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
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. In the present application, claims 1-7 are currently pending and examined below. Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 12/22/2025, regarding pending claims, have been considered. However Applicant has amended the independent claims with the newly added limitation stating, “…a retaining member sandwiched between the cover body and the drape, wherein the retaining member anchored to the cover body by fitting a fitting portion of the cover body into an opening portion of the drape and a fitting hole of the retaining member.” Such newly added limitation changes the scope of the claim, renders the previous rejections listed in the non-final office action dated 10/02/2025 moot, and requires a new ground of rejection. Therefore the rejections previously identified in the non-final office action dated 10/02/2025 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made below. Please see section 35 U.S.C. §103 below, for further explanation.
35 U.S.C §112f claim interpretation:
Applicant Argues: The “holding member” recited in claim 1, has sufficient definite meaning and name for structure, which should not invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), on page 4 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 12/22/2025.
Examiner Disagrees: The “holding member” recited in claim 1, fails to have sufficient definite meaning and naming of a structure, which does require an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
MPEP 2181. I. requires “examiners [to] apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Here Applicant’s claim 1 states, “wherein the drape includes a holding member configured to hold the drape in a folded state when the drape is not in use.” The term “holding member” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning cited within claim 1. There are no other limitations within claim 1 describing the structure of the term ‘holding member.’ The term “configured to” modifies the limited term ‘holding member.’ The limitation “to hold the drape in a folded state when the drape is not in use” is functional language of the ‘holding member.’ Therefore, the claim limitation “holding member” does meet the 3-prong analysis and should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C §112(f).
Examiner would like to note that "Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure." [emphasis added] ; see also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1376, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, the claim language within claim 1 surrounding the term “holding member” lacks description of the exact structure that performs the function of holding the drape in a folded state when the drape is not in use. Thus, the claim limitation “holding member” does invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-holding member in claim 1 which has structural support in paragraph [0056] of the specification stating, “In each of the above embodiments, the pressure-sensitive adhesive tape26 is exemplified as the holding member for holding the drape22 in the folded state. However, the present invention is not limited to this, and the holding member may include any one of a locking member, a constraint member, and a coating member. It is preferable that the locking member as the holding member has a configuration in which at least a part of each of the drapes22 is locked, for example, by a locking structure consisting of a locking claw and a locking hole, a button and a button hole used for clothes, a fitting structure in which a male button and a female button are fitted to each other, or the like. Additionally, as the constraint member as the holding member, a paper tape or a rubber band that constrains the periphery of each of the drapes22 in the folded state is preferable. Additionally, it is preferable that the coating member as the holding member is a bag-shaped member that covers the entire drapes22 in the folded state.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US8241208) hereinafter Jiang, in view Dale R. Schulze (US2004/0260147) hereinafter Schulze, in view Akiba Haruo (JPH10155735) hereinafter Haruo.
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang discloses an endoscope forceps valve cover comprising:
a cover body (Jiang - Figs. 1, 9 sealing cap 3) that is mounted on a forceps valve (see annotated Jiang - Figs. 9) provided at a forceps port (Jiang - Figs. 1 upper opening 1.5) of an endoscope (Jiang - Figs. 1 endoscope 1) into which a treatment tool (Jiang - Figs. 9 forceps, see annotated Jiang - Figs. 9) is inserted, and has a through-hole (see annotated Jiang - Figs. 9) through which the treatment tool (Jiang - Figs. 9 forceps, see annotated Jiang - Figs. 9) is inserted (Jiang - Figs. 9) ;
a drape (Jiang - Figs. 1, 2, 5-9 drape 5) that is a sheet with a thickness and provided integrally with the cover body (Jiang - Fig. 9 sealing cap 3), is located on a side facing an outside (Jiang - Figs. 1, 2, 5-9 drape 5 is outside) that of the endoscope (Jiang - Figs. 1 endoscope 1) with respect to the cover body (Jiang - Figs. 1 sealing cap 3), and
covers at least a part of a user (Jiang - Figs. 2 hand of operator) who operates the endoscope (Jiang - Figs. 1 endoscope 1); and
a retaining member (Jiang - Figs. 1, 6, 9 body of the arch-shaped cavity 5.3 and opening 5.1) sandwiched between the cover body (Jiang - Figs. 1, 9 sealing cap 3) and the drape (Jiang - Figs. 1, 2, 5-9 drape 5), wherein the retaining member (Jiang - Figs. 1, 6, 9 body of the arch-shaped cavity 5.3 and opening 5.1) anchored to the cover body (Jiang - Figs. 1, 9 sealing cap 3) by fitting a fitting portion (Jiang - Figs. 9 upper opening 3.4) of the cover body (Jiang - Figs. 1, 9 sealing cap 3) into an opening portion (Jiang - Figs. 5 lower opening 5.4) of the drape (Jiang - Figs. 1, 2, 5-9 drape 5) and a fitting hole (see annotated Fig. 9 and 6) of the retaining member (Jiang - Figs. 1, 6, 9 body of the arch-shaped cavity 5.3 and opening 5.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
628
1111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
626
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jiang is silent as to further disclose wherein the drape includes a holding member configured to hold the drape in a folded state when the drape is not in use; and a flexible porous material forming a fluid suppression member that is provided integrally with the cover body and the drape, is located on the side facing the outside of the endoscope with respect to the drape, and is disposed at a position facing the forceps port to suppress leakage of a fluid from the forceps valve to the outside of the endoscope in a case where the cover body is mounted on the forceps valve.
However Schulze, in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the drape (Schulze – Fig. 1 Sheath 12) includes a holding member (Schulze – adhesive or take [0027], **Examiner’s note: As previously stated above, Examiner is interpreting holding member as a structure similar to an adhesive tape capable of holding the drape in a specific state.” Here, Schulze teaches a similar structure in the paragraph [0027] because the holding member of Schulze, the adhesive or tape, teaches a structure holding the drape in a specific state, the small configured state until a force is applied and expands the drape within the folds of the sheath 12 opening at the sheath port 24.) configured to hold the drape (Schulze – Fig. 1 Sheath 12) in a folded state when the drape (Schulze – Fig. 1 Sheath 12) is not in use (Schulze – [0027] “Prior to actuation of dilator 16 to an expanded configuration, sheath port 24 can be held closed by tape or other adhesive means between the folds of sheath 12. When an operator actuates (inflates) dilator 16 to change from a small configuration to the expanded configuration (by injection of saline, for example), the longitudinal folds of sheath 12 separate to open sheath port 24. Lumen 13 of access device 10, therefore, is substantially sealed from the contents of the stomach and upper GI until the operator is confident that sheath port 24 is properly positioned in abdominal cavity 3. The operator then may actuate dilator 16 to open sheath port 24.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jiang to include wherein the drape includes a holding member configured to hold the drape in a folded state when the drape is not in use, as taught by Schulze, for the benefit of ensuring the drape is “properly positioned” at a desired position of the operator to ensure a proper sealing (Schulze – [0027]).
Jiang in view of Schulze fail to explicitly disclose a flexible porous material forming a fluid suppression member that is provided integrally with the cover body and the drape, is located on the side facing the outside of the endoscope with respect to the drape, and is disposed at a position facing the forceps port to suppress leakage of a fluid from the forceps valve to the outside of the endoscope in a case where the cover body is mounted on the forceps valve.
However Haruo, in the same field of endeavor teaches a flexible porous material forming a fluid suppression member (Haruo – Fig. 3 forceps plug body 27, [0063] “As shown in FIG. 3, the forceps plug body 27 is made of an elastic material including a rubber material such as … silicon rubber, fluorine rubber, or nitrile butyl rubber…”) that is provided integrally with the cover body (Haruo – Fig. 3 groove portion 24b) and the drape (Haruo – Fig. 3 bag body 28) , is located on the side (Haruo- Fig. 3 side near reference number 28) facing the outside of the endoscope (Haruo – Fig. 5 endoscope 100) with respect to the drape (Haruo – Fig. 3 bag body 28), and is disposed at a position facing the forceps port (Haruo – Fig. 5 forceps port base portion 23) to suppress leakage of a fluid ([0016] “…an object of the present invention is to provide an endoscopic forceps plug that can more effectively prevent backflow leakage.”)from the forceps valve (Haruo - Figs. 3, 5 forceps port member 24) to the outside of the endoscope (Haruo – Fig. 5 endoscope 100) in a case where the cover body (Haruo – Fig. 3 groove portion 24b) is mounted on the forceps valve (Haruo - Figs. 3, 5 forceps port member 24).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang in view of Schulze with the teachings of Haruo to include a flexible porous material forming a fluid suppression member that is provided integrally with the cover body and the drape, is located on the side facing the outside of the endoscope with respect to the drape, and is disposed at a position facing the forceps port to suppress leakage of a fluid from the forceps valve to the outside of the endoscope in a case where the cover body is mounted on the forceps valve for the benefit of tightening a treatment instrument within the forceps channel at the forceps port of an endoscope in state where the treatment instrument is completely inserted into the treatment instrument channel of the endoscope and block backflow of fluid from the treatment instrument channel (Haruo –[0069]).
Regarding Claim 2, Jiang in view of Schultz in view of Haruo teach the endoscope forceps valve cover according to claim 1, wherein the cover body (Jiang - Figs. 1, 9 sealing cap 3) includes a plurality of protruding portions (Fig. 9 endoscope connector 3.5) that protrude toward the endoscope (Jiang - Figs. 1 endoscope 1) in a case where the through-hole (see annotated Jiang - Figs. 9) is aligned with a position of the forceps port (Jiang - Figs. 1 upper opening 1.5), and is mounted on the forceps valve (see annotated Jiang - Figs. 9) by the plurality of protruding portions Fig. 9 endoscope connector 3.5).
PNG
media_image4.png
628
1111
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jiang teaches the “endoscope connector 3.5 of the three-way sealing cap 3 is fixed on the endoscope upper opening 1.5” (Jiang – [col. 4 lines 57-59]) but is silent as to specifically stating whether the plurality of protruding portions are formed of an elastic member and mounted onto the forceps valve by an elastic force of the protruding portions.
However Haruo teaches a plurality of protruding portions (Haruo – Fig. 1 collar portion 25 d) that are formed of an elastic member and mounted on the forceps valve (Haruo – Fig. 1 forceps mouth member 24) by an elastic force of the plurality of protruding portions (Haruo – Fig. 1 collar portion 25 d, [0050] “Next, when the collar portion 25d of the forceps plug body 25 is pushed and expanded to the left and right in the drawing and the closing portion 25a is pushed into the treatment instrument insertion port 24f, the fitting end of the forceps port member 24 is brought about by the elasticity of the forceps plug body 25. The portion securely fits into the fitting space of the forceps plug body 25, and the forceps plug body 25 is attached to the forceps port member 24. In this state, the closing portion 25a of the forceps plug body 25 is inserted into the upper portion of the treatment instrument insertion port 24f of the forceps port member 24.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jiang in view of Schultz in view of Haruo with another embodiment of Haruo to include the plurality of protruding portions are formed of an elastic member and mounted onto the forceps vale by an elastic force of the protruding portions for the benefit of securely fitting the cover body, via the plurality of protrusions, onto the forceps valve (Haruo – [0050]).
Regarding Claim 3, Jiang in view of Schultz in view of Haruo teach the endoscope forceps valve cover according to claim 1, wherein the cover body (Jiang - Figs. 1, 9 sealing cap 3) includes a plurality of protruding portions (Fig. 9 endoscope connector 3.5), protrudes toward the endoscope (Jiang - Figs. 1 endoscope 1) in a case where the through-hole (see annotated Jiang - Figs. 9) is aligned with a position of the forceps port (Jiang - Figs. 1 upper opening 1.5), and is formed in a tubular shape (Figs. 1 and 9 show sealing cap 3 is tubular shaped) having a notched portion (fig. 9 near heat seal hole 3.1), and is mounted on (Jiang – [col. 4 lines 57-59] “…endoscope connector 3.5 of the three-way sealing cap 3 is fixed on the endoscope upper opening 1.5”) the forceps valve (see annotated Jiang - Figs. 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
628
1111
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jiang teaches the “endoscope connector 3.5 of the three-way sealing cap 3 is fixed on the endoscope upper opening 1.5” (Jiang – [col. 4 lines 57-59]) but is silent as to specifically stating whether the plurality of protruding portions are formed of an elastic member and mounted onto the forceps valve by an elastic force of the protruding portions.
However Haruo teaches a plurality of protruding portions (Haruo – Fig. 1 collar portion 25 d) that are formed of an elastic member and mounted on the forceps valve (Haruo – Fig. 1 forceps mouth member 24) by an elastic force of the plurality of protruding portions (Haruo – Fig. 1 collar portion 25 d, [0050] “Next, when the collar portion 25d of the forceps plug body 25 is pushed and expanded to the left and right in the drawing and the closing portion 25a is pushed into the treatment instrument insertion port 24f, the fitting end of the forceps port member 24 is brought about by the elasticity of the forceps plug body 25. The portion securely fits into the fitting space of the forceps plug body 25, and the forceps plug body 25 is attached to the forceps port member 24. In this state, the closing portion 25a of the forceps plug body 25 is inserted into the upper portion of the treatment instrument insertion port 24f of the forceps port member 24.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jiang in view of Schultz in view of Haruo with another embodiment of Haruo to include the plurality of protruding portions are formed of an elastic member and mounted onto the forceps vale by an elastic force of the protruding portions for the benefit of securely fitting the cover body, via the plurality of protrusions, onto the forceps valve (Haruo – [0050]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jiang in view of Schultz in view of Haruo teach the endoscope forceps valve cover according to claim 1, wherein the fluid suppression member is formed of a flexible porous member (Haruo – Fig. 3 forceps plug body 27, [0063] “As shown in FIG. 3, the forceps plug body 27 is made of an elastic material including a rubber material such as … silicon rubber, fluorine rubber, or nitrile butyl rubber…”), has a slit (Haruo - Fig. 3 slit 27e) through which the treatment tool is inserted, and is compressed in an axial direction in a case where the treatment tool is inserted through the slit (Haruo – [0068] “…Next, if the treatment instrument is pushed downward from the top of the slit 27e of the forceps plug body 27 in the drawing, the distal end of the treatment tool expands the slit 27e and enters the drawing downward, and the slit 27e From the lower end, it protrudes into the treatment instrument insertion port 24f below, and is inserted into the treatment instrument channel (not shown) from the channel inlet communication port 24g below in the figure.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo in view of Haruo Akiba (US6117070) hereinafter Akiba.
Regarding Claim 5, Jiang in view of Schultz in view of Haruo teach the endoscope forceps valve cover according to claim 4, wherein the fluid suppression member (Haruo – Fig. 3 forceps plug body 27), has a columnar shape (Haruo – Fig. 3) but is silent as to whether the fluid suppression member also has an axial dimension longer than a radial dimension.
However Akiba, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the fluid suppression member (Akiba – Fig. 7 pressure relief member 26) also has an axial dimension (Akiba – see annotated Fig. 7) longer than a radial dimension (Akiba – see annotated Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image5.png
676
740
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jiang in view of Schultz in view of Haruo to have the fluid suppression member also has an axial dimension longer than a radial dimension for the benefit of creating a space for a pressure relief chamber “ …to reduce the pressure difference between the instrument channel … of the endoscope and the atmosphere” (Akiba – [col. 7 line 60-col. 8 line 12]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo in view of Akiba in view of Hausen et al. (US6869437) hereinafter Hausen.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo in view of Akiba teach the endoscope forceps valve cover according to claim 5. Haruo illustrates in Fig. 3 the fluid suppression member (Haruo – Fig. 3 forceps plug body 27) extending across the whole dimension of the forceps port member 24 which also goes over instrument insertion channel. However, Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo in view of Akiba fails to disclose the dimension of the instrument insertion channel 5.
However Hausen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an instrument insertion channel for a surgical instrument such as a forceps is about 15mm to 22mm. ([col. 7 line 63 – col. 8 line 25] “The small trocar port 64 is a standard trocar port having a substantially circular cross section, substantially 15 mm to 22 mm in diameter. Other diameters may be used.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo in view of Akiba with the teachings of Hausen to have the instrument channel have an axial dimension of 10 mm or more and 20 mm or less because Hausen teaches ‘the standard port for a forceps channel in diameter is around 15mm to 22mm but other diameters may be used’ for the benefit of “…having adequate space is provide for the movement of the appropriate surgical tool…” through the port [col. 8 lines 9-15].
Therefore, if the instrument channel of Haruo is approximately between 15mm to 22mm as taught by Hausen and the foul fluid absorbing member - forceps plug body 27- extends the diameter of the instrument channel as illustrated in Haruo Fig. 3, then it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the fluid suppression member (Haruo – Fig. 3 forceps plug body 27) of Haruo to have an axial dimension of 10mm or more and 20 mm or less for the benefit of “…having adequate space is provide for the movement of the appropriate surgical tool…” through the port [Hausen, col. 8 lines 9-15].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo in view of Richard Hillstead (US4798594) hereinafter Hillstead.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo teach the endoscope forceps valve cover according to claim 4, wherein the slit (Haruo - Fig. 3 slit 27e) is a first slit (Haruo - Fig. 3 slit 27e) parallel to an insertion direction of the treatment tool (Haruo -Fig. 9– Forceps).
Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo is silent as whether a second slit intersecting the first slit is disclosed.
However Hillstead, in the same field of endeavor teaches, a second slit (Figs. 2-5 slits 42,44,46) intersecting the first slit (Figs. 2-5 slit 40) is disclosed
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jiang in view Schulze in Haruo with the teachings of Hillstead to have a first still parallel to an insertion direction of a treatment tool and a second slit intersecting the first slit for the benefit of “…better sealing characteristics over a wide range of diameters of catheters, leads, or the like penetrating the partition valve, as well as other advantages” (Hillstead, abstract).
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 MEGAN E MONAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm.
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 on (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.
/MEGAN ELIZABETH MONAHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795