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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding p. 7, para. 5-6, applicant asserts that the combination of McWeeney and Isoda would be improper, as fig. 7 of McWeeney shows the device in an unassembled state. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as a number of figs. including fig. 1, 6, 10, and 11 show an assembled, or partially assembled device wherein an external elongated section, i.e. fig. 1, element 78, fig. 10, element 1078, are disposed between the actuating handle 30 and the endoscope body 20. Fig. 7 of Isoda illustrates supporting an elongate connecting portion 15 between a drive unit 10 and an endoscope body 3 via a stand 22.
Regarding p. 8, para. 2, applicant contends that the actuator of McWeeney is mechanical, while an electric actuator is required by the claims. Examiner points to para. [0106] of McWeeney, wherein the lever 74 is referred to as “actuator” 74. Though some definitions include an element of conversion of pneumatic/electric energy to mechanical, Merriam Webster defines an actuator as “a mechanical device for moving or controlling something”, hence examiner cannot interpret the term “actuator” as it appears in the claim to specifically mean an electric device.
Examiner would uphold the standing rejection of 11/20/2025.
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.
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) 1-5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWeeney (US 20230145569 A1) in view of Isoda (US 20190059705 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McWeeney teaches An endoscope system comprising:
a drive cable (fig. 7, element 768, [0112] steering wires 768) comprising a first end and an opposite end;
a drive device (fig. 7, element 730, [0112], handle 730) connected to the first end of the drive cable, the drive device having an actuator configured to drive the drive cable;
an endoscope that has a bending portion configured to bend, the bending portion being configured to be mechanically driven by the connected drive cable (fig. 7, element 710, [0086, 0122] catheter 710 which has channel 64 through which an imaging device may be routed, forming an endoscope);
an operation device (fig. 7, element 730, [0112], handle 730) having a user input (fig. 7, element 774, [0010], steering controller) for operating at least the bending portion of the endoscope, the operation device being communicably connected to the drive device;
McWeeney does not explicitly teach a trolley having the drive device;
a stand supporting a connection of the second end of the drive cable to a proximal end of the endoscope, the connection being at a position away from the trolley; and
wherein the stand is configured to support the proximal end of the endoscope in order to connect the drive cable and the operation device to the proximal end of the endoscope.
However, Isoda teaches a trolley (fig. 2, element 6, [0023], controller 6 controls the drive unit) having the drive device;
a stand (fig. 7, element 22, [0028] locking part 22 supports a proximal part 15 of the elongated device) supporting a connection of the second end of the drive cable to a proximal end of the endoscope, the connection being at a position away from the trolley; and
wherein the stand is configured to support the proximal end of the endoscope in order to connect the drive cable and the operation device to the proximal end of the endoscope (fig. 7, element 22, [0028] locking part 22 supports a proximal part 15 of the elongated device).
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 user input of McWeeney to include a stand and trolley as taught in Isoda in order to separate the control device from contamination by the patient (Isoda [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, McWeeney in view of Isoda teaches The endoscope system according to Claim 1,
Further, McWeeney teaches wherein the operation device includes:
a grip (fig. 7, element 730, [0112] handle 730);
a shaft (fig. 7, element 774, steering controller comprises a horizontal shaft) provided in front of the grip; and
an operation input portion to which an operation of bending the bending portion by rotating the shaft along a longitudinal axis is input ([0010], movement of steering controller between first and second positions tensions the wires and steers the bending portion).
Regarding claim 3, McWeeney in view of Isoda teaches The endoscope system according to Claim 2,
Further, McWeeney teaches wherein the drive device controls an amount of bending of the bending portion based on an amount of roll rotation of the shaft ([0010], movement of steering controller between first and second positions tensions the wires and steers the bending portion).
Regarding claim 4, McWeeney in view of Isoda teaches The endoscope system according to Claim 3,
wherein the drive device bends the bending portion in a left-right direction based on a direction of the roll rotation ([0010], movement of steering controller between first and second positions tensions the wires and steers the bending portion, device can be oriented such that the bending is along the left-right axis).
Regarding claim 5, McWeeney in view of Isoda teaches The endoscope system according to Claim 2,
Further, McWeeney teaches the device wherein the operation device has an operation lever to which an operation of bending the bending portion in a vertical direction is input on an upper surface of the grip (the device may be held such that the operation portion faces upward).
Regarding claim 9, McWeeney in view of Isoda teaches The endoscope system according to Claim 2,
Further, Isoda teaches wherein the operation device includes:
a support column (fig. 7, element 22, locking part 22 is comprised of a horizontal arm disposed on a vertical column) connected to the stand; and
an arm (fig. 7, element 22, locking part 22 is comprised of a horizontal arm disposed on a vertical column) that connects the support column and the operation input portion, and has a rigidity smaller than those of the support column and the shaft (arm part of the locking portion is thinner and, hence, would be less rigid than the column).
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWeeney in view of Isoda as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ueno (US 20090012365 A1).
Regarding claim 6, McWeeney in view of Isoda teaches The endoscope system according to Claim 2,
McWeeney in view of Isoda does not explicitly teach Wherein the drive device controls air supply / water supply of the endoscope based on an operation input from the air supply / water supply button;
wherein the operation device has an air supply / water supply button on a front surface of the front of the grip.
However, Ueno teaches Wherein the drive device controls air supply / water supply of the endoscope based on an operation input from the air supply / water supply button (fig. 1, element 116, [0051], air/water feed operation button 116);
wherein the operation device has an air supply / water supply button on a front surface of the front of the grip (fig. 1, element 28, [0051], handpiece 28).
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 user input of McWeeney to include an air/water supply button as taught in Ueno in order to control the irrigation of the operation site (Ueno [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, McWeeney in view of Isoda teaches The endoscope system according to Claim 2.
McWeeney in view of Isoda does not explicitly teach wherein the drive device controls suction of the endoscope based on an operation input from the suction button;
wherein the operation device has a suction button on a front surface of the front of the grip.
However, Ueno teaches the wherein the drive device controls suction of the endoscope based on an operation input from the suction button (fig. 1, element 117, [0051] suction button 117);
wherein the operation device has a suction button on a front surface of the front of the grip (fig. 1, element 28, [0051], handpiece 28).
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 user input of McWeeney to include a suction supply button as taught in Ueno in order to control the irrigation of the operation site (Ueno [0051]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWeeney in view of Isoda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Banju (US 20160324399 A1).
Regarding claim 8, McWeeney in view of Isoda teaches The endoscope system according to Claim 1,
McWeeney in view of Isoda does not explicitly teach the device wherein the operation device includes a forceps opening into which a treatment tool can be inserted into a lumen of the endoscope.
However, Banju teaches the device wherein the operation device (fig. 1, element 41, [0082], operation part main body 41) includes a forceps opening (fig. 1, element 11, [0054], instrument channel 11) into which a treatment tool can be inserted into a lumen of the endoscope.
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 user input of McWeeney to include a forceps insertion portion as taught in Banju in order to grasp tissue in the operation site (Banju [0054]).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights