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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 23 December 2025. As directed by the amendment: claim 21 is cancelled and claims 23-25 are newly presented. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-16, 18, 19, and 22-25 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 23 December 2025, with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 1 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “proximal, end” in line 13. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests “proximal end”.
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 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 15-16, 22 and 23 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.
Specifically, in lines 21 and 23 of claim 1 recite “the lumen” is unclear whether it refers to the lumen of the first end of the coupling device or the lumen of the second end of the coupling device. Claims 7, 8, 15, 16 and 22 have similar issues where “the lumen” or “the lumen of the coupling device” is not clear what it is referring to, if it is the lumen of the first end of the coupling device or the lumen of the second end of the coupling device.
Claims 10-12, 18-19, and 23-24 recite the limitation "an outlet of an endoscope channel" in each of the claims 10-12, 18-19 and 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These claims should recite “the outlet of the endoscope channel” to refer to the previously claimed outlet of an endoscope channel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 15-16, 18-19 and 22-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections as listed above.
Claims 13-14 and 25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, Maurice, Jr. (US 2016/0121095) in view of Arnett et al. (US 2020/0147360). , does not specifically teach or disclose the limitations of the present invention. Specifically, Maurice in view of Arnett does not teach “wherein the second end of the coupling device comprises a plurality of spring-loaded bearings biased by at least one spring to extend partially into the lumen, wherein the spring- loaded bearings are configured to move radially outward when the ridge of the outlet is introduced into the lumen to allow passage of the ridge” in claim 13. Maurice teaches a system for connecting a medical device to an endoscope (Fig. 1 & ¶[0020], lines 1-3), comprising: a locking member of the medical device (¶[0020], lines 17-20); and a coupling device (Fig. 1, #100, Fig. 2, #200, & Fig. 7, #300), wherein the coupling device comprises: a first end comprising threading along an outer surface thereof configured to be coupled with a locking member (Fig. 5, #252), a second end configured to be coupled with an outlet of a channel of an endoscope (Fig. 5, #232); and a lumen extending longitudinally along a full length of the first end and the second end (Fig. 6, #214), wherein the second end is configured to couple to the outlet via insertion of the outlet into the lumen (¶[0041], lines 14-18),wherein the first end of the coupling device is the proximal end (Fig. 3, 230; Fig. 9, 330), and the second end of the coupling device is the distal end (Fig. 3, 220; Fig. 10, 320),wherein the lumen at the second end of the coupling device comprises a first portion (Fig. 11, #338) at a distal opening (Fig. 3, where the end 220 has an opening where a device can be inserted) with a first inner diameter and second portion (Fig. 11, #334) with a second inner diameter Arnett teaches a clip to fit over a ridge of the inserted portion along with a wide narrow to wide configuration when the clip is inside the device (Fig. 6B & 6C). The clipping portion of the device makes the lumen which the device is inserted into have a narrow entry portion that widens into the rest of the lumen in a proximal direction as shown in figure 6A(iii). Neither Maurice or Arnett teaches wherein the second end of the coupling device comprises a plurality of spring-loaded bearings biased by at least one spring to extend partially into the lumen, wherein the spring- loaded bearings are configured to move radially outward when the ridge of the outlet is introduced into the lumen to allow passage of the ridge. There is no prior art of record that teaches these feature and no prior art of record that in combination with either Maurice or Arnett would reasonably teach these limitations without breaking either device or changing the intended function of either device. Additional art such as Rohl (US 2019/0160276), McGrath (US 2010/0280311), or Updegraff (US 2008/0033371) do not teach these features or remedy the devices of Maurice or Arnett. Claims 14 and 25 are allowed for incorporating the above limitations due to their dependency on claim 13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADEN M RITCHIE whose telephone number is (703)756-1699. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/HADEN MATTHEW RITCHIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/BHISMA MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783