discloses an optical instrument (Fig 1) comprising:
an instrument body (#21, Fig 1),
wherein the instrument body accommodates at least one optical element (#142, abstract, paragraph 32, Fig 5a) configured to receive light from a region outside the instrument body (paragraph 40) and at least one illumination unit (#110) configured to illuminate this region (paragraph 27, Fig 3a),
wherein the optical element is held in the instrument by a mount (#160, Fig 5a-6) which extends in the distal direction beyond the optical element (as seen in Fig 6) and there forms a distal edge (#164 and #143, Fig 6),
wherein the distal edge is reshaped in at least one portion (#143), such that the at least one reshaped portion of the distal edge holds the optical element in the distal direction with form-fit engagement (Fig 6, paragraph 41),
wherein at least one non-reshaped portion (#143) of the distal edge is arranged such that it forms a stray-light protection, by which illumination light coming from the at least one illumination units is kept away from the optical element (paragraph 35, 38-39),
wherein each of the at least one illumination unit has a light-emitting face (see Fig below), and the at least one non-reshaped portion is arranged between the optical element and each respective light-emitting face (see Fig below),
wherein the at least one non-reshaped portion of the distal edge comprises at one part (part of the non-reshaped portion of the distal end between the two dashed lines) of a circumference of the distal edge corresponding to an angle that is formed between by straight lines (dotted lines, see below) between a center point (where the two dotted lines intersect, see below) of the distal face of the optical element and points on an outer boundary of the light-emitting face that create a maximum angle between the lines (see Fig below, where two lines extending from a center point to the outer boundary creates a maximum angle from the outer boundary to the center point).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Iwasaka discloses the distal edge is reshaped by caulk (paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 17, Iwasaka discloses the at least one non-re-shaped portion is non-caulked (paragraph 37, 41 only the reshaped portion is caulked).
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.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaka WO 2014/111990 (see English Translation attached) in view of Zhang US 10,799,210.
Iwasak discloses the claimed invention where the instrument includes a handle (#22, Fig 1) but does not disclose a signal light providing a status indication.
Zhang discloses an instrument with a handle (#56, Fig 5) having a signal light (#62) providing a status indication of whether the instrument is powered or not (Col 6 lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument to include a signal light providing a status indication in view of Zhang above because it will indicate if the instrument is powered or not.
Claim 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaka WO 2014/111990 (see English Translation attached) in view of Farr US 2008/0208006 (cited by applicant).
Iwasaka discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the instrument is an endoscope (paragraph 21) with a controller (#4, paragraph 25, Fig 1) and monitor (#7, paragraph 25, Fig 1) but does not disclose the optical instrument is a laryngoscope, further comprising a handle, and a blade.
Farr discloses that endoscopes used to examine the larynx and voice box are in the form of a laryngoscope (paragraph 5, Fig 11a-11b), the laryngoscope having a handle (#1102) and a blade (#1104), the blade containing an optical element (#1106, paragraph 88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument of Iwasaka to be in the form of a laryngoscope in view of Farr above in case the larynx and voice box needs to be examined. Examiner notes that with the modification, the instrument body would be located on the blade.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claims objections, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment (to claim 6) 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 JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5032. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 6pm EST.
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.
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights