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
Amendment to claim 1 of 10/20/2025 acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding p. 6, para. 2, applicant asserts that the forceps channel 84 of Morimoto is not on an inner side of the metal ring 41c. Particularly that a gap exists in a central region of the metal ring that would result in a region wherein an “inner” and “outer” side would not exist due to not being a constrained solid. Examiner is not in accordance upon further inspection. Fig. 3 of Morimoto shows another view of the device of fig. 5. In that, the metal ring 41c is an uninterrupted piece that contains the treatment tool channel 84. The secondary reference, Suzuki, in turn, teaches a treatment tool channel that transitions from a flexible tube 66c to a reinforced metal pipe 66b in the distal tip of the endoscope. Hence, the combination of Morimoto, which teaches a distal tip shielded by a metal ring, and Suzuki, which teaches a treatment tool channel that transitions between a flexible tube and a metal pipe in the distal tip would render the amended claim language wherein the forceps tube and metal pipe are disposed on the inner side of the shield ring to be obvious.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Morimoto (WO 2018003737 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 4867136 A), Ochi (US 8246536 B2), and Nishina (US 20120265057 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches An ultrasound endoscope comprising:
an insertion part in which a distal end hard part (fig. 1, element 40), a bending part (fig. 1, element 42) connected to a proximal end side of the distal end hard part, and a soft part (fig. 1, element 44) connected to a proximal end side of the bending part are provided along a longitudinal axis direction (p. 5, para. 8);
an ultrasound transducer (fig. 2, element 30) in which a plurality of ultrasound oscillators (fig. 2, element 50) configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves are arranged along a peripheral direction of the distal end hard part (p. 6, para. 2);
a forceps channel (fig. 2, element 84) that is inserted into the insertion part and has a distal end side opened on a distal end surface of the distal end hard part (p. 7, para. 4);
a shield ring (fig. 5, element 41c) that is disposed between the ultrasound transducer and the forceps channel, and suppresses electromagnetic waves emitted from the ultrasound transducer (p. 6, para. 9, metal ring 41c is composed of metal such as SUS, which applicant cites in para. [0067] of disclosure as being suppressant of electromagnetic waves);
an ultrasonic wave shielded cable (fig. 5, element 72) that passes through the bending part from the soft part and has a distal end part disposed on an inner side of the shield ring on which the forceps channel is disposed (p. 11, para. 6-7, fig. 5 shows the distal end of the shield cable 72 disposed adjacent to the forceps tube 84 on the same inner side of the metal ring 41c);
and a plurality of signal wires (fig. 5, element 58) that are accommodated in the ultrasonic wave shielded cable, extend from the distal end part of the ultrasonic wave shielded cable (p. 11, para. 6-7), and are connected to the plurality of ultrasound oscillators (p. 10, para. 6), respectively,
wherein the shield ring has an opening portion for wiring the plurality of signal wires from the inner side of the shield ring to an outer side of the shield ring on which the ultrasound transducer is disposed (fig. 5, p. 12, para. 6-8, coaxial cables pass through a gap in the metal ring 41c, which is filled with a filler), and
a tube distal end part including a region facing the opening portion of the shield ring is formed of resin (p. 6, para. 9, base end side ring 41b and tip part 41a are made of resin).
Morimoto does not explicitly teach an ultrasound endoscope wherein the forceps channel has a metallic forceps pipe disposed on the inner side of the shield ring, and a forceps tube that is disposed on the inner side of the shield ring and connected to a proximal end side of the forceps pipe on the inner side of the shield ring via a connection part, and
the forceps tube is configured such that a metal element wire is wound around at least a part inside the bending part
However, Suzuki teaches an ultrasound endoscope wherein the forceps channel (fig. 28a, element 66) has a metallic forceps pipe (fig. 28a, element 66b) disposed on the inner side of the shield ring, and a forceps tube (fig. 28a, element 66c) that is disposed on the inner side of the shield ring (fig. 28, connection between 66c and 66b is within the distal tip of the endoscope, while Morimoto teaches a distal tip shielded by a metal ring) and connected to a proximal end side of the forceps pipe on the one side of the shield ring (Substituting the metal forceps pipe of Suzuki for the nonspecific forceps pipe of Morimoto would dispose the metal forceps pipe on the opposite side of the shield member), and
However, Ochi teaches the forceps tube (fig. 2, element 6) is configured such that a metal element wire (fig. 10, element 61’) is wound around at least a part inside the bending part.
However, Nishina teaches the forceps tube (fig. 33, element 192, [0204], channel tube 192) and pipe (fig. 33, element 185, [204], instrument channel 185) are connected via a connection part (fig. 33, element 191, [0204], channel ferrule 191).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forceps tube of Morimoto to be composed of metal as taught in Suzuki in order to increase resilience of the structure (Suzuki col. 26, ln. 66 – col.27, ln. 18).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forceps channel of Morimoto to include coiled wire as taught in Ochi in order to prevent buckling (col. 2, ln. 23-37).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forceps tube of Morimoto to include a ferrule as taught in Nishina in order to increase the structural stability of the channel (Nishina [0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Morimoto in view of Suzuki and Ochi teaches The ultrasound endoscope according to claim 1
Further, Ochi teaches the endoscope wherein the metal element wire is provided in only other parts in the forceps tube other than the tube distal end part (fig. 2, 3, element 6A, col. 4, ln. 37-57, the supple portion with coil wrapping does not extend to the distal part 3).
Regarding claim 3, Morimoto in view of Suzuki and Ochi teaches The ultrasound endoscope according to claim 2
Further, Morimoto teaches the endoscope wherein bending rigidity of the tube distal end part is higher than bending rigidity of the other parts (p. 5, para. 8, hard distal end portion 40 is described as being hard while the other parts including the bending portion 42 and the flexible portion 44 are described as flexible, i.e. less rigid).
Regarding claim 4, Morimoto in view of Ochi teaches The ultrasound endoscope according to claim 3
Further, Ochi teaches the endoscope wherein the forceps tube is provided with grooves for winding the metal element wire around the tube distal end part and the other parts, and the groove provided in the tube distal end part is shallower than a depth of the groove provided in the other parts (col. 7, ln. 1-35, groove depth is taught to be inversely correlated with flexibility, hence in situations where increased rigidity is desirable per claim 3, shallower grooves would be obvious).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY TUAN LUU whose telephone number is (703)756-4592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Friday.
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 5712707235. 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.
/TIMOTHY TUAN LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795