Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/057,151

OPERATION UNIT AND ENDOSCOPE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 18, 2022
Examiner
SURGAN, ALEXANDRA L
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
229 granted / 490 resolved
-23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
533
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
56.2%
+16.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 490 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered. Status of Claims Applicant’s amendments mailed 12/11/2025have be entered. Claims 1-12 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104 Foreign Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copies have been received. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 009/17/2025, 09/29/2025, and 12/03/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intintoli et al. (U.S. 2019/0298321) in view of Lee-Sepsick (D692,134). With respect to claim 1, Intintoli et al. teaches an operation unit that is connected to a proximal end side of an insertion unit of an endoscope, the insertion unit being provided with an optical system and an image pickup unit picking up an image of light passing through the optical system (para [0110],[0115] for example), the operation unit comprising: a grip part that extends in a direction of an insertion axis of the insertion unit (FIG. 3B); a first flat surface portion that is formed on an outer surface of the grip part at a position on a top side in a vertical direction, extends in the direction of the insertion axis, and is perpendicular to the vertical direction in a case where a direction which indicates a top and a bottom of an image formed from image pickup signals output from the image pickup unit, among directions perpendicular to the direction of the insertion axis, is defined as the vertical direction (FIG. 2B,C for example); an operation member (1144) that includes a finger placing portion on which a finger of a practitioner who grips the grip part is placeable, wherein the operation member is configured to receive an operation by the finger placed on the finger placing portion (para [0111]). However, Intintoli et al. does not expressly teach a second flat surface portion. With respect to claim 1, Lee-Sepsick et al. teaches an operation unit comprising: a second flat surface portion that is formed on the outer surface of the grip part at a position on a bottom side in the vertical direction, extends in the direction of the insertion axis, and is perpendicular to the vertical direction (FIG. 4, 5, 7, 8), Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the grip part of Intintoli et al. to have a second flat surface in the manner taught by Lee-Sepsick et al. because doing so would be a simple substitution of one known shape for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable. As a result of this modification, the shape of the first flat surface portion (FIG. 2B of Intintoli for example) is different from that of the second surface portion (FIG. 4,5,7,8 OF Lee-Sepsick et al.). With respect to claim 2, Lee-Sepsick et al. teaches the grip part includes a first curved surface portion that connects a side edge portion of the first flat surface portion positioned on one side in a perpendicular direction to a side edge portion of the second flat surface portion positioned on the one side in the perpendicular direction and that bulges on the one side in the perpendicular direction in a case where a direction perpendicular to both the direction of the insertion axis and the vertical direction is defined as the perpendicular direction, and a second curved surface portion that connects a side edge portion of the first flat surface portion positioned on the other side in the perpendicular direction to a side edge portion of the second flat surface portion positioned on the other side in the perpendicular direction and that bulges on the other side in the perpendicular direction (FIGS. 1, 2, 7, 8). With respect to claim 3, Intintoli et al. teaches a proximal end portion of the grip part is formed in a shape of a dome (FIG. 2C for example). With respect to claim 4, Intintoli et al. teaches the first flat surface portion is formed over a proximal end portion of the grip part from a distal end portion of the grip part (FIG. 2B,C). With respect to claim 4, Lee-Sepsick teaches the second flat surface portion is formed over a position on a front side of the proximal end portion of the grip part form the distal end portion of the grip part, and a part of the proximal end portion of the grip part is a bulging portion that bulges on the bottom side of the second flat surface portion in the vertical direction (FIG. 4, 5). With respect to claim 5, Lee-Sepsick teaches an inclined flat surface portion that is connected between a proximal end of the second flat surface portion and the bulging portion and that is include toward the bottom side in the vertical direction the further it extends toward a proximal side from the proximal end of the second flat surface portion (FIG, 4, 5). With respect to claim 6, Intintoli et al. teaches a cable insertion portion (1124) which protrudes at a position offset to the bottom side in the vertical direction from a proximal apex of a proximal end portion of the grip part (FIG. 2B for example) and into which a cable to be connected to the image pickup unit is inserted (para [0089] for example)), wherein as viewed in a perpendicular direction perpendicular to both the direction of the insertion axis