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 Amendment
The amendments to claims 1, 2, 17, and 18 in the response filed on 10/21/2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 and 6-23 remain pending in the application
Claims 4-5 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-23 are examined.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. The applicant has modified claims 1 and 17 to require each of the plurality of curved portions having a different radius of curvature, limitations heretofore not presented for examination in this application. As such, the scope of the claims was substantially changed and new grounds for rejection are presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-16 and 19-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009189636A to Yamane in view of JPH08238215A to Kawano and in view of JP2004249007A to Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter “Yamamoto”) and in view of JP2002095633A to Komi.
Regarding claim 1, Yamane discloses an insertion device comprising:
a tube (Fig. 3-treatment tool insertion channel 30; see [0025]) comprising an opening disposed on a surface of the tube (Fig. 4; see [0028]), the tube extending along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 3-treatment tool insertion channel 30); and a frame (see frame in examiner’s annotated Fig. 3) comprising: a first conduit (Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]) comprising an insertion port (Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]), an axis of the first conduit having a first angle relative to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]), and a second conduit (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]) comprising an end connected to the opening (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]), the second conduit being in fluid communication with the first conduit (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]), the end having a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]), the second angle being smaller than the first angle (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamane fails to expressly teach a tube comprising an opening disposed on a circumferential surface and the second conduit comprising a plurality of curved portions connected seamlessly to each other, each of the plurality of curved portions having a different radius of curvature.
However, Kawano teaches of an insertion device (Kawano: Fig. 1) including a second conduit (Kawano: 52, Fig. 4, [0012]) comprising a plurality of curved portions connected seamlessly to each other (Kawano: 52, Fig. 4, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane to utilize a second conduit comprising a plurality of curved portions connected seamlessly to each other, as taught by Kawano. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guide the treatment tool toward the insertion portion (Kawano: [0012]).
Yamane, in view of Kawano fails to expressly teach a tube comprising an opening disposed on a circumferential surface, each of the plurality of curved portions having a different radius of curvature.
However, Yamamoto teaches of an insertion device (Yamamoto: Fig. 7) including a tube (Yamamoto: 23, Fig. 7, [0033]) comprising an opening disposed on a circumferential surface (Yamamoto: 27S, Fig. 7, [0032]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano, to utilize an opening, as taught by Yamamoto. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of inserting a treatment tool ([0032] of Yamamoto).
Yamane, in view of Kawano and in view of Yamamoto, fails to expressly teach each of the plurality of curved portions having a different radius of curvature.
However, Komi teaches of an insertion portion (Komi: Fig. 2) wherein each of the plurality of curved portions having a different radius of curvature (Komi: Fig. 2, [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano and in view of Yamamoto to utilize a different radius of curvature, as taught by Komi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guiding the treatment tool into the passage ([0017] of Komi).
Regarding claim 2, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi, teaches the insertion device according to claim 1.
Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi, fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of curved portions comprises: a first curved portion having a first curvature center, the first curvature center disposed on a first side relative to a center axis of the second conduit; and a second curved portion having a second curvature center, the second curvature center disposed on a second side relative to the center axis of the second conduit, the second side being opposite to the first side across the center axis of the second conduit.
However, Komi further teaches wherein the plurality of curved portions comprises: a first curved portion having a first curvature center, the first curvature center disposed on a first side relative to a center axis of the second conduit; and a second curved portion having a second curvature center, the second curvature center disposed on a second side relative to the center axis of the second conduit, the second side being opposite to the first side across the center axis of the second conduit (Komi: Fig. 2, [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano and in view of Yamamoto to utilize a different radius of curvature, as taught by Komi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guiding the treatment tool into the passage ([0017] of Komi).
Regarding claim 3, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1, and Yamane further discloses wherein a second inner diameter of the second conduit (Yamane: Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]) is smaller than a first inner diameter of the first conduit (Yamane: Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1, and Yamane further discloses wherein the frame is formed of a plurality of parts, and the plurality of parts together form the first conduit and the second conduit (Yamane: Fig. 3 - through hole 6, treatment tool guide pipe 50, and passage branching member 31; see [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1, and Yamane further discloses wherein the tube is a multi-lumen tube having a plurality of channels (Yamane: Fig. 2 - water supply passage 22 and suction passage 23; Fig. 3 - treatment instrument insertion channel 30; see [0023-[0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 7, and Yamane further discloses wherein the opening is in fluid communication with a channel of the plurality of channels (Yamane: Fig 3- suction passage 23; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1, and Yamane further discloses wherein the second conduit comprises: a first portion (Yamane: Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]); and a second portion (Yamane: Fig. 3 - treatment instrument guide pipe 50; see [0030]) disposed between the first conduit and the first portion (Yamane: Fig. 3 - treatment instrument guide pipe 50; see [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 9, and Yamane further discloses wherein a second inner diameter of the second portion (Yamane: Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]) is smaller than a first inner diameter of the first conduit (Yamane: Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]); and the second inner diameter of the second portion (Fig. 3 - treatment instrument guide pipe 50; see [0030]) is larger than a third inner diameter of the first portion (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1, and Yamane further discloses wherein the first angle is an acute angle (Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1, and Yamane further discloses wherein the frame comprises: a body portion extending along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3-shape retaining tube 28; see [0033]), the tube is disposed in the body portion (Fig. 3-treatment tool insertion channel 30; see [0025]); and a branch portion extending in a direction intersecting with the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3- treatment instrument introducing portion 5; see [0025]), the branch portion comprising the first conduit and the second conduit (Fig. 3- treatment instrument introducing portion 5; see [0025]).
Regarding claim 13, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1, and Yamane further discloses wherein the insertion port is open to an outside of the frame (Fig. 3-treatment tool insertion channel 30; see [0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 9.
Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi fails to expressly teach wherein the second portion includes at least two of the plurality of curved portions.
However, Kawano further teaches wherein the second portion includes at least two of the plurality of curved portions (Kawano: 52, Fig. 4, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi so that the second portion includes at least two of the plurality of curved portions, as taught by Kawano. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guiding the treatment tool toward the insertion portion (Kawano: [0012]).
Regarding claim 15, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 6.
Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi fails to expressly teach wherein each of the plurality of parts has a seamless shape in a direction intersecting with the longitudinal axis.
However, Kawano further teaches wherein each of the plurality of parts has a seamless shape in a direction intersecting with the longitudinal axis (Kawano: 52, Fig. 4, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi to utilize a seamless shape, as taught by Yamamoto. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guiding the treatment tool toward the insertion portion (Kawano: [0012]).
Regarding claim 16, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches an endoscope comprising: an insertion portion (Fig. 1-insertion portion 2); an operation portion (Fig. 1-main body operation unit) provided proximally relative to the insertion portion (Fig. 1-main body operation unit); and Yamane further discloses and the insertion device according to claim 1 (Fig. 3), disposed in the operation portion (Fig. 3-(Fig. 1-main body operation unit 1)), wherein at least a portion of the tube is disposed in the insertion portion (Fig. 3-treatment tool insertion channel 30; see [0036]), the insertion port is configured to receive a forceps (Fig. 3-forceps plug 52 ; see [0019], and [0030]-[0031]), and the first conduit comprises a treatment instrument insertion pipe sleeve (Fig. 3-treatment tool introduction portion 5).
Regarding claim 19, Yamane, in view of Kawano, teaches the insertion device according to claim 1, and Yamane further discloses wherein the second conduit (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]) is seamlessly connected to the first conduit (Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Yamane, in view of Kawano, teaches the insertion device according to claim 2, and Yamane further discloses wherein the first curved portion (see examiner’s annotated Fig. 3; see [0032]) is closest to the first conduit (Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]).
Regarding claim 21, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1.
Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of curved portions are connected seamlessly to each other in a center axis direction of the second conduit.
However, Kawano further teaches wherein the plurality of curved portions are connected seamlessly to each other in a center axis direction of the second conduit (Kawano: 52, Fig. 4, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi to utilize the plurality of curved portions, as taught by Kawano. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guiding the treatment tool toward the insertion portion (Kawano: [0012]).
Regarding claim 23, Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi teaches the insertion device according to claim 1.
Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi fails to expressly teach wherein the opening is disposed between a first end and a second end of the tube.
However, Yamamoto further teaches wherein the opening is disposed between a first end and a second end of the tube (Yamamoto: 27S, Fig. 7, [0032]-[0033]).
24. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano and Yamamoto and Komi to utilize the opening, as taught by Yamamoto. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of inserting a treatment tool ([0032] of Yamamoto).
Claim(s) 17-18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009189636A to Yamane in view of JP2002095633A to Komi.
Regarding claim 17, Yamane discloses an insertion device comprising: a frame (see frame in examiner’s annotated Fig. 3) comprising: a body portion extending along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 3-passage branching member 31); and a branch portion extending in a direction intersecting with the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3- treatment instrument introducing portion 5), the branch portion comprising: a first conduit comprising an insertion port (Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]), an axis of the first conduit having a first angle relative to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3- through hole 6; see [0030]); and a second conduit (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]) comprising a first end in communication with an opening in the body portion (Fig. 4; see [0028]), the first end having a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]), the second angle being smaller than the first angle (Fig. 3-second passage 44; see [0029]-[0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamane fails to teach wherein the second conduit comprising a plurality of curved portions; wherein each of the plurality of curved portions has a curvature radius greater than zero and each of the plurality of curved portions having a different radius of curvature.
However, Komi teaches of an insertion portion (Komi: Fig. 2) wherein the second conduit comprising a plurality of curved portions; wherein each of the plurality of curved portions has a curvature radius greater than zero and each of the plurality of curved portions having a different radius of curvature (Komi: Fig. 2, [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano and in view of Yamamoto to utilize a different radius of curvature, as taught by Komi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guiding the treatment tool into the passage ([0017] of Komi).
Regarding claim 18, Yamane, in view of Komi, teaches the insertion device according to claim 17.
Yamane, in view of Komi, fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of curved portions comprises: a first curved portion having a first curvature center, the first curved portion being closest to the first conduit, the first curvature center disposed on a first side relative to a center axis of the second conduit; and a second curved portion having a second curvature center, the second curved portion disposed in a direction towards the opening, the second curvature center on a second side relative a center axis of to the second conduit, the second side being opposite to the first side across the center axis of the second conduit
However, Komi further teaches wherein the plurality of curved portions comprises: a first curved portion having a first curvature center, the first curved portion being closest to the first conduit, the first curvature center disposed on a first side relative to a center axis of the second conduit; and a second curved portion having a second curvature center, the second curved portion disposed in a direction towards the opening, the second curvature center on a second side relative a center axis of to the second conduit, the second side being opposite to the first side across the center axis of the second conduit (Komi: Fig. 2, [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Kawano and in view of Yamamoto to utilize the curved portions, as taught by Komi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guiding the treatment tool into the passage ([0017] of Komi).
Regarding claim 22, Yamane, in view of Kawano, teaches the insertion device according to claim 17.
Yamane, in view of Komi, fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of curved portions are connected seamlessly to each other in a center axis direction of the second conduit.
However, Komi further teaches wherein the plurality of curved portions are connected seamlessly to each other in a center axis direction of the second conduit (Komi: Fig. 2, [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamane, in view of Komi, to utilize the curved portions, as taught by Komi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of guiding the treatment tool toward the insertion portion ([0017] of Komi).
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 CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795