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 12/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12 are pending in the application with claims 1, 3, 7 amended, claims 5, 6, 8-10, 12 withdrawn, claim 2 cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein variations in spacings between any two adjacent supports among the plurality of supports are identical to each other, when the endoscope support is slid along the base” in Lines 13-15, wherein the term “variations” makes the claim unclear as to what structure is required to read on variations of spacings to be identical to each other. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a wire fixed to each of the plurality of supports” in Line 18, wherein the claim seems to imply that a single wire is attached to each of the supports, however it’s the examiner’s understanding that separate wires / elastic bodies connect adjacent supports to each other as shown in Fig. 1 (E1-E3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a wire fixed to each o the plurality of supports based on an arrangement order from the overtube support to the endoscope support” in Lines 18-19, wherein it’s unclear how the limitation “based on an arrangement order from the overtube support to the endoscope support” affects the wire being fixed to the plurality of supports since the claimed limitation of “based on an arrangement order from the overtube support to the endoscope support” does not appear to add any structural or functional requirements of the wire and seems to only provide indefiniteness as to how to interpret the scope of the claimed wire. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the wire comprises a plurality of elastic bodies” in Line 2, wherein it’s not clear how the plurality of elastic bodies can form a wire since the elastic bodies are not directly connected to each other, but attached at their ends to each of the plurality of supports. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the wire comprises at least one elastic body disposed between each pair of supports that are most adjacent to each other among the plurality of supports, and the at least one elastic body disposed between the each pair of the supports has a same equivalent elastic modulus” in Lines 2-6, wherein it’s not clear what’s being defined as “each pair of supports that are most adjacent”, since a pair of supports has not previously defined in the claim and further the phrase of “most adjacent” is ambiguous as pertaining to which supports of the plurality of supports are nearest each other or which pair of supports are closest to each other. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the at least one elastic body disposed between the each pair of the supports has a same equivalent elastic modulus” in Lines 5-6, since the claim is only definitively reciting a single elastic body and therefore it’s unclear how a single elastic body can have a same equivalent elastic modulus. Furthermore, reciting same and equivalent seem to be redundant terms to describe the same feature. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 11 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.
Examiner Comments
In order to advance prosecution, the examiner suggests amending Claim 1 to recite:
a first elastic wire having a first length connecting the endoscope support to the at least one additional support
a second elastic wire having a second length connecting the overtube support to the at least one additional support
a sum of the first length and second length defines a third length
wherein sliding of the endoscope support along the base changes the third length while the first length remains equivalent to the second length
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 January 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights