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 8/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10 are pending in the application with claims 1, 10 amended.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwae et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0309994, hereinafter Kuwae) in view of Ladet et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0148609, hereinafter Lade).
In regard to claim 1, Kuwae discloses an endoscope (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
an insertion part (2) having a distal end surface (42) provided on a distal end side to be inserted into a subject (Fig. 1);
an observation window (22S) that is provided in the distal end surface and that is used to observe an inside of the subject (Fig. 2);
a nozzle (28) that is provided in the distal end surface and that jets a fluid toward the observation window (Fig. 2);
a forceps port (26) that is provided in the distal end surface and that is used to lead out a treatment tool or to suck the fluid (Fig. 2), and
a ridge portion (52S,80,84,88) that protrudes from the distal end surface and that is provided between the nozzle and the observation window (Fig. 3),
wherein the distal end surface has:
water repellency in a nozzle facing region (surface (52S) of the ridge portion, Fig. 3) which is provided between the nozzle and the observation window and is adjacent to a part of an opening end part of the forceps port (surface (52S) has lower surface energy with respect to the distal end cover (42) thereby aiding in preventing water from accumulating on the surface, Par. 117); and
hydrophilicity in a forceps port adjacent region (see annotated Fig. 2) which is provided on a side of the forceps port opposite to the nozzle facing region with the forceps port interposed therebetween and is adjacent to other part of the opening end part of the forceps port (the forceps port adjacent region, disposed as part of the distal end part (42), has higher surface energy allowing liquid to adhere better to the surface relative to surface 52S, Par. 117)
wherein the nozzle facing region is disposed on the ridge portion (Fig. 3),
Kuwae teaches the distal end surface (i.e. forceps port adjacent region) having higher surface energy than the nozzle facing region (52S), Par. 117, however Kuwae fails to specifically teach wherein a surface roughness Ra of the nozzle facing region is smaller than 0.4 um, and a surface roughness Ra of the forceps port adjacent region is larger than 0.4 um.
Ladet teaches providing a coating for a objective lens of a camera for a laparoscope in which the coating provides hydrophobic properties to the objective lens thereby wicking water away from the objectives lens. The coating is provided with a surface roughness of between 1 nanometer to 20 micrometers (Par. 18). Ladet further teaches the coating is applied to the lens via an adhesive and can be removed from the lens when a surgical operation is finished for sterilization (Par. 45).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nozzle facing surface and observation window of Kuwae with the coating of Ladet as a matter of design choice as a means known in the art for providing hydrophobic properties to an observation window of an endoscope thereby preventing soiling and adhesion of biological tissue from the observation window (Par. 45). Since Ladet teaches the hydrophobic properties are achieved by providing a roughness to the coating of between 1 nanometer to 20 micrometeres, it would read on the claimed language of the nozzle facing surface having a roughness of less than 0.4 micrometers due to the overlapping range of Ladet and the claimed language. Additionally, since Kuwae teaches the forceps port adjacent region having higher surface energy, i.e. hydrophilic properties, the forceps port adjacent region would have a roughness greater than the hydrophobic range taught by Ladet.
PNG
media_image1.png
751
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Kuwae teaches wherein the distal end surface has a forceps port forming surface portion (portion of cover (42) adjacent the forceps port) in which the forceps port is formed, and a protruding surface portion (72,74) formed so as to protrude toward a front side, which is the distal end side, with respect to the forceps port forming surface portion (Fig. 2), and
at least one of the observation window or the nozzle is disposed on the protruding surface portion (Fig. 2 shows the observation window on the protruding portion).
In regard to claim 3, Kuwae teaches wherein the protruding surface portion has an observation window-disposed surface portion (52S,72) in which the observation window is disposed, and a nozzle-disposed surface portion (74) in which the nozzle is disposed (Fig. 5D), and
the observation window-disposed surface portion protrudes to the front side with respect to the nozzle-disposed surface portion (Fig. 5D).
In regard to claim 4, Kuwae teaches wherein the protruding surface portion has water repellency (portion (52S) has water repellency).
In regard to claim 5, Kuwae teaches wherein the forceps port is disposed at a position close to the nozzle facing region (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 6, Kuwae teaches wherein the distal end surface has water repellency in a nozzle peripheral region (74S) provided on a side of the nozzle facing region opposite to the forceps port with the nozzle facing region interposed therebetween (via sloped surface repels water from reach observation window surface (22S) as shown in Fig. 4 and instead follows guide path (90s)).
In regard to claim 7, Kuwae teaches wherein the nozzle has a jet port for jetting the fluid, and at least a part of the forceps port is provided on an observation window side with respect to a reference line, which is an extension line of the jet port (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
771
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 8, Kuwae teaches wherein the distal end surface has hydrophilicity in a fluid discharge region (76) provided on a side of the observation window opposite to the nozzle facing region with the observation window interposed therebetween (liquid discharge part (76) is part of the cover (42) which has high surface energy, i.e. hydrophilic).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwae et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0309994, hereinafter Kuwae) in view of Saito (JP 07-313442 A).
In regard to claim 10, Kuwae discloses an endoscope (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
an insertion part (2) having a distal end surface (42) provided on a distal end side to be inserted into a subject (Fig. 1);
an observation window (22S) that is provided in the distal end surface and that is used to observe an inside of the subject (Fig. 2);
a nozzle (28) that is provided in the distal end surface and that jets a fluid toward the observation window (Fig. 2);
a forceps port (26) that is provided in the distal end surface and that is used to lead out a treatment tool or to suck the fluid (Fig. 2), and
a ridge portion (52S,80,84,88) that protrudes from the distal end surface and that is provided between the nozzle and the observation window (Fig. 3),
wherein the distal end surface has:
water repellency in a nozzle facing region (surface (52S) of the ridge portion, Fig. 3) which is provided between the nozzle and the observation window and is adjacent to a part of an opening end part of the forceps port (surface (52S) has lower surface energy with respect to the distal end cover (42) thereby aiding in preventing water from accumulating on the surface, Par. 117); and
hydrophilicity in a forceps port adjacent region (see annotated Fig. 2) which is provided on a side of the forceps port opposite to the nozzle facing region with the forceps port interposed therebetween and is adjacent to other part of the opening end part of the forceps port (the forceps port adjacent region, disposed as part of the distal end part (42), has higher surface energy allowing liquid to adhere better to the surface relative to surface 52S, Par. 117)
wherein the nozzle facing region is disposed on the ridge portion (Fig. 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
751
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuwae does not expressly teach wherein a surface of the nozzle facing region has a contact angle with respect to the fluid of 80° or more, and a surface of the forceps port adjacent region has a contact angle with respect to the fluid of 70°or less.
Saito teaches an analogous endoscope in which the distal end is formed of water repelling regions and hydrophilic regions. The water repelling regions has a wetting angle of no less then 70°, preferably 90° or more, and the hydrophilic regions have a wetting angle of 50°, preferably 30° or less (Par. 27).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle facing region and forceps port adjacent region of Kuwae to have a contact angle of 90° or more for the nozzle facing region and 30° or less for the forceps port adjacent region as taught by Saito as a matter of design choice to create hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions by altering the wetting angle of the surface of each region. There being no unexpected results in modifying the wetting angle of the nozzle facing region of Kuwae to be 90° or more and the forceps port adjacent region of Kuwae to be 30° or less with the teaching of Saito.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10 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.
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 August 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights