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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/6/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 21-36 are pending.
Claims 22 and 33-36 are withdrawn.
Claims 2, 4, and 7-20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed on 8/6/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of Claim 1 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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 33-36 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 21-32, drawn to an endoscope, classified in A61B1/042.
II. Claims 33-36, drawn to an endoscope, classified in A61B1/015.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombination and combination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the endoscopic system does not require an image carrying fiber positioned in a second lumen. The subcombination has separate utility such as in a procedure that does not include increasing the pressure of a lumen by supplying fluid to the lumen from a source of fluid.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Invention I would require a search in at least A61B1/042, along with a unique text search. Invention II would not be searched as above and would instead require a search in at least A61B1/015, along with a unique text search.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22 and 33-36 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected Invention II and non-elected Species II. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 36, lines 4-5, “the pressure sensor is position within a stomach an during the opening” should read “the pressure sensor is position within a stomach during the opening”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 33-36 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 33 recites the limitation "the distal end of the endoscope" in line 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the distal end of the endoscope” is being interpreted as “the distal end of the body.”
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the fluid source" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the fluid source” is being interpreted as “the source of fluid.”
Claims 34-36 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In regards to claim 26, the claim reads “wherein the source of fluid is configured to introduce the fluid through the body and to the stomach.”
Claim 21 does not positively recite the source of fluid as it merely claims that the proximal end of the body is “configured to receive a fluid from a source of fluid.” Therefore, claim 26 is not drawn to any element defined in independent claim 21.
As such, claim 26 is improperly dependent as it fails to limit claim 1 from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 21, 24, 26, 27, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2023/0089053 A1 to Inoue et al. (“Inoue”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2012/0209074 A1 to Titus (“Titus”).
Regarding claim 21, Inoue discloses an endoscope (endoscopic system 1; Fig. 1, paragraph 0028) comprising:
a body (endoscope 2; Fig. 1, paragraph 0028) defining a first lumen (gas feeding channel 26; Fig. 2, paragraph 0037), the body having a distal end (distal end portion of the endoscope 2; Fig. 1, paragraph 0029) and a proximal end (proximal end of endoscope; Fig. 1), the proximal end configured to receive a fluid from a source of fluid (the gas feeding device 5 feeds a gas supplied from a gas supply source … to a portion to be tested in the body cavity via a gas feeding tube 51 inserted in a universal cable 15 connected to the endoscope 2; Fig. 1, paragraph 0031);
a pressure sensor (the pressure sensor 7 as a pressure measuring unit measures the pressure of a portion to be tested in the body cavity via the pressure measuring probe 8; Fig. 1, paragraph 0033) located on the distal end of the body (the pressure measuring probe 8 is inserted in the treatment instrument channel 27. Thus, pressure in the body cavity can be measured from the distal end portion of the endoscope 2; Fig. 2, paragraph 0037);
an imaging device positioned within the body (the CMOS sensor 24, mounted on the endoscope 2; Fig. 2, paragraph 0038), the imaging device being configured to acquire an image of a lower esophageal sphincter (LES) (this is because the main objective of the display unit 6A of the display device 6 is to observe the relaxed state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach on the endoscopic image G1; Fig. 4, paragraph 0060); and
a controller in electrical communication with the pressure sensor (a measurement result of the pressure sensor 7 is outputted to the measurement data processor 11 via the signal conversation device 9; Fig. 2, paragraph 0033), the controller being configured to:
receive, from the pressure sensor, a pressure value when the pressure sensor is positioned within a stomach and during opening of the LES (when it is observed on the endoscopic image G1 that the state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach has changed from the contracted state to the relaxed state, it is possible to promptly diagnose the test subject as having gastroesophageal reflux disease … by also observing changes in the pressure in the body cavity and the presence or absence of a burp sound; Fig. 4, paragraph 0061); and
present, on a display, the pressure value (the area located in the upper right part of the screen displays numeric data G13 on the pressure in the body cavity (e.g. the maximum value of the pressure in the body cavity up until now from the start of the gas feeding, the current value of the pressure in the body cavity, and the amount of the gas fed up until now from the start of the gas feeding); Fig. 3, paragraph 0057).
However, Inoue does not explicitly disclose an image carrying fiber positioned in a second lumen defined by the body.
Titus teaches an image carrying fiber positioned in a second lumen defined by the body (the object lens 40 and the image carrying fiber 42 are located in the second lumen 36; Fig. 3, paragraph 0092).
Titus is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a light source and an imaging unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted the distal imaging unit of Inoue with the proximal imaging unit of Titus, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Titus is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of well known equivalent alternative arrangements for imaging and illumination in endoscopes is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, discloses the endoscope according to claim 21. Inoue further discloses comprising a light transmitting guide positioned in a third lumen defined by the body (a light guide cable (not illustrated), which transmits illumination light, is inserted in the insertion portion; Fig. 2, paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 26, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, discloses the endoscope according to claim 21. Inoue further discloses wherein the source of fluid is configured to introduce the fluid through the body and to the stomach when the distal end of the body is positioned in the stomach to raise an intragastric pressure thereby opening the LES (when a healthy subject is tested, the valve of the cardiac part is in a closed state on the endoscopic image G1 immediately after the start of the gas feeding, but when the gas feeding is continued, the valve opens at a certain time point, and the state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) changes from the contracted state to the relaxed state; paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 27, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, discloses the endoscope according to claim 21. Inoue further discloses wherein the image is a first image and wherein the image carrying fiber is configured to acquire a plurality of images of the LES (a plurality of frames; paragraph 0044);
wherein a second image of the plurality of images depicts the LES in a closed position and the first image of the plurality of images depicts the LES in an open position (it is observed on the endoscopic image G1 that the state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach has changed from the contracted state to the relaxed state; paragraph 0061); and
wherein the display is configured to present the first image and the second image (the video processor 4 … outputs the resulting signal as a video signal to the display device 6; Fig. 4, paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 32, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, discloses the endoscope according to claim 21. Inoue further discloses a light transmitting guide positioned in the body (a light guide cable (not illustrated), which transmits illumination light, is inserted in the insertion portion; Fig. 2, paragraph 0029), wherein the light transmitting guide is configured to provide light to a viewing area being viewed, the viewing area corresponding to the image carrying fiber (transmits illumination light supplied from the light source device 3 so that s subject, such as the inside of a body cavity, is illuminated from a distal end face attached to an illumination window (not illustrated) provided at a distal end portion of the endoscope 2 via an illumination lens; Fig. 1, paragraph 0029).
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Titus and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0321940 A1 to Chandrasoma (“Chandrasoma”).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses an endoscope (endoscopic system 1; Fig. 1, paragraph 0028) comprising:
a body (endoscope 2; Fig. 1, paragraph 0028) defining a first lumen (gas feeding channel 26; Fig. 2, paragraph 0037), the body having a distal end (distal end portion of the endoscope 2; Fig. 1, paragraph 0029) and a proximal end (proximal end of endoscope; Fig. 1), the proximal end configured to receive a fluid from a source of fluid (the gas feeding device 5 feeds a gas supplied from a gas supply source … to a portion to be tested in the body cavity via a gas feeding tube 51 inserted in a universal cable 15 connected to the endoscope 2; Fig. 1, paragraph 0031);
a pressure sensor (the pressure sensor 7 as a pressure measuring unit measures the pressure of a portion to be tested in the body cavity via the pressure measuring probe 8; Fig. 1, paragraph 0033) located on the distal end of the body (the pressure measuring probe 8 is inserted in the treatment instrument channel 27. Thus, pressure in the body cavity can be measured from the distal end portion of the endoscope 2; Fig. 2, paragraph 0037);
an imaging device positioned within the body (the CMOS sensor 24, mounted on the endoscope 2; Fig. 2, paragraph 0038), the imaging device being configured to acquire an image of a lower esophageal sphincter (LES) (this is because the main objective of the display unit 6A of the display device 6 is to observe the relaxed state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach on the endoscopic image G1; Fig. 4, paragraph 0060); and
a controller in electrical communication with the pressure sensor (a measurement result of the pressure sensor 7 is outputted to the measurement data processor 11 via the signal conversation device 9; Fig. 2, paragraph 0033), the controller receiving, from the pressure sensor, a pressure value when the LES opens as indicated by the image (when it is observed on the endoscopic image G1 that the state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach has changed from the contracted state to the relaxed state, it is possible to promptly diagnose the test subject as having gastroesophageal reflux disease … by also observing changes in the pressure in the body cavity and the presence or absence of a burp sound; Fig. 4, paragraph 0061).
However, Inoue does not explicitly disclose an image carrying fiber positioned in a second lumen defined by the body and, the image carrying fiber being configured to acquire an image of a lower esophageal sphincter (LES) when the distal end of the body is positioned in a stomach and faces the LES.
Titus teaches an image carrying fiber positioned in a second lumen defined by the body (the object lens 40 and the image carrying fiber 42 are located in the second lumen 36; Fig. 3, paragraph 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted the distal imaging unit of Inoue with the proximal imaging unit of Titus, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Titus is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of well known equivalent alternative arrangements for imaging and illumination in endoscopes is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Chandrasoma teaches the image carrying fiber being configured to acquire an image of a lower esophageal sphincter (LES) when the distal end of the body is positioned in a stomach and faces the LES (when endoscopy is performed, the endoscope can be passed from the esophagus into the stomach. It can then be retroflexed to obtain a view of the region distal to the esophageal opening; Fig. 5A, paragraph 0214).
Chandrasome is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes configured to observe the LES. As Inoue is not limited to any specific examples of endoscope positions for viewing the LES and as positioning the endoscope in the stomach to view the LES was well known in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by Chandrasoma (paragraph 0214), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use any endoscope position near the LES, including positioning the endoscope within the stomach to view the LES. Said combination would amount to use of a known step for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 3, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus and Chandrasoma, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Inoue, as modified by Titus and Chandrasoma, discloses a display for presenting the pressure value (the display device 6 as a display control device includes … a test information image received from the measurement data processor 11; Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs 0032 and 0057); and
a light transmitting guide positioned in a third lumen defined by the body (a light guide cable (not illustrated), which transmits illumination light, is inserted in the insertion portion; Fig. 2, paragraph 0029), and
wherein the display displays images received from the image carrying fiber (the display device 6 as a display control device includes a display unit 6A that displays an endoscopic image received from the video processor 4; Fig. 4, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus and Chandrasoma, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Inoue further discloses the controller executes a program stored in the controller to record the pressure value (the data inputted to the signal processing unit 102 and the data generated by the signal processing unit 102 are stored in the storage unit 103; Fig. 2, paragraph 0055).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Titus as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chandrasoma.
Regarding claim 23, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, discloses the endoscope according to claim 21. However, Inoue, as modified by Titus, does not explicitly disclose wherein the image of the LES is acquired when the distal end of the image carrying fiber is positioned inside the stomach.
Chandrasoma teaches wherein the image of the LES is acquired when the distal end of the image carrying fiber is positioned inside the stomach (when endoscopy is performed, the endoscope can be passed from the esophagus into the stomach. It can then be retroflexed to obtain a view of the region distal to the esophageal opening; Fig. 5A, paragraph 0214).
As Inoue is not limited to any specific examples of endoscope positions for viewing the LES and as positioning the endoscope in the stomach to view the LES was well known in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by Chandrasoma (paragraph 0214), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use any endoscope position near the LES, including positioning the endoscope within the stomach to view the LES. Said combination would amount to use of a known step for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
Claims 25 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Titus as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No. 2003010105A to Hidekazu (Hidekazu).
Regarding claim 25, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, discloses the endoscope according to claim 21. Inoue further discloses that the opening of the LES is a particular point of interest during the procedure (this is because the main objective of the display unit 6A of the display device 6 is to observe the relaxed state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach on the endoscopic image G1; Fig. 4, paragraph 0060) and specifically, the pressure in the stomach at the opening of the LES is important (when it is observed on the endoscopic image G1 that the state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach has changed from the contracted state to the relaxed state, it is possible to promptly diagnose the test subject as having gastroesophageal reflux disease … by also observing changes in the pressure in the body cavity and the presence or absence of a burp sound; Fig. 4, paragraph 0061). However, Inoue, as modified by Titus, fails to explicitly disclose a switch in electrical communication with the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, from the switch, a user input indicative of the opening of the LES; and
store the pressure value associated with the opening of the LES in memory.
Hidekazu teaches a switch in electrical communication with the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to receive, from a user input device, a user input indicating a particular point of interest during the procedure and receive, from the pressure sensor, the pressure value based on the user input (when the storage button 37 is pressed, the pressure values displayed on the pressure state indicators 36a to 36c at that time are stored in the system; Fig. 1, paragraph 0041). Hidekazu teaches the use of a switch for recording a numerical pressure value, which allows the controller to subsequently recall the stored pressure value during the procedure (paragraph 0041).
Hidekazu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes configured to measure pressure. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, to incorporate the teachings of Hidekazu by adding a user input for indicating the opening of the LES and recording a numerical pressure value. Doing so would allow the controller to subsequently recall the stored pressure value during the procedure, as recognized by Hidekazu.
Regarding claim 28, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, discloses the endoscope according to claims 21 and 27. Inoue further discloses that the opening of the LES is a particular point of interest during the procedure(this is because the main objective of the display unit 6A of the display device 6 is to observe the relaxed state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach on the endoscopic image G1; Fig. 4, paragraph 0060) and specifically, the pressure in the stomach at the opening of the LES is important (when it is observed on the endoscopic image G1 that the state of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) of the cardiac part of the stomach has changed from the contracted state to the relaxed state, it is possible to promptly diagnose the test subject as having gastroesophageal reflux disease … by also observing changes in the pressure in the body cavity and the presence or absence of a burp sound; Fig. 4, paragraph 0061). However, Inoue, as modified by Titus, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, from a user input device, a user input indicating that the LES has opened; and
receive, from the pressure sensor, the pressure value when the pressure sensor is
positioned within the stomach and during the opening of the LES, based on the user input.
Hidekazu teaches wherein the controller is further configured to receive, from a user input device, a user input indicating a particular point of interest during the procedure and receive, from the pressure sensor, the pressure value based on the user input (when the storage button 37 is pressed, the pressure values displayed on the pressure state indicators 36a to 36c at that time are stored in the system; Fig. 1, paragraph 0041). Hidekazu teaches the use of a switch for recording a numerical pressure value, which allows the controller to subsequently recall the stored pressure value during the procedure (paragraph 0041).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Inoue, as previously modified by Titus, to incorporate the teachings of Hidekazu by adding a user input for indicating the opening of the LES and recording a numerical pressure value. Doing so would allow the controller to subsequently recall the stored pressure value during the procedure, as recognized by Hidekazu.
Regarding claim 29, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus and Hidekazu, discloses the endoscope according to claims 21 and 27-28. Hidekazu further discloses wherein the user input device is a switch of the endoscope (storage button 37; Fig. 1, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 30, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus and Hidekazu, discloses the endoscope according to claims 21 and 27-28. Inoue further discloses wherein the pressure value is a first pressure value and wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, from the pressure sensor, a second pressure value when the pressure sensor is positioned within the stomach and before opening of the LES (pressure values displayed in G11 located prior to the sudden decrease which is associated with the opening of the LES in a healthy subject; Fig. 3, paragraph 0062); and
receive, from the pressure sensor, a third pressure value when the pressure sensor is positioned within the stomach and after opening of the LES, wherein the third pressure value is received after the first pressure value (pressure values displayed in G11 located after the sudden decrease which is associated with the opening of the LES in a healthy subject; Fig. 3, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 31, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus and Hidekazu, discloses the endoscope according to claims 21, 27-28, and 30. Inoue further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to store the first pressure value, the second pressure value, and the third pressure value in memory (the display unit 11A of the measurement data processor 11 may display not only the test information image G2 generated based on the data being acquired but also a recorded/playback image G3 generated by reading data recorded on the recording unit 103 … the area located in the upper left part of the screen displays the pressure transition graph G11; Fig. 8, paragraph 0068).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Titus and Chandrasoma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hidekazu.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue, as previously modified by Titus and Chandrasoma, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 5. However, Inoue, as modified by Titus and Chandrasoma, fails to explicitly disclose a switch in electrical communication with the controller, wherein the controller executes the program stored in the controller to record a numerical pressure value when the switch is activated.
Hidekazu teaches a switch in electrical communication with the controller, wherein the controller executes the program stored in the controller to record a numerical pressure value when the switch is activated (when the storage button 37 is pressed, the pressure values displayed on the pressure state indicators 36a to 36c at that time are stored in the system; Fig. 1, paragraph 0041). Hidekazu teaches the use of a switch for recording a numerical pressure value, which allows the controller to subsequently recall the stored pressure value during the procedure (paragraph 0041).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Inoue, as previously modified by Titus and Chandrasoma, to incorporate the teachings of Hidekazu by adding a switch for recording a numerical pressure value. Doing so would allow the controller to subsequently recall the stored pressure value during the procedure, as recognized by Hidekazu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2002/0183590 A1 to Ogawa teaches a switch configured to store a still image as described in the descriptive text.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA G STARKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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 5712707235. 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.
/OLIVIA GRACE STARKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights