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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/25/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments filed 08/25/2025 have been entered. Claim 13-24 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. New rejection to claim 13 and response to arguments found below..
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copies have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 18, 20, 21, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (U.S. 2021/0068634) in view of Ide et al. (U.S. 2020/0178778).
With respect to claim 13, Sorensen teaches a distal endoscope head including a support for a vision system (FIG. 4e for example), the support being delimited on one side, by a proximal face (8a) and, on the opposite side, by a distal face (8b) parallel to the proximal face and into which the vision system opens out (FIG. 4E for example), the support being traversed by at least one hole of an operating channel (7c) opening out into the distal face by an ovoid section (para [0155]) whose projected surface with respect to the axis of the hole decreases from the distal face of the support in the direction of the proximal face of the support (see FIG. 4e where the distal most end of 7c has a rounded edge), the ovoid section of the hole of the operating channel in the distal face occupying a surface greater than or equal to at least 50% of the surface of the distal face of the support (para [0082] and [0092] for example).
That is, at paragraph [0082], Sorensen teaches the working channel can have a diameter of 2 mm, which would be an area of 3.14 mm2. At paragraph [0092] Sorensen teaches the outer diameter of the device can be 2.8 mm, which would be an area of 6.16 mm2. This would result in the working channel area being 50.9% of the total area of the distal face. While these measurements are disclosed with respect to a circular hole, Sorensen does explicitly teach the hole can instead be an oval (para [0155]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the same ratio of channel size to device distal end size could be applied to an oval hole as well and the results would have been predictable.
However, Sorensen does not teach the distal face is an asymmetric ovoid in shape
With respect to claim 13, Ide teaches the distal face is an asymmetric ovoid in shape, the vision system is located at a top end of the asymmetric ovoid that is narrower relative to a wider bottom end of the asymmetric ovoid where the operating channel is located, and wherein the ovoid section of the operating channel is ovoid in shape at the distal face (FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Sorensen to utilize the shape of the distal face as taught by Ide in order to provide for easier/smoother insertion via a smaller diameter.
With respect to claim 14, Sorensen teaches the ovoid section of the hole of the operating channel in the distal face of the support occupies a surface comprised between 50% and 60 % of the surface of the distal face of the support (para [0082] and [0092] for example).
That is, at paragraph [0082], Sorensen teaches the working channel can have a diameter of 2 mm, which would be an area of 3.14 mm2. At paragraph [0092] Sorensen teaches the outer diameter of the device can be 2.8 mm, which would be an area of 6.16 mm2. This would result in the working channel area being 50.9% of the total area of the distal face. While these measurements are disclosed with respect to a circular hole, Sorensen does explicitly teach the hole can instead be an oval (para [0155]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the same ratio of channel size to device distal end size could be applied to an oval hole as well and the results would have been predictable.
With respect to claim 18, Sorensen teaches the support is in the form of a ring delimited on one side by the distal face and on the other side by the proximal face, the distal and proximal faces being parallel to each other and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the ring (FIG. 4E for example).
With respect to claim 20, Sorensen teaches a passage for mounting (FIG. 4F for example), as a video system, an optical lens or a vision sensor and at least one light source, coated along the distal face of the support with a transparent protective material (8f).
With respect to claim 21, Sorensen teaches the optical lens or the vision sensor and at least the light source are embedded into the passage for mounting arranged in the support, by the transparent protective material (FIG. 4F for example).
With respect to claim 23, Sorensen teaches the passage opens out into the part of the distal face, located opposite to the semi-circular edge, between the central edge of the support and the central edge delimiting the hole (FIG. 4D,F, for example).
With respect to claim 24, Sorensen teaches an endoscope including an insertion tube connected, at its proximal part, to a control handle and equipped, at its distal part, with a distal head according to claim 13 (FIG. 1A for example).
Claim(s) 15-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (U.S. 2021/0068634) in view of Ide et al. (U.S. 2020/0178778) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Chu (U.S. 2020/0352650).
Sorensen teaches a distal endoscope head as set forth above. However, Sorensen does not teach the ovoid section of the hole of the operating channel evolves from the distal face of the support, ending with a circular section.
With respect to claim 15, Chu et al. teaches a distal endoscope head wherein the ovoid section of the hole of the operating channel evolves from the distal face of the support, ending with a circular section (para [0064]).
With respect to claim 16, Chu et al. teaches the ovoid section of the hole of the operating channel evolves from the distal face of the support, ending with a circular section, at an abutment surface for one end of the conduit delimiting the operating channel (para [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Sorensen to have the ovoid section of the hole evolve into a circular section in order to help funnel particulate into the lumen while still allowing for standard circular lumen configuration (para [0064] of Chu et al.) which reduces manufacturing cost and difficulty.
With respect to claim 17, Chu et al. teaches the opening is an ellipse (para [0064]). It is known in the art that an ellipse includes a peripheral circular arc-shaped edge connected on either side, by connecting edges, to a central circular arc-shaped edge whose radius is greater than the radius of the peripheral edge.
With respect to claim 22, Chu et al. teaches the support includes, from the proximal face, a cylindrical section extended by a narrowed section decreasing up to the distal face of the support to present at the distal face, an asymmetric oval section having a first narrow end and a second wider end (FIG. 8 for example).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (U.S. 2021/0068634) in view of Ide et al. (U.S. 2020/0178778) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Yan et al. (U.S. 2022/0104696).
Sorenson teaches a distal head as set forth above. However, Sorenson does not teach helically-shaped grooves or ribs.
With respect to claim 19, Yan et al. teaches a hole of an operating channel bein delimited by an inner surface provided, from the distal face of the support, with helically-shaped grooves or ribs (para [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Sorenson to include helically shaped grooves or ribs in order to facilitate the formation of vortex flow (para [0058] of Yan et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm EST.
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, Brian Casler can be reached at (571) 272-4956. 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.
/ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799