Patent Application 17770584 - THERMAL CONTROL OF IMAGING SYSTEM - Rejection

Patent Application 17770584 - THERMAL CONTROL OF IMAGING SYSTEM

Title: THERMAL CONTROL OF IMAGING SYSTEM

Application Information

• Invention Title: THERMAL CONTROL OF IMAGING SYSTEM
• Application Number: 17770584
• Submission Date: 2025-04-07T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-04-20T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-04-20T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 600
• National Sub-Class: 109000
• Examiner Employee Number: 93146
• Art Unit: 3795
• Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0196443🔗
• US 0107417🔗
• US 0036051🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, 14-17, 19, and 22-27 are pending, claims 11-13, 18, 20-21, and 28-42 have been cancelled, and claims 1-10, 14-17, 19, and 22-27 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Previous 35 USC 112 Rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.

Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 14-17, 19, and 22-27 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.

Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 14-15, 23-24, and 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities: 
In claims 4, 7, 23, and 26, the limitation “exposure of images” should read “the exposure of images”.
In claims 5, 8, 24, and 27, the limitation “a gain” should read “the gain”.
In claim 14, the limitation “a gain of the image sensor” should read “a gain of an image sensor”.
In claim 14, there is an extra period that should be deleted at the end of the claim.
In claims 15, 23-24 and 26-27, “an image sensor” should read “the image sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.

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: “the imaging device” in claims 1, 17, and 25; “an imaging unit” in claim 14.
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.
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 § 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 1-10, 14-17, 19, and 22-27 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 applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an illumination level of the imaging device” is unclear. It is unclear if the imaging device is the same or separate feature from the imaging unit. 
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitation “an image brightness at a predefined brightness range or predefined brightness level” is unclear. It is unclear if these features are the same or separate from “an image brightness at a predefined brightness range or predefined brightness level” previously recited in the claim to control a gain. Dependent claims 2-10, 15-17, 19, and 22-27 are rejected due to being dependent on claims 1 and 14. 
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the imaging unit includes a camera with a lens” is unclear. It is unclear if the camera with a lens is separate from the image sensor recited in claim 1. 
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “an/the imaging device and an/the image sensor” is unclear. It is unclear if the imaging device and the image sensor are separate or the same feature.
Regarding claim 25, the limitation “the imaging device” is unclear. It is unclear if the imaging device is the same or separate feature from the image sensor recited in claim 14.

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(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinley (US 2014/0107417), in view of Saito (US 2014/0036051) and Murakita (US 2017/0196443).
Regarding claim 1, McKinley discloses a cannula assembly (see 100, figure 1) comprising: a tube (110, figure 1) having a distal end portion (116, figure 1) configured for insertion into a patient (for insertion [0034]) and housing an imaging unit (interpreted under 35 USC 112f as an image sensor [0065] | CCD or CMOS [0037]) including an image sensor (CCD or CMOS [0037]), a light source (illumination component 305 [0040]). McKinley is silent regarding a temperature sensor; and a processor coupled to the tube and operable to: receive temperature information from the temperature sensor; determine, based on the temperature information, whether a temperature of the image sensor is within a predetermined temperature range; and maintain the temperature of the image sensor within the predetermined temperature range by modifying an illumination level of the imaging device, wherein the processor is operable to control a gain of the image sensor in response to a change in the illumination level to maintain an image brightness at a predefined brightness range or predefined brightness level; wherein the processor is operable to control an exposure of images generated by the image sensor in response to the illumination level to maintain an image brightness at a predefined brightness range or predefined brightness level.  
Saito teaches an endoscope system (1, figure 1) with an endoscope (2, figure 1), a processing device (3, figure 1), and a light source device (4, figure 1).  The endoscope has a temperature detector (244d, figure 2) that detects a temperature of the image pickup device (244, figure 2) in the distal end portion of the endoscope ([0020]). The temperature information is sent to the processing device (see temperature information in figure 2), where the process controller (309, figure 2) controls the image pickup device based on the temperature information ([0051]). The process controller compares the temperature with a temperature upper limit, where when the temperature is not lower than the upper limit temperature, the process controller performs control of lowering the output light quantity output from the light source device ([0061]). Further, the process controller performs control of raising a gain of the image signal input from the image pickup device ([0062]). If the temperature is lower than the upper limit temperature and is in the low temperature mode, the process controller performs control raising the output light quantity output from the light source device (figure 4; [0065]). The process controller lowers a gain of the image signal input from the image pickup device ([0066]). The brightness detector (303, figure 2) calculates a gain adjustment value and a light irradiation amount based on the detected brightness level, outputs the gain adjustment value to the gain adjustment unit (302c, figure 2), and outputs the light irradiation amount to the light adjustment unit (304, figure 2; [0045]). 
Murakita teaches an endoscope (11, figure 1), where an image signal is transmitted to the CCU (13, figure 1). The CCU senses the brightness in the image and based on the acquired detection value, controls the exposure of the imaging section ([0042]). The shutter speed of the imaging section can be controlled or the gain applied to the captured image signal can be controlled ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the cannula assembly with the temperature detector (244d, figure 2) and processing device (3, figure 2) as taught by Saito. Doing so would prevent the deterioration of image quality with temperature ([0006]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the processor to also control the exposure of the imaging section as taught by Murakita ([0042]). Doing so would allow the brightness of the image to become a more preferable state and reach a correct exposure ([0042]). The modified assembly would have a temperature sensor (244d, figure 2; temperature detector…temperature in the image pickup device [0022]; Saito); and a processor (3, figure 2; Saito) coupled to the tube and operable to: receive temperature information from the temperature sensor (see temperature information output to the process controller 309, figure 2; [0036]); determine, based on the temperature information, whether a temperature of the image sensor is within a predetermined temperature range (s102, s103, and s1-7, figure 4); and maintain the temperature of the image sensor within the predetermined temperature range by modifying an illumination level of the imaging device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as an image sensor | see 112b rejection above; see s104 or s108, figure 4), wherein the processor is operable to control a gain of the image sensor in response to a change in the illumination level to maintain an image brightness at a predefined brightness range or predefined brightness level (brightness detector…gain adjustment value…[0045] | interpreted there to be a predefined brightness level that is being used as a reference; Saito); wherein the processor is operable to control an exposure of images generated by the image sensor in response to the illumination level to maintain an image brightness at a predefined brightness range or predefined brightness level (detects the brightness…controls the exposure…becomes a more preferable state/correct exposure [0042]; Murakita).  
Regarding claim 2, McKinley further discloses the distal end further comprises a tip operable to create an incision (tip…puncturing the patient’s skin [0035]; McKinley).  
Regarding claim 3, Saito further teaches the predetermined temperature range comprises a high temperature threshold (temperature upper limit s102, figure 4), and the processor is operable to decrease the illumination level in response to the temperature exceeding the high temperature threshold (s104, figure 4).  
Regarding claim 4, Murakita further teaches the processor is operable to increase exposure of images generated by the image sensor in response to decreasing the illumination level (detects the brightness…controls the exposure…becomes a more preferable state/correct exposure [0042]; Murakita).  
Regarding claim 5, Saito further teaches the processor is operable to increase a gain of the image sensor in response to decreasing the illumination level (raise gain s105, figure 4).  
Regarding claim 6, Saito further teaches the predetermined temperature range comprises a low temperature threshold (s107, figure 4 | does not exceed a specified temperature…[0064]), and the processor is operable to increase the illumination level in response to the temperature of the image sensor being less than the low temperature threshold (s108, figure 4).  
Regarding claim 7, Murakita further teaches the processor is operable to decrease exposure of images generated by the image sensor in response to increasing the illumination level (detects the brightness…controls the exposure…becomes a more preferable state/correct exposure [0042]; Murakita).  
Regarding claim 8, Saito further teaches the processor is operable to decrease a gain of the image sensor in response to increasing the illumination level (lower gain s109, figure 4).  
Regarding claim 9, McKinley further discloses the imaging unit includes a camera (CCD camera [0037]) with a lens (window 510, figure 5a; [0052]).  
Regarding claim 10, McKinley further discloses a deployable housing (see 204, figure 2) rotatably coupled to the tube between a closed position (figure 1) and one or more open positions (figure 2), wherein the image sensor is housed within the deployable housing (see figure 3), wherein the imaging unit is configured to provide a longitudinal view when the deployable housing is in the closed position (see figures 5) and a transverse view relative to a longitudinal axis of the tube when the housing is in the one or more open positions (see figure 4).  

Claim(s) 14-16 and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2014/0036051) and Murakita (US 2017/0196443).
Regarding claim 14, Saito discloses a system (figure 1) comprising: a processor (3, figure 1); and a computer-readable data storage device (308, figure 2; [0050]) comprising program instructions (various programs…[0050]) that, when executed by the processor, control the system to: receive temperature information from a temperature sensor (244d, figure 2) of an imaging unit (interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a light source, image sensor, image processor, and temperature sensor | light guide 241 and/or light source 41, CMOS image sensor 244, AFE unit 244b, 244d, figure 2); determine, based on the temperature information, whether a temperature of the imaging unit is within a predetermined temperature range (s102, s103, and s1-7, figure 4); and maintain the temperature of the imaging unit within the predetermined temperature range by modifying an illumination level of a light source of the imaging unit (see s104 or s108, figure 4), wherein the process is operable to control a gain of the image sensor in response to a change in the illumination level to maintain an image brightness at a predefined brightness range or predefined brightness level  (brightness detector…gain adjustment value…[0045] | interpreted there to be a predefined brightness level that is being used as a reference; Saito). Saito is silent regarding wherein the processor is operable to control an exposure of images generated by the image sensor in response to the illumination level to maintain an image brightness at a predetermined brightness range or predefined brightness level.  
Murakita teaches an endoscope (11, figure 1), where an image signal is transmitted to the CCU (13, figure 1). The CCU senses the brightness in the image and based on the acquired detection value, controls the exposure of the imaging section ([0042]). The shutter speed of the imaging section can be controlled or the gain applied to the captured image signal can be controlled ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the processor to also control the exposure of the imaging section as taught by Murakita ([0042]). Doing so would allow the brightness of the image to become a more preferable state and reach a correct exposure ([0042]). The modified system would have the processor is operable to control an exposure of images generated by the image sensor in response to the illumination level to maintain an image brightness at a predetermined brightness range or predefined brightness level (detects the brightness…controls the exposure…becomes a more preferable state/correct exposure [0042]; Murakita).  
Regarding claim 15, Saito further discloses the system is operable to: receive images from an image sensor of the imaging unit (CMOS image sensor 244, figure 2); and normalize the images based on the modifying of the illumination level of the light source (s105 and s109, figure 4).  
Regarding claim 16, Saito further discloses the system comprises a surgical device (see figure 1) used in a laparoscopic system (a body cavity [0017]); and the imaging device comprises a distal end of the laparoscopic system (see 24, figures 1-2).  
Regarding claim 22, Saito further discloses the predetermined temperature range comprises a high temperature threshold (temperature upper limit s102, figure 4), and the processor is operable to decrease the illumination level in response to the temperature of the imaging unit exceeding the high temperature threshold (s104, figure 4).  
Regarding claim 23, Murakita further discloses the system is operable to increase exposure of images generated by an image sensor in response to decreasing the illumination level (detects the brightness…controls the exposure…becomes a more preferable state/correct exposure [0042]; Murakita).  
Regarding claim 24, Saito further discloses the system is operable to increase a gain of an image sensor in response to decreasing the illumination level (raise gain s105, figure 4).  
Regarding claim 25, Saito further discloses the predetermined temperature range comprises a low temperature threshold (s107, figure 4 | does not exceed a specified temperature…[0064]), and the processor is operable to increase the illumination level in response to the temperature of the imaging device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as an image sensor | see 112b rejection above) being less than the low temperature threshold (s108, figure 4).  
Regarding claim 26, Murakita further discloses the system is operable to decrease exposure of images generated by an image sensor in response to increasing the illumination level (detects the brightness…controls the exposure…becomes a more preferable state/correct exposure [0042]; Murakita).  
Regarding claim 27, Saito further discloses the system is operable to decrease a gain of an image sensor in response to increasing the illumination level (lower gain s109, figure 4).  

Claim(s) 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2014/0036051) and Murakita (US 2017/0196443) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of McKinley (US 2014/0107417).
Regarding claim 17, Saito and Murakita disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 14. They are silent regarding the imaging unit comprises a cannula assembly including an imaging device and an image sensor, wherein the cannula assembly comprises a tube with a distal end configured for insertion into a patient and a housing on the tube for housing the imaging device and the image sensor.  
McKinley teaches a cannula assembly (100, figure 1) with a tubular element (110, figure 1) and a deployable portion (204, figure 2). The deployable portion houses electronic components, which is at least partially disposed in the lumen when in the closed position ([0036]). The electronic components may be image transmission components (304, figure 3) and an illumination component (305, figure 3), which can be one or more light sources (306, figure 3) and their ancillary electronic drivers (310, figure 3). The deployable portion has an adjustable angle of deployment based on the operation of the opening adjustment means (see figures 1-2;  [0036]). The pointed tip of the cannula assembly can puncture the patient’s skin ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the system, specifically the processing device and temperature feedback of Saito and Murakita, to be used with the cannula assembly (100, figure 1) of McKinley. Doing so would minimize the number of openings for a minimally invasive procedure ([0003]) by combining a trocar cannula with imaging and illumination capabilities ([0008]). The modified system would have the imaging unit comprises a cannula assembly (100, figure 1; McKinley) including an imaging device (interpreted under 35 USC 112f as an image sensor [0065] | CCD or CMOS [0037]; see 112b rejection above) and an image sensor (CCD or CMOS [0037] | see 112b rejection above), wherein the cannula assembly comprises a tube (110, figure 1) with a distal end configured for insertion into a patient (for insertion [0034]) and a housing on the tube for housing the imaging device and the image sensor (see 204, figure 2 | see 304, figure 3).  
Regarding claim 19, McKinley further teaches the housing is rotatably coupled to the tube between a closed position (see figure 1; McKinley) and one or more open positions (see figure 2).  

Conclusion
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 PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-W and F: 8-4 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, Michael Carey can be reached on 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.

PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795

April 2, 2025

/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795