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, 21, and 27 in the response filed on 03/11/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 4-5 and 8-27 remain pending in the application
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 19-21, 23, 26-27 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 claim 1 and 21 to require “wherein the single nozzle is located on the distal end face of the distal end body and is spaced apart from an imaginary line connecting a center of the first optical system and a center of the second optical system”, 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 19-21, 23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016214300 A to Hino.
Regarding claim 1, Hino discloses an endoscope, comprising: an insertion portion (2, Fig. 2, [0015]) including a distal end body (11, Fig. 2, [0019]),wherein the distal end body comprises: a first optical system (21a, Fig. 3, [0023]), a second optical system (21b, Fig. 3, [0023]), and a single nozzle (23, Fig. 3, [0022]) configured to: clean the first optical system and the second optical system simultaneously ([0022]), wherein a first distance from the single nozzle to the first optical system is shorter than a second distance from the single nozzle to the second optical system (Fig. 3),wherein the single nozzle has a first cleaning configuration and a second cleaning configuration (Fig. 3),wherein the first cleaning configuration includes a first vector indicating a first cleaning direction toward the first optical system (see examiner’s annotated Fig. 3),wherein the second cleaning configuration includes a second vector indicating a second cleaning direction toward to the second optical system (see examiner’s annotated Fig. 3), wherein the first vector intersects with the second vector at an intersection that is located on a rear side of the single nozzle with respect to both the first optical system and the second optical system (see examiner’s annotated Fig. 3), and wherein the single nozzle is located on the distal end face of the distal end body and is spaced apart from an imaginary line connecting a center of the first optical system and a center of the second optical system (see IV-VI line in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hino discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1, wherein the single nozzle comprises a single spout including the first cleaning configuration and the second cleaning configuration (23, Fig. 3, [0022]), and the single spout is configured to eject a fluid to clean both the first optical system and the second optical system (23, Fig. 3, [0022]).
Regarding claim 19, Hino discloses an endoscope system (1, Fig. 1, [0051]), comprising: an endoscope according to claim 1 for picking up a stereoscopic image of a region to be examined in the object (1, Fig. 1, [0051]); and an image processing unit connected to the stereoscopic endoscope to process the stereoscopic image ([0016]).
Regarding claim 20, Hino discloses the endoscope system according to Claim 19, further comprising: a display unit for displaying an image processed by the image processing unit ([0037]); and an input unit connected to the image processing unit ([0037]).
Regarding claim 21, Hino discloses an endoscope, comprising: an insertion portion configured to be inserted into an object to be examined (2, Fig. 2, [0015]) and including a distal end(11, Fig. 2, [0019]), the distal end including a distal end face, on the distal end face (see distal end surface in Fig. 3):a first observation window arranged for observing a region inside the object(21a, Fig. 3, [0023]), a second observation window arranged side by side with the first observation window for observing the region inside the object(21b, Fig. 3, [0023]), and having a parallax with respect to the first observation window (Fig. 3- 21a and 21b are parallel with each other), a channel arranged for supplying a fluid to the distal end of the insertion portion from outside the object (tube connected to 23), and a nozzle arranged for ejecting the fluid simultaneously toward the first and second observation windows (23, Fig. 3, [0022]) wherein the nozzle ejects the fluid from the channel into a first ejecting path to clean the first observation window and a second ejecting path to clean the second observation window (see first and second ejecting paths in examiner’s annotated Fig. 3), wherein the first ejecting path does not intersect with the second ejecting path (see parallel first and second ejecting paths in examiner’s annotated Fig. 3), wherein an opening of the channel is disposed on a line intersecting obliquely with a line connecting a center point of the first observation window and a center point of the second observation window (see first and second ejecting paths in examiner’s annotated Fig. 3), and wherein the nozzle is located on the distal end face spaced apart from an imaginary line connecting a center of the first observation window and a center of the second observation window (see IV-VI line in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Hino discloses the endoscope according to claim 21, wherein the nozzle includes a single spout from which the first ejecting path and the second ejecting path are formed (23, Fig. 3, [0022]).
Regarding claim 27, Hino discloses the endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the distal end body further comprises: a cover covering both the first optical system and the second optical system (25), the cover including a first region corresponding to the first optical system and a second region corresponding to the second optical system (Fig. 3),wherein in a first cleaning configuration, the single nozzle is configured to clean the first region of the cover, and in a second cleaning configuration, the single nozzle is configured to clean the second region of the cover (Fig. 3).
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) 5, 8, 9 , 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016214300 A to Hino and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0330802 to Watanabe.
Regarding claim 5, Hino discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1.
Hino fails to expressly teach wherein the single nozzle includes: a first opening, wherein in the first cleaning configuration the first opening is configured to eject a fluid toward the first optical system, and a second opening separate from the first opening, wherein in the second cleaning configuration the second opening is configured to eject a fluid toward the second optical system.
However, Watanabe teaches of an endoscope (Watanabe: 20, Fig. 1, [0036]) wherein the single nozzle (Watanabe: 140, Fig. 3, [0041]) includes: a first opening (Watanabe: 141, Fig. 3, [0049]), wherein in the first cleaning configuration the first opening is configured to eject a fluid toward the first optical system (Watanabe: Fig. 4) and a second opening separate from the first opening (Watanabe: 141, Fig. 3, [0049]), wherein in the second cleaning configuration the second opening is configured to eject a fluid toward the optical system (Watanabe: Fig. 4).
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 Hino, so that the single nozzle includes a first and second opening, as taught by Watanabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of ejecting the water (Watanabe: [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Hino disclose the endoscope according to Claim 1, wherein a distal end face of the distal end body comprises: a first channel opening for a medical device (24, Fig. 3, [0024]), and a second channel opening through which a fluid is ejected toward a body tissue of the object (see observation object cleaning port which is connected to a channel in [0024]).
Hino fails to expressly teach wherein the second channel opening is disposed on a rear side of the single nozzle with respect to both the first optical system and the second optical system.
However, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the device of Hino to have a second channel opening disposed on a rear side of the single nozzle with respect to both the first optical system and the second optical system since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the placement of a component (the second channel opening) and since paragraph [0024] of Hino expressly teaches a second channel opening on the distal end surface. Rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Additionally, Applicant has not disclosed that such placement of the second channel opening provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a problem.
Regarding claim 9, Hino discloses the endoscope according to Claim 8, wherein the first channel opening is disposed on a line intersecting obliquely with a line connecting a center point of the first optical system and a center point of the second optical system (see examiner’s annotated Fig. 3; note that the claim does not recite the center point of the first channel opening being disposed on the line- any line can be used).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Hino, teaches the endoscope according to Claim 1.
Hino, fails to expressly teach wherein the first cleaning configuration includes a first opening and the second cleaning configuration includes a second opening smaller than the first opening, and a fluid ejection speed at the second opening is faster than at the first opening, and the cleaning liquid reaches the first optical system and the second optical system simultaneously.
However, Watanabe teaches of an endoscope (Watanabe: 20, Fig. 1, [0036]) wherein the first cleaning configuration includes a first opening (Watanabe: 141, Fig. 3, [0049]) and the second cleaning configuration includes a second opening (Watanabe: 141, Fig. 3, [0049]) and a fluid ejection speed at the second opening is faster than at the first opening, and the cleaning liquid reaches the first optical system and the second optical system simultaneously (Watanabe: [0058]-[0059]).
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 Hino, so that the single nozzle includes a first and second opening, as taught by Watanabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of ejecting the water (Watanabe: [0049]).
Hino, in view of Watanabe, fails to expressly teach a second opening smaller than the first opening.
However, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the second opening of the device of Hino, in view of Watanabe, to be smaller, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (the opening). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016214300 A to Hino.
Regarding claim 26, Hino, teaches the endoscope according to claim 23.
Hino, fails to expressly teach wherein the single spout includes a partition that is detachably attached to the spout and divides the spout into a first opening for the first ejecting path and a second opening for the second ejecting path.
However, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the spout of Hino, to include a detachable partition, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the spout, and since all endoscope components can be disassembled. A change in a component to making it seperable is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C)).
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
Prosecution Insights