and the vertical direction, the cable insertion portion protrudes in a direction that corresponds to a proximal end side of the proximal end portion of the grip part and is inclined toward the bottom side in the vertical direction with respect to the direction of the insertion axis (FIG. 2B for example). With respect to claim 8, Intintoli teaches the grip part is made of a rubber material or a resin material (para [0132]). With respect to claim 9, Intintoli in view of Lee-Sepsick teaches an endoscope comprising: an insertion unit that is provided with an optical system and an image pickup unit picking up an image of light passing through the optical system (para [0110],[0115] of Intintoli); and the operation unit according to claim 1 (see rejection above) that is connected to a proximal end side of the insertion unit (FIG. 2c of Intintoli). Claim(s) 7, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intintoli et al. (U.S. 2019/0298321) in view of Lee-Sepsick (D692,134) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lucey et al. (U.S. 5,621,830). Intintoli et al. inview of Lee-Sepsick teaches an endoscope as set forth above. However, Intintoli et al. in view of Lee-Sepsick does not teach an outer pipe, protection sheath, and inner sheath. With respect to claim 7, Lucey et al. teaches an inner sheath-fixing part that is provided in the grip part not to be rotatable relative to the grip part in a direction around the insertion axis and that fixes a proximal end side of an inner sheath (6:10-24) in a case where the insertion unit includes an outer pipe (92) held on a distal end side of the grip part to be relatively rotatable in the direction around the insertion axis (6:10-24), a protection sheath (90) inserted into the outer pipe and rotating in the direction around the insertion axis integrally with the outer pipe (6:10-24), and an inner sheath (54) inserted into the protection sheath and rotatable relative to the outer pile and to the protection sheath in the direction around the insertion axis (6:10-24), the optical system is provided on a distal end side of the protection sheath (FIG. 6), and the image pickup unit is provided on a distal end side of the inner sheath (FIG. 2); and an annular rotational operation member (16) that is fixed to a proximal end side of the outer pipe and rotates the outer pipe in the direction around the insertion axis (6:10-24). With respect to claim 10, Lucey et al. teaches the insertion unit includes an outer pipe (92) held on a distal end side of the grip part to be relatively rotatable in a direction around the insertion axis (6:10-24), a protection sheath (90) inserted into the outer pipe (FIG. 6) and rotating in the direction around the insertion axis integrally with the outer pipe (6:10-24), an inner sheath (54) inserted into the protection sheath and rotatable relative to the outer pipe and to the protection sheath in the direction around the insertion axis (6:10-24), and an inner sheath-fixing part that is provided in the grip part (FIG. 5) not to be rotatable relative to the grip part in the direction around the insertion axis and that fixes a proximal end side of the inner sheath (6:10-24), the optical system is provided on a distal end side of the protection sheath (FIG. 6), and the image pickup unit is provided on a distal end side of the inner sheath (FIG. 2). With respect to claim 11, Lucey et al. teaches the operation member is annular-shaped (16) and is fixed to a proximal end side of the outer pipe (FIG. 5) and rotates the outer pipe in a direction around the insertion axis (6:10-24). With respect to claim 12, Lucey et al. teaches the optical system includes a refractive optical element refracting light incident in a direction which is included with respect tot the insertion axis, in a direction parallel to the insertion axis (FIG. 2). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Intintoli et al. to utilize the insertion unit as taught by Lucey et al. in order to allow the user to view different areas without requiring that the entire endoscope be rotated (1:25-33) of Lucey et al.), Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that in Lee-Sepsick, the upper surface has the same shape as the lower surface according to the symmetries of the figures. This is not persuasive at least because the primary reference of Intintoli is relied upon to teach the first flat surface. It is clear when comparing FIG. 2B of Intintoli with FIG. 4 of Lee-Sepsick that the first flat surface has a different profile shape than the second flat surface as taught in Lee-Sepsick. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm EST. 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 (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. /ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 11, 2025
Interview Requested
May 19, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 19, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 23, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593958
ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564310
ENDOSCOPE AND ENDOSCOPE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544160
CONTINUUM INSTRUMENT AND SURGICAL ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539022
ARTICULATION CONTROL DEVICE AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12533263
Ear Cleaning Arrangement
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+27.5%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 490 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month