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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1-10 are pending, claims 4-6 have been withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-3 and 7-10 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104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 12/09/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (U.S. 5,454,366).
With respect to claim 1, Ito et al. teaches an endoscope comprising:
a distal end rigid portion (11,12) that constitutes a distal end side of an endoscope insertion part;
a bendable portion (1) that is bendable and is consecutively provided on a proximal end side of the distal end rigid portion;
an exterior constituent member (12) that constitutes an exterior of the distal end rigid portion;
an internal constituent member (11b) disposed inside the exterior constituent member;
a bendable portion constituent member (distalmost 2) that constitutes a connecting part with the exterior constituent member;
a first fixture that fixes the exterior constituent member and the internal constituent member to each other (unlabeled screw, FIG. 6, see also distal screw FIG. 2); and
a second fixture that fixes the exterior constituent member and the bendable portion constituent member to each other (unlabeled screw FIG. 1, see also proximal screw FIG. 2),
wherein the first fixture and the second fixture are disposed at positions different from each other in a peripheral direction around a longitudinal axis direction of the endoscope insertion part (FIG. 2, wherein distal screw is located on the dorsal side and proximal screw is located on the ventral side), and
the first fixture and the second fixture are disposed closer to each other in the longitudinal axis direction relative to a case where the first fixture and the second fixture are disposed at the same position in the peripheral direction and are disposed at positions where a distance in the longitudinal axis direction between the first fixture and the second fixture is shortest (FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 2, Ito et al. teaches wherein the exterior constituent member has a first hole portion into which the first fixture is inserted and a second hole portion into which the second fixture is inserted (FIG. 2),
the first hole portion and the second hole portion are disposed at positions different from each other in the peripheral direction (FIG. 2), and
the first hole portion and the second hole portion are disposed close to each other in the longitudinal axis direction relative to a case where the first hole portion and the second hole portion are disposed at the same position in the peripheral direction and are disposed at positions where a distance in the longitudinal axis direction between the first hole portion and the second hole portion is shortest (FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 7, Ito et al. teaches the exterior constituent member is provided with three first hole portions and three second hole portions (FIG. 1, 6).
With respect to claim 8, Ito et al. teaches the first hole portion and the second hole portion are screw holes (FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 9, Ito et al. teaches the first fixture and the second fixture are screw members (FIG. 2).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (U.S. 5,454,366) in view of Kohno (U.S. 2004/0082883).
Ito et al. teaches an endoscope as set forth above. However, Ito et al. does not teach an ultrasound oscillator.
With respect to claim 10, Kohno teaches an endoscope wherein wherein an internal constituent member is an ultrasound oscillator fixing frame (40) having an outer peripheral surface on which a plurality of ultrasound oscillators are arranged along the peripheral direction (41, para [0044]).
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 Ito et al. to utilize an ultrasound oscillator fixing frame in the manner taught by Kohno in order to provide a means of visually guided biopsy (para [0042] of Kohno).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, it is noted that FIG. 12b is directed to a non-elected embodiment.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ito fails to disclose the situation “the first fixture and the second fixture are disposed at the same position in the peripheral direction,” this is not persuasive. Applicant’s claimed endoscope requires a first fixture and a second fixture disposed at positions different from each other in a peripheral direction around a longitudinal axis direction of the endoscope insertion part. The claim then compares the location of the claimed first and second fixtures to a theoretical separate configuration wherein the first fixture and second fixture are disposed at the same position in the peripheral direction. However the claim does not require the endoscope itself to have the first fixture and second fixture located at the same peripheral location. In fact it would be physically impossible and therefore create a number of issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the Applicant to assert that the claim requires the first and second fixture to simultaneously be disposed at different peripheral locations and the same peripheral location.
In response to Applicant’s argument Ito also fails to disclose that in the setup of FIG. 2, a distance in the longitudinal axis direction between the first fixture and the second fixture is the shortest, this is not persuasive at least because Applicant has not provided any specific arguments as to how Ito fails to meet this limitation beyond mere assertion. The claim term “shortest” is relative and not clearly defined as shortest with respect to any specific parameter.
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 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