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 .
Notice of Amendment
The Amendment filed 9/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-11 are pending in the application with claim 1 amended, claims 7-9 withdrawn, claim 5 cancelled and claims 10, 11 newly added.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoi (JP 2006-212278 A) in view of Igarashi et al. (JP 2018-198188 A, hereinafter Igarashi) using US 2020/0058693 as an English equivalent.
In regard to claim 1, Hosoi discloses an endoscope (1, Fig. 1) comprising
an insertion section (2) comprising:
a first member (4) covered with a first skin ((42), Figs. 1,3;
a second member (3) covered with a second skin (32), Figs. 1,3;
a thread (9) wound around a joining section of the first skin and the second skin (Fig. 3);
first resin (11) covering the thread (Fig. 3c,3d); and
second resin (10) covering the first resin (Fig. 3c,3d), extended from both ends of the first resin respectively to ranges of 100 µm or more (Fig. 3d illustrates the second resin extending significantly beyond ends of the first resin).
Hosoi does not expressly teach the first resin having a modulus of elasticity of 0.5 GPa or more and 5 GPa or less and the second resin having a modulus of elasticity of 0.3 MPa or more and 100 MPa or less.
Igarashi teaches an analogous endoscope comprising an image pickup module (1) comprising an image pickup portion (30), a wiring portion (40) and a signal cable (50). A connection portion between the signal cable (50) and wiring portion (40) is coated with first and second resin (60, 65). A kind of the first resin (60) or the second resin (65) is not limited in particular. However, it is preferable that the first resin be a thermosetting resin, the second resin be a thermoplastic resin, and the Young's modulus of the first resin be higher than the Young's modulus of the second resin. Examples of the thermosetting resin are a phenol resin (Young's modulus: 3 GPa-8 GPa), a urea resin (Young's modulus: 1 GPa-5 GPa), a melamine resin (Young's modulus: 5 GPa-15 GPa), the epoxy resin (Young's modulus: 3 GPa-10 GPa), the silicone resin (Young's modulus: 0.5 GPa-2 GPa), and a polyester resin (Young's modulus: 1 GPa-3 GPa). Examples of the thermoplastic resin are the silicone rubber (Young's modulus: 0.01 GPa-1 GPa) and an acrylic resin (0.01 GPa-1 GPa) (Par. 52). Additionally, it is preferable that the Young's modulus of the second resin (65) be 50% or lower of the Young's modulus of the first resin (60), and be particularly preferably 25% or lower (Par. 54). Igarashi teaches that by applying the second resin having a lower Young’s modulus over the first resin thereby reducing stress transfer to the first resin and image pickup portion (Par. 63).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second resins of Hosoi with the first resin being epoxy resin and the second resin being acrylic resin as taught by Igarashi such that the second resin has a lower Young’s modulus than the first resin thereby helping to mitigate stress transfer during operation of the insertion section.
In regard to claim 2, Hosoi teaches wherein thickness of the second resin is 20 um or more and 500 µm or less (Par. 94).
In regard to claim 3, Igarashi teaches wherein
the first resin is epoxy resin (Par. 52), and
the second resin is acrylic resin, urethane resin, silicone resin, or alkyd resin (Par. 52).
In regard to claim 4, Igarashi teaches wherein
the first resin is thermosetting resin (Par. 52), and
the second resin is normal-temperature hardening resin (Par. 52).
In regard to claim 6, Hosoi teaches wherein
the insertion section (2) includes a distal end portion (5), a bending tube (4) joined to a proximal end of the distal end portion, and a flexible tube (3) joined to a proximal end of the bending tube (Fig. 1),
the first member is the bending tube (Figs. 1,2), and
the second member is the distal end portion or the flexible tube (Figs. 1,2).
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoi (JP 2006-212278 A) in view of Igarashi et al. (JP 2018-198188 A, hereinafter Igarashi) using US 2020/0058693 as an English equivalent, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kagawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0114205, hereinafter Kagawa).
In regard to claims 10 and 11, Hosoi does not expressly teach wherein a proximal-most end face of the first member opposes a distal-most end face of the second member within the joining section, wherein the proximal-most end face of the first member abuts the distal-most end face of the second member.
Kagawa teaches an analogous endoscope comprising an elongate insertion portion (2) comprising a flexible elongate tube (6), a curved portion (5) and distal end portion (4). The flexible elongate tube (6) includes a flexible outer tube (40) which abuts a flexible outer tube (36) of the curved portion (5) and are fixedly connected to each other by threads (35) surrounded by a adhesive layers (34), Fig. 2.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second skins of Hosoi to have ends which abut against each other as taught by Kagawa as a matter of design choice since both Hosoi and Kagawe teach configurations for fixedly connecting a flexible tube portion to a curving portion via threads and adhesives. There being no unexpected results in modifying the ends of the first and second skins of Hosoi to abut against each other as taught by Kagawe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
In the Office Acton, the Examiner argues that the first resin 60 and the second resin 65 in Igarashi are equivalent to the first resin (e.g., 30) and the second resin (e.g., 40) of claim 1. However, claim | recites that the “first resin covering the thread,” while the first resin 60 in Igarashi covers the wiring portion 40, the core wire of the signal cable 50, and the bump 55 connecting the core wire and the electrode 42 of the wiring portion 40. Thus, those skilled in the art would not have occasion to modify the joining section of Hosoi with the first and second resins used in the image pickup module of Igarashi.
The Examiner disagrees since both Hosoi and Igarashi teach of layering first and second resins thereby sealing and bonding the underlying components. However, Igarashi teaches that first resin creates the seal and bonding of the underlying components, while the second resin helps mitigate stress from transferring to the resin and underlying components. Therefore, there would be sufficient motivation to modify the resins of Hosoi to be formed of the same materials as that of Igarashi.
Applicant argues:
The Applicant further submits that Igarashi fails to disclose or suggest the feature of the first resin having a modulus of elasticity of 0.5 GPa or more and 5 GPa or less, as also recited in claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees since Igarashi specifically recites the first resin can be within the range of 0.5 GPa and 5 GPa in Par. 50, 52 in which Igarashi discloses the various materials that can form the first resin and the GPa ranges of those materials.
Applicant argues:
That is, when the modulus of elasticity of the first resin (e.g., 30) is equal to or higher than 0.5 GPa, adhesion between the first resin (e.g., 30) and the first skin (e.g., 11) is low, and peeling of the first resin (e.g., 30) is easy. In addition, when the modulus of elasticity of the first resin (e.g., 30) is equal to or higher than 0.5 GPa, since the fixing of the thread (e.g., 20) is sufficient, water tightness of the first member (e.g., bending tube 9B) and the second member (e.g., flexible tube 9C) is sufficient (see e.g., paragraph [0046] of the present application). Such a configuration and effects are neither disclosed nor contemplated by either Hosoi or Igarashi (the latter of which is directed to the resin covering the connecting portion between the wiring portion of the image pickup module and the signal cable-see Figures 5 and 6 of Igarashi).
The examiner acknowledges that Igarashi does not the first resin being in the range of 0.5 GPa to 5 GPa having the same functional benefits as argued by Applicant. However, these are not claimed features of the invention and therefore are moot.
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 RYAN N HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-5pm (PST).
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 September 26, 2025