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 4/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending in the application with claim 11 amended, claims 1-10, 14-20, 22 withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 11-13, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaya (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0020370) in view of Hansen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0231179, hereinafter Hansen).
In regard to claim 11, Yamaya discloses an endoscope (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
an endoscope component (200, Figs. 4A, 4B or 4C),
wherein the endoscope component is an insert-molded body (201, the elevator is capable of being formed insert molding) in which a wire member (201) is embedded (Figs. 4A-4C each illustrate the stranded wire retained within the insert-molded body (201)),
wherein the stranded wire has a covering portion (213 in Figs. 4A and 4B, 201f in Fig. 4C), in which a gap filling member (213 in Figs. 4A and 4B, 201f in Fig. 4C) that fills a gap formed within the wire member is disposed, at one end portion of the stranded wire (Figs. 4A-4C);
wherein the covering portion is disposed at a draw-out portion of the wire member (Figs. 4A-4C); and
wherein the draw-out portion is a portion of the wire member that is drawn out from inside the endoscope component (Figs. 4A-4C).
Yamaya does not expressly teach the wire member is a stranded wire composed of a plurality of elemental wires.
Hansen teaches an analogous endoscope comprising a handle (2) and insertion tube (3) having a steerable tip (33). The handle has a control member (41) for actuating steering wires to impart force from the control member to the steerable tip to deflect the steerable tip. Hansen teaches the steering wire can have any number of configurations, which include a line, a cord, a thread, a string, a rope, a wire rope, a stranded wire rope, a cable, and a fishing line. Additionally, or alternatively, the steering wire may be a monostranded, monofilament, multistranded or multifilament wire. A multistranded wire may also be known as a wire rope. In case of a multistranded wire, the strands may be braided, twisted, woven, coiled, or coiled wound (Par. 30).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wire member (211) of Yamaya to be formed as a stranded wire rope as taught by Hansen as a matter of design choice since Hansen illustrates a multiple of configurations are known in the art for transmitting force from the endoscope handle to a distal end of the endoscope shaft. There being no unexpected results in modifying the wire member of Yamaya to be formed as a stranded wire rope as taught by Hansen.
In regard to claim 12, Yamaya teaches wherein the covering portion comprises an exposed portion exposed from the endoscope component (Figs. 4A-4C illustrate an exposed portion of the covering portion extending outwardly from the component).
In regard to claim 13, Yamaya teaches wherein the stranded wire comprises an extending portion on a distal end side of the stranded wire, the extending portion being exposed from the covering portion in the endoscope component (the reduced diameter portion of the coupling member (213) is considered the covering portion, wherein it can be seen in Figs. 4A and 4B the wire extends distally from the covering portion into a larger diameter covering with the endoscope component).
In regard to claim 21, Yamaya teaches wherein the gap filling member is a pipe externally