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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are pending, claims 4-7 have been cancelled, and claims 1-3 and 8-9 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maahs (US 2013/0041214), in view of Sahney (US 2015/0374221) and Larkin (US 2008/0071290).
Regarding claim 1, Maahs discloses an endoscope including an insertion portion (360, figures 38a and 45a) having a round tubular shape to be inserted into a body lumen (see figure 45a; for a body lumen…[0004]), the endoscope comprising: a treatment tool passage (instrument lumens 366, figures 38a and 45a) having one end opened on a distal tip surface of the insertion portion (see figure 38a), penetrating the insertion portion in an axial length direction (see figure 38a), and allowing a treatment tool to pass through (various instruments passed through…lumens 366 [0149]); and a fluid passage (working lumen…injection of fluids [0003]); the fluid passage penetrating the insertion portion in the axial length direction (see figure 38a). Maahs is silent regarding the fluid passage having an outlet opened on the distal tip surface of the insertion portion and an inlet on a proximal end of the fluid passage for receiving a fluid, the fluid passage allowing a perfusing of the fluid that is supplied from the inlet to the outlet to flow out of the distal tip surface of the insertion portion through the insertion portion in the axial length direction, wherein the treatment tool passage and the fluid passage partially overlap in a cross- sectional view that is perpendicular to the axial length direction, and wherein the treatment tool passage and the fluid passage each have a substantially circular shape in the cross-sectional view, such that the treatment tool passage and the fluid passage are closed to an outer surface of the endoscope along the axial length direction.
Sahney teaches a system (100, figure 1) with an operative member (120, figure 2a). The operative member receives internally a surgical tool (122, figure 2a). Inflow of liquid can be through the operative member (see 107, figure 2a) to distend and irrigate an organ of a patient ([0025]).
Larkin teaches a guide tube (2002, figure 20a) with channels ([0237]). One channel accommodates an endoluminal imaging system (2004, figure 20a) and another channel (2006, figure 20a) is an optical auxiliary channel that may be used for irrigation, suction, small instruments, etc. ([0238]). The third channel (2008, figure 20a) is shaped to accommodate two surgical instruments ([0239]). One of the channels (2004, figure 20a) has a circular bore (2004a, figure 20a) to accommodate the imaging system’s body and slots (2004b, figure 20a) on either side of the circular bore to allow the image capture element pass ([0237]). The circular bore (2004a, figure 20a) has a slightly larger diameter than the slots (2004b, figure 20a), which allows the imaging system to be held in place within the channel ([0237]). The channel may have various cross-sectional shapes ([0237]), like a rounded rectangle or circular ([0241]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the endoscope of Maahs to have the treatment tool passage and fluid passage connected (see 107 and 120, figure 2a; Sahney) as taught by Sahney. Doing so would distend and irrigate an organ of a patient ([0025]; Sahney). Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the treatment tool passage and fluid passage to have a circular bore (2004a, figure 20a) and slots (2004b, figure 20a) respectively as taught by Larkin. Doing so would provide a shape that can hold an instrument in place within the channel ([0237]). The modified endoscope would have the fluid passage having an outlet opened on the distal tip surface of the insertion portion and an inlet on a proximal end of the fluid passage for receiving a fluid (inflow of a liquid [0025]; see 107, figure 2a of Sahney), the fluid passage allowing a perfusing of the fluid that is supplied from the inlet to the outlet to flow out of the distal tip surface of the insertion portion through the insertion portion in the axial length direction (see 107, figure 2a; Sahney), wherein the treatment tool passage and the fluid passage partially overlap in a cross- sectional view that is perpendicular to the axial length direction (best seen with 520 in lumen 364, figure 45a of Maahs | see 107 and 120, figure 2a of Sahney | the modified endoscope would have the fluid passage be in the space of the lumen surrounding the treatment tool passage; i.e., suction occurs in the space around 520, figure 45a of Maahs), and wherein the treatment tool passage and the fluid passage each have a substantially circular shape in the cross-sectional view (cross-sectional shapes…road, oval…[0237]; Larkin), such that the treatment tool passage and the fluid passage are closed to an outer surface of the endoscope along the axial length direction (see location of instrument lumens 366, figures 38a and 45a of Maahs).
Regarding claim 2, Larkin further teaches the treatment tool passage is larger in diameter than the fluid passage (see diameter of 2004a vs 2004b, figure 20a; Larkin | circular bore 2004a has a slightly larger diameter than slots 2004b [0237]).
Regarding claim 3, Maahs and Larkin further disclose a distance from an axial center of the insertion portion to the fluid passage is equal to or longer than a distance from the axial center of the insertion portion to the treatment tool passage (best seen with 520 in 364, figure 45a; Maahs | see 2004a vs. 2004b, figure 20a of Larkin).
Regarding claim 8, Maahs and Larkin further disclose the fluid passage includes two fluid passages that are formed to face each other in a radial direction of the treatment tool passage (see the two spaces on either side of 520 in 364, figure 45a of Maahs | see 2004b with 2004a in between, figure 20a of Larkin).
Regarding claim 9, Maahs and Sahney and Larkin further disclose the treatment tool passage and the two fluid passages are integrated to form a single hole that includes two major arc-shaped parts (see outer perimeter of 2004b, figure 20a; Larkin) relating to the two fluid passages (see 107 around 120, figure 2a; Sahney) and two minor arc- shaped parts (see outer perimeter of 2004a, figure 20a) relating to the treatment tool passage (best seen with 520 in lumen 364, figure 45a of Maahs | see tool 122 in 120, figure 2a; Sahney).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 PM.
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 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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
September 5, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights