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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1, 13, 14, 16-18 of 2/5/2026 acknowledged and entered.
New claims 21-23 of 2/5/2026 acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, para. 3, filed 2/5/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112f interpretation of 11/20/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, para. 4, filed 2/5/2026, with respect to claims 13, 14, 17, 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The USC 112 rejection of 11/20/2024 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, 16 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furuhata (US 20180324352 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Furuhata teaches An endoscope system comprising:
an endoscope including a bending portion that is configured to bend (fig. 4, element 2a1, [0022], bending section 2a1);
a drive device (fig. 1, element 2b, [0021], actuator 2b) that is detachably connected to the endoscope, the drive device comprising one or more actuators for driving the endoscope; and
an operation device (fig. 1, element 15, [0025], operation section 15) that is communicably connected to the drive device and has an input portion that inputs an operation for driving the endoscope,
wherein the drive device can select a method of controlling the bending portion with respect to the operation input from the input portion from fine movement control (fig. 11, element OP, [0107], operating panel OP is caused by operating panel OP) and coarse movement control ([0107], rough movement caused by joystick J), and a distance at which the drive device bends the bending portion by the coarse movement control with respect to a predetermined operation input is larger than a distance at which the drive device bends the bending portion by the fine movement control ([0107], small bending motion indicated by panel OP).
Regarding claim 2, Furuhata teaches The endoscope system according to claim 1,
wherein the operation device has a coarse movement input portion ([0107], rough movement caused by joystick J) and a fine movement input portion (fig. 11, element OP, [0107], operating panel OP is caused by operating panel OP) as the input portion, the drive device performs the coarse movement control of the bending portion based on the operation input from the coarse movement input portion, and the drive device performs the fine movement control of the bending portion based on the operation input from the fine movement input portion.
Regarding claim 3, Furuhata teaches The endoscope system according to claim 2,
wherein the coarse movement input portion is a lever ([0107], rough movement caused by joystick J, joystick being a type of lever), and the fine movement input portion is a touch pad (fig. 11, element OP, [0107], operating panel OP is caused by operating panel OP).
Regarding claim 12, Furuhata teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1,
wherein the drive device selects a method to control the bending portion from the fine movement control and the coarse movement control based on the operation input from a button of the operation device ([0107], input from a button of the touch pad OP causes a fine motion input).
Regarding claim 21, Furuhata teaches The endoscope system according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more actuators comprises one or more electric actuators ([0023], actuator 2b requires a power supply).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Harrah (US 20250143544 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Furuhata teaches The endoscope system according to claim 2,
Furuhata does not explicitly teach wherein the coarse movement input portion is arranged on both sides of the fine movement input portion.
However, Harrah teaches wherein the coarse movement input portion (fig. 3b, element 112, [0056], lever 112 extends to either side of the handle 104) is arranged on both sides of the fine movement input portion (fig. 3b element 122, [0058], depression of switch 122 may cause fine adjustment of the distal end of the instrument, switch 122 is disposed in the center of the handle).
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 input portion of Furuhata to include a coarse movement input portion flanking the fine input as taught in Harrah in order to prevent confusion by a user when operating the device (Furuhata [0111]).
Regarding claim 5, Furuhata in view of Harrah teaches The endoscope system according to claim 4,
Further, Furuhata teaches wherein the coarse movement input portion includes a vertical operation lever that bends the bending portion in vertical direction (Joystick J acts as an omnidirectional lever); and
a left-right operation lever that bends the bending portion in left-right direction (Joystick J acts as an omnidirectional lever). the vertical operation lever is provided on a left side surface of the operation device;
Further, Harrah teaches the vertical operation lever is provided on a left side surface of the operation device, and the left-right operation lever is provided on a right side surface of the operation device (fig. 6, element 422, 424, [0097], control systems disposed on left/right sides of a controller may be spatially separated).
Regarding claim 6, Furuhata teaches The endoscope system according to claim 2,
Furuhata does not explicitly teach wherein the coarse movement input portion and the fine movement input portion are arranged side by side in left-right direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the operation device.
However, Harrah teaches wherein the coarse movement input portion and the fine movement input portion are arranged side by side in left-right direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the operation device (fig. 6, element 422, 424, [0097], control systems disposed on left/right sides of a controller may be spatially separated).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata in view of Harrah as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ueno (US 20090012365 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Furuhata in view of Harrah teaches The endoscope system according to claim 6,
Furuhata in view of Harrah does not explicitly teach wherein the operation device includes an air supply / water supply button and a suction button as the input portion, the drive device controls air supply / water supply of the endoscope based on the operation input from the air supply / water supply button, the drive device controls suction of the endoscope based on the operation input from the suction button, and the air supply / water supply button and the suction button are arranged side by side in the left-right direction.
However, Ueno teaches wherein the operation device includes an air supply /water supply button (fig. 1, element 116, [0051], air/water feed operation button 116) and a suction button (fig. 1, element 117, [0051] suction button 117) as the input portion, the drive device controls air supply/water supply of the endoscope based on the operation input from the air supply / water supply button, the drive device controls suction of the endoscope based on the operation input from the suction button, and the air supply / water supply button and the suction button are arranged side by side in the left-right direction (fig. 1, device can be held such that the buttons fall on a left-right alignment).
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 control scheme of Furuhata to include air/water and suction buttons as taught in Ueno in order to control aspiration of the operating site (Ueno [0051]).
Claim(s) 13, 14, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata in view of Hwang (US 20210259521 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Furuhata teaches A control apparatus comprising:
a controller that controls an endoscope including a bending portion that is configured to bend (fig. 1, element 15, [0025], operation section 15),
the controller including a coarse movement input portion ([0046, 0107], joystick j not shown in figures used to direct rough movement) and a fine movement input portion (fig. 8, element OP, [0107], fine movement for causing a small bending motion in a direction indicated by an operation panel Op), which are an input portion that controls the bending portion,
wherein the fine movement input portion and the coarse movement input portion are different types of input portion;
Furuhata does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is wirelessly connected to a drive device and the input portion directly inputs an operation for bending the bending portion to the drive device.
However, Hwang teaches wherein the controller (fig. 1, element 330, [0013], handheld controller 330) is wirelessly connected to a drive device (fig. 1, element 302, [0013], robotic controller 302) and the input portion directly inputs an operation for bending the bending portion to the drive 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 controller of Furuhata to be disposed on a wireless controller as taught in Hwang in order to facilitate robotic control of the endoscope (Hwang [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Furuhata in view of Hwang teaches The control apparatus according to claim 13,
Further, Furuhata teaches wherein the coarse movement input portion is a lever ([0046], joystick J), and the fine movement input portion is a touch pad (fig. 8, element O, [0097, touch panel 14b).
Regarding claim 22, Furuhata teaches The endoscope system according to claim 1,
Furuhata does not explicitly teach wherein the operation device is wirelessly connected to the drive device and the input portion directly inputs the operation for driving the endoscope to the drive device.
However, Hwang teaches wherein the controller (fig. 1, element 330, [0013], handheld controller 330) is wirelessly connected to a drive device (fig. 1, element 302, [0013], robotic controller 302) and the input portion directly inputs an operation for bending the bending portion to the drive 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 controller of Furuhata to be disposed on a wireless controller as taught in Hwang in order to facilitate robotic control of the endoscope (Hwang [0012]).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno in view of Hwang.
Regarding claim 16, Ueno teaches A control apparatus comprising:
A controller (fig. 1, element 6, [0051], operation unit 6) that controls an endoscope including a bending portion (fig. 2, element 10, [0038], bending section 10) that is configured to bend,
the controller including a bending control input portion (fig. 1, element 29a, [0051], joystick 29a) that controls the bending portion, an air supply / water supply button (fig. 1, element 116, [0051], air/water feed operation button) that controls air supply or water supply of the endoscope, and a suction button (fig. 1, element 117, [0051], suction button 117) that controls suction of the endoscope, the air supply / water supply button and the suction button are provided above center of the bending control input portion in a vertical direction along a longitudinal direction of the controller, the air supply / water supply button and the suction button are arranged side by side in the vertical direction of the controller or in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the vertical direction (fig. 1, operation unit 6);
Ueno does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is wirelessly connected to a drive device and the bending control input portion directly inputs an operation for bending the bending portion to the drive device.
However, Hwang teaches wherein the controller (fig. 1, element 330, [0013], handheld controller 330) is wirelessly connected to a drive device (fig. 1, element 302, [0013], robotic controller 302) and the input portion directly inputs an operation for bending the bending portion to the drive 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 controller of Ueno to be disposed on a wireless controller as taught in Hwang in order to facilitate robotic control of the endoscope (Hwang [0012]).
Regarding claim 17, Ueno in view of Hwang teaches The controller according to claim 16,
Further, Ueno teaches wherein the bending control input portion is one of a touch pad, a lever, and a joystick (fig. 1, element 29a, [0051], joystick 29a).
Regarding claim 18, Ueno in view of Hwang teaches The controller according to claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected on the basis of the joystick being the control input of the Markush grouping. Claim 18, which is directed to a different embodiment of the Markush grouping, is rejected instead for dependency upon claim 17.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno in view of Hwang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Banik (US 20050075538 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Ueno in view of Hwang teaches The control apparatus according to claim 16,
Ueno in view of Hwang does not explicitly teach wherein air supply/water supply button and the suction button are arranged side by side on a side edge adjacent to a face, wherein the bending control input portion is arranged on the face.
However, Banik teaches wherein air supply/water supply button and the suction button (fig. 5b, element 356, [0091], control buttons 356 supply water/vacuum) are arranged side by side on a side edge adjacent to a face, wherein the bending control input portion is arranged on the face (fig. 5a, element 354, [0091], joystick 354).
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 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