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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“optical component” in Claims 1-5 and 10-12;
“second optical component” in Claim 8; and
“mechanism for articulating an instrument” in Claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
More specifically:
the claimed “optical component” in Claims 1-5 and 10-12 is interpreted as the optical layer 306 shown in FIG. 20A of the present patent application;
the claimed “second optical component” in Claim 8 tis interpreted as the optical layer 320 shown in FIG. 21 of the present patent application; and
the claimed “mechanism for articulating an instrument” in Claim 9 is interpreted as the elevator 166 shown in FIG. 2 of the present patent application.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”).
With regard to Claim 1, Miller discloses:
A coupler device (Miller Fig. 2A, coupler device 10) for an endoscope (Miller FIG. 2A, duodenum scope 40) having a light (Miller FIG. 2A, light guide 44) and a camera lens (Miller FIG. 2A, lens 46), the coupler device comprising:
a main body (Miller FIG. 1A, main body 12) comprising an at least partially closed distal end (Miller FIG. 1A, distal end 16) and a proximal end (Miller FIG. 1A, proximal end 14) configured for attachment to a distal end portion of the endoscope (Miller FIG. 1A, proximal end of coupler device 10 attached to distal end of duodenum scope 40);
a substantially transparent visualization section disposed between the light and the camera lens of the endoscope and a target site within the patient to allow viewing of the target site (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Miller does not explicitly disclose an optical component on, or within, the visualization section or the main body, the optical component being configured to reduce an amount of reflected light from a surface of the visualization section.
Nadeau teaches an optical component on, or within, the visualization section or the main body, the optical component being configured to reduce an amount of reflected light from a surface of the visualization section (Nadeau FIG. 2, optically transparent face portion 212 on closed end portion 210 of cap 130, which is on the distal end of probe body 240; Nadeau col. 5 lines 14-15, “transparent face portion 212 is an anti-reflective coated glass”; Nadeau col. 1 lines 28-31,“This invention relates to disposable protective caps for use on medical instruments. More particularly, the invention relates to a disposable protective cap for use on spectral imaging devices.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nadeau’s anti-reflective coated glass with Miller’s coupler/end cap. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of reduction of image glare formed on an imaging device in an endoscope. Examiner further notes that nothing in the prosecution record suggests that it would not be obvious to place Nadeau’s transparent face portion 212 adjacent to Miller’s light guide 44, since Nadeau’s transparent face portion 212 reduces an amount of reflected light from a surface of the visualization section (see Nadeau col. 4 lines 28-31, “Transmittance through optically transparent face portion 212 should be equal to…ninety percent”).
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports a conclusion that utilizing Nadeau’s optically transparent face portion 212 with the device disclosed by Miller would result in an unpredictable result of a device that includes the ability of controlling incoming light intensity for a visual image). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
With regard to Claim 2, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Nadeau further teaches wherein the optical component comprises an anti-reflective coating disposed on an inner surface of the visualization section (Nadeau FIG. 2, anti-reflective face portion 212 on interior of cap 130).
With regard to Claim 3, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Nadeau further teaches wherein the optical component comprises an optical layer configured to reduce a substantial portion of the reflected light in a visible range of light waves (Nadeau col. 4 lines 28-31, “Transmittance through optically transparent face portion 212 should be equal to or greater than ninety percent from 500 nanometers (nm) to 650 nm.”; thus no more than 10% of visible light in the green-red spectrum is reflected by face portion 212).
With regard to Claim 6, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller further discloses wherein the visualization section comprises a substantially transparent viewing surface between the camera lens and the light and the target sight (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10 coupled to scope 40; Miller paragraph [0054], “the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
With regard to Claim 7, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller further discloses wherein the visualization section comprises a substantially transparent material disposed within the main body (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10 having a main body 12 as shown in Miller FIG. 1A; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
With regard to Claim 9, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller further discloses a mechanism (Miller FIG. 10, actuating cable 54 connected to working channel extension 34) for articulating an instrument passing through a working channel on the endoscope (Miller paragraph [0049], “working channel extension 34 serves as an exit portal for instruments to pass through the scope 40 to reach different areas of the body”).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”) and Goto et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0275786 – “Goto”).
With regard to Claim 4, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau do not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises a magnesium fluoride coating.
Goto teaches wherein the optical component comprises a magnesium fluoride coating (Goto FIG. 4, layer 32 over lens 31; Goto paragraph [0049], “in the image pickup optical unit 30, a solder-repellant layer 32, which is composed of magnesium fluoride as a transparent material, is formed into a film on a substantially entire face of an outer surface of the lens 31”; Note that paragraph [0096] of the present patent application admits that optical layers on a visualization section can be disposed on a camera lens.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goto’s magnesium fluoride coating with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a transparent outer optical coating that can be used with other materials (e.g., bonding member 33 shown in Goto FIG. 4) to protect a lens.
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports a conclusion that utilizing Goto’s magnesium fluoride coating with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau would result in an unpredictable result of a device that includes the ability of repelling solder spread when exposed to ultrasound vibration, as described in Miller paragraphs [0038] – [0039]). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
With regard to Claim 11, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau do not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises a light absorbing strip on, or within, the visualization section of the coupler device, the light absorbing strip being positioned to absorb stray light from an interior of the patient.
Goto teaches wherein the optical component comprises a light absorbing strip (Goto FIG. 5, block layer 40 on optical unit 30A), or within, the visualization section of the coupler device, the light absorbing strip being positioned to absorb stray light from an interior of the patient (Goto paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goto’s black layer the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic device that “is effective in preventing a flare or a ghost in a picked-up image” (see paragraph [0062] of Goto.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”) and Ohno (US PGPUB 2016/0323527 – “Ohno”).
With regard to Claim 5, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau do not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises two or more anti-reflecting coatings.
Ohno teaches wherein the optical component comprises two or more anti-reflecting coatings (Ohno FIG. 3, protective glass 225 between anti-reflective coating 217a and anti-reflective coating 217b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ohno’s multiple anti-reflective coatings with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a protective glass that has anti-reflective properties for both a light source as well as light being returned from a target.
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports a conclusion that combining Ohno’s anti-reflective coating 217a and anti-reflective coating 217b with Nadeau’s transparent face portion 212 would result in an unpredictable result of a device that includes the extensive/redundant filters for resisting unwanted reflections). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”) and Hsu et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0174144 – “Hsu”).
With regard to Claim 8, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau do not explicitly teach a second optical component on, or within, the visualization section, wherein the second optical component is configured to inhibit condensation of fluids on the visualization section.
Hsu teaches a second optical component on, or within, the visualization section, wherein the second optical component is configured to inhibit condensation of fluids on the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hsu’s anti-fogging coating with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope device that produces images that are not distorted by fogging (see Hsu paragraph [0051]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”) and Hessler et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0357761 – “Hessler”).
With regard to Claim 10, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau do not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises a light absorbing material positioned to reduce an amount of reflected light from a surface of the coupler device.
Hessler teaches wherein the optical component comprises a light absorbing material positioned to reduce an amount of reflected light from a surface of the coupler device (Hessler FIG. 4, recess 408 in protective cap 400 for an endoscopic imaging device; Hessler paragraph [0015], “the bottom of the recess may have electrical connections and consist of glass that can be darkened”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hessler’s variably darkened cap with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic device capable of having an electronic variable aperture (see paragraph [0015] of Hessler).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”) and Ramanujam et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0315444 – “Ramanujam”).
With regard to Claim 12, Miller in view of Nadeau teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau do not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises a baffle on the coupler device, the baffle having one or more vanes configured to direct stray light away from the camera lens.
Ramanujam teaches wherein the optical component comprises a baffle on the coupler device, the baffle having one or more vanes configured to direct stray light away from the camera lens (Ramanujam FIG. 8A, light baffle 260 within end cap 130; Ramanujam paragraph [0092], ”light baffle 260 which acts as a physical entrance aperture with an opaque light absorbing coating to prevent image vignetting and eliminate environmental or stray illumination light”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramanujam’s light baffle with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that prevents image vignetting (unwanted darkening of an image toward the periphery of the image), as described in Ramanujam paragraph [0092], “the geometry of the light baffle 260 which acts as a physical entrance aperture with an opaque light absorbing coating to prevent image vignetting and eliminate environmental or stray illumination light”).
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Hsu et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0174144 – “Hsu”).
With regard to Claim 13, Miller discloses:
A coupler device (Miller Fig. 2A, coupler device 10) for an endoscope (Miller FIG. 2A, duodenum scope 40) having a light (Miller FIG. 2A, light guide 44) and a camera lens (Miller FIG. 2A, lens 46), the coupler device comprising:
a main body (Miller FIG. 1A, main body 12) comprising an at least partially closed distal end (Miller FIG. 1A, distal end 16) and a proximal end (Miller FIG. 1A, proximal end 14) configured for attachment to a distal end portion of the endoscope (Miller FIG. 1A, proximal end of coupler device 10 attached to distal end of duodenum scope 40);
a substantially transparent visualization section disposed between the light and the camera lens of the endoscope and a target site to allow viewing of the target site;
a substantially transparent visualization section disposed between the light and the camera lens of the endoscope and a target site within the patient to allow viewing of the target site (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Miller does not explicitly disclose an optical layer on, or within, the visualization section and configured to inhibit condensation of fluid on the visualization section.
Hsu teaches an optical layer on, or within, the visualization section and configured to inhibit condensation of fluid on the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hsu’s anti-fogging coating with the coupler device disclosed by Miller. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope device that produces images that are not distorted by fogging (see Hsu paragraph [0051]).
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports a conclusion that combining Hsu’s anti-fogging coating with the coupler device disclosed by Miller would result in an unpredictable result of a device that prevents fogging that would distort a captured image). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
With regard to Claim 14, Miller in view of Hsu teach the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Hsu further teaches wherein the optical layer comprises one or more chemicals applied to an outer surface of, or within, the visualization section, the chemicals being configured to inhibit condensation of water on the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
With regard to Claim 15, Miller in view of Hsu teach the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Hsu further teaches wherein the optical layer comprises an anti-fogging film applied to a surface of the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
With regard to Claim 16, Miller in view of Hsu teach the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Hsu further teaches wherein the optical layer comprises a surfactant configured to minimize surface tension of water on the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
With regard to Claim 17, Miller in view of Hsu teach the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Hsu further teaches wherein the optical layer comprises a hydrophilic coating on a surface of the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
With regard to Claim 18, Miller in view of Hsu teach the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Miller further discloses wherein the visualization section comprises a substantially transparent viewing surface between the camera lens and the light and the target sight (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
With regard to Claim 19, Miller in view of Hsu teach the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Miller further discloses wherein the visualization section comprises a substantially transparent material disposed within the main body (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10 having a main body 12 as shown in Miller FIG. 1A; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Hsu et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0174144 – “Hsu”) and Hessler et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0357761 – “Hessler”).
With regard to Claim 20, Miller in view of Hsu teach the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Miller in view of Hsu do not explicitly teach a second optical layer on, or within, the visualization section, the second optical layer being configured to reduce an amount of reflected light on the visualization section.
Hessler teaches a second optical layer on, or within, the visualization section, the second optical layer being configured to reduce an amount of reflected light on the visualization section (Hessler FIG. 4, recess 408 in protective cap 400 for an endoscopic imaging device; Hessler paragraph [0015], “the bottom of the recess may have electrical connections and consist of glass that can be darkened”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hessler’s variably darkened cap with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Hsu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic device capable of having an electronic variable aperture (see paragraph [0015] of Hessler).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
