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 .
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 1-8 and 10 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 a surface roughness Ra of the nozzle facing region is smaller than 0.4, and a surface roughness Ra of the forceps port adjacent region is larger than 0.4” in Lines 19-20, however the claim fails to recite the metric in which surface roughness is being measured to arrive at the 0.4 number and therefore it’s unclear the scope of the claimed limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein a contact angle with respect to the nozzle facing region is 80° or more, and a contact angle with respect to the forceps port adjacent region is 70° or less” in Lines 2-4, wherein it’s unclear what the contact angle is referring to since the limitation of “a contact angle with respect to the nozzle racing region is 80°” and “a contact angle with respect to the forceps port adjacent region is 70°” however these limitations are not descriptive regarding what the contact angle is referring to and additionally the phrasing of “with respect to” is not abundantly clear if the contact angle is part of the designated region. The examiner suggests amending the language to recite, inter alia, a surface of the nozzle facing region has a contact angle with respect to fluid of 80° and a surface of the forceps port adjacent region has a contact angle with respect to fluid of 70°. Appropriate correction is required.
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 –
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuwae et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0309994, hereinafter Kuwae).
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),
wherein a surface roughness Ra of the nozzle facing region is smaller than 0.4, and a surface roughness Ra of the forceps port adjacent region is larger than 0.4 (Kuwae teaches of the distal end surface (i.e. forceps port adjacent region) having higher surface energy than the nozzle facing region (52S), Par. 117 and therefore would have the designated surface roughness characteristics as claimed depending on the units being used to determine surface roughness).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of Kuwae does not teach the surface roughness Ra of the outer surface of the ridge portion and therefore fails to teach the surface roughness Ra vales as claimed.
The examiner disagrees since the claim fails specify units associated with the surface roughness and since Kuwae teaches the nozzle facing region having lower surface energy and the forceps port adjacent region having higher surface energy, the surface roughness of the regions can fall within the range of the claimed surface roughness values depending on the units being used.
Conclusion
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 May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights