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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 09/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that each of the groups is misclassified for search and that the reasons for restriction are not correct.
The examiner believes that the traversal is not persuasive because each species requires a completely different configuration of the endoscope. In addition, the search queries would be different for each species and would not overlap, and the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-8, 12, 13, 15, 17-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/19/2025.
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) 9, 11, 14, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0395168 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0328217 to Moreau et al. (hereinafter “Moreau”).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses an endoscope, comprising: a handle (114, Fig. 1A, [0028]), and an insertion shaft (144, Fig. 2, [0038]); the handle being formed of inner (128, Fig. 2, [0027]) and outer shells (116, Fig. 2, [0025]) concentric with each other (Fig. 2, [0029]- the inner member controller 128 is a substantially annular structure concentric with the cylindrical handle body 116), rotation of the shells relative to each other ([0039]-[0040]) controlled via one or more resilient components frictionally engaged between the respective shells (140, Fig. 1A, [0037]).
Lee fails to expressly teach the insertion shaft (14, Fig. 2, [0131]) having at its distal end a solid state camera, the handle having retained within a circuit board with circuitry for control of and receipt of signals from the camera.
However, Moreau teaches of an endoscope (Moreau: 10, Fig. 1, [0130]) including the insertion shaft having at its distal end a solid state camera (Moreau: 512, Fig. 28, [0294]) the handle having retained within a circuit board with circuitry for control of and receipt of signals from the camera (Moreau: [0143]).
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 Lee to utilize the camera and circuit board in the manner taught by Moreau. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of controlling or processing image data detected by a sensor at the distal end of the shaft ([0143] of Moreau).
Regarding claim 11, Lee, in view of Moreau, teaches the endoscope of claim 9.
Lee, in view of Moreau, fails to expressly teach the handle and its components being formed of biocompatible materials, and designed with no metal fasteners except those encapsulated sufficiently to ensure no loosening, escape, or contact with fluids that flow into a patient, and no detachable parts small enough to travel though fluid passages of the insertion shaft, except those encapsulated by overmolding or melt-fusing to prevent dislodgement, and with no adhesives except those encapsulated to ensure no contact with fluids that flow into a patient.
However, Moreau further teaches the handle and its components being formed of biocompatible materials, and designed with no metal fasteners except those encapsulated sufficiently to ensure no loosening, escape, or contact with fluids that flow into a patient, and no detachable parts small enough to travel though fluid passages of the insertion shaft, except those encapsulated by overmolding or melt-fusing to prevent dislodgement, and with no adhesives except those encapsulated to ensure no contact with fluids that flow into a patient ([0009], [0139], [0143]).
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 Lee, in view of Moreau, to utilize a handle in the manner taught by Moreau. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing a surface that is more comfortable to grip/less slippery ([0139] of Moreau).
Regarding claim 14, Lee, in view of Moreau, teaches the endoscope of claim 9.
Lee, in view of Moreau, fails to expressly teach wherein: the outer shell of the handle having an overmolded layer of a high-friction elastomer.
However, Moreau further teaches teach wherein: the outer shell of the handle having an overmolded layer of a high-friction elastomer (32, Fig. 3A, [0139], [0143]).
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 Lee, in view of Moreau, to utilize a layer in the manner taught by Moreau. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing a surface that is more comfortable to grip/less slippery ([0139] of Moreau).
Regarding claim 16, Lee, in view of Moreau, teaches the endoscope set of claim 15.
Lee, in view of Moreau, fails to expressly teach the handle and its components being formed of biocompatible materials, and designed with no metal fasteners except those encapsulated sufficiently to ensure no loosening, escape, or contact with fluids that flow into a patient, and no detachable parts small enough to travel though fluid passages of the insertion shaft, except those encapsulated by overmolding or melt-fusing to prevent dislodgement, and with no adhesives except those encapsulated to ensure no contact with fluids that flow into a patient.
However, Moreau further teaches the handle and its components being formed of biocompatible materials, and designed with no metal fasteners except those encapsulated sufficiently to ensure no loosening, escape, or contact with fluids that flow into a patient, and no detachable parts small enough to travel though fluid passages of the insertion shaft, except those encapsulated by overmolding or melt-fusing to prevent dislodgement, and with no adhesives except those encapsulated to ensure no contact with fluids that flow into a patient ([0009], [0139], [0143]).
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 Lee, in view of Moreau, to utilize a handle in the manner taught by Moreau. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing a surface that is more comfortable to grip/less slippery ([0139] of Moreau).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0395168 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0328217 to Moreau et al. (hereinafter “Moreau”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0386850 to Sumida et al. (hereinafter “Sumida”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, in view of Moreau, teaches the endoscope of claim 9.
Lee, in view of Moreau, fails to expressly teach wherein: the resilient components include O-rings.
However, Sumida teaches of an endoscope (Sumida: 1, Fig. 1, [0036]) wherein: the resilient components include O-rings (Sumida: 74, Fig. 3, [0062]).
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 Lee, in view of Moreau, to utilize Or-rings in the manner taught by Sumida. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing a waterproof structure ([0062]) of Sumida.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0395168 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0328217 to Moreau et al. (hereinafter “Moreau”) and further view of JP2007333600A to Masaki.
Regarding claim 23, Lee, in view of Moreau, teaches the endoscope of claim 9.
Lee, in view of Moreau, fails to expressly teach further comprising: one or more magnets and one or more Hall effect sensors, arranged on the inner and outer shells to provide a sensor signal indicating location of the magnet(s) and Hall effect sensor(s) relative to each other, thereby to permit computation of rotational orientation of the inner and outer shells relative to each other.
However, Masaki teaches of an endoscope further comprising: one or more magnets (Masaki: 11, 13, Fig. 1, [0036]) and one or more Hall effect sensors (Masaki: 14, Fig. 1, [0034]) arranged on the inner and outer shells to provide a sensor signal indicating location of the magnet(s) and Hall effect sensor(s) relative to each other (Masaki: Fig. 1), thereby to permit computation of rotational orientation of the inner and outer shells relative to each other (Masaki: Fig. 1).
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 Lee, in view of Moreau, to utilize the sensors and magnets as taught by Masaki. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing rotation ([0036] of Masaki).
Conclusion
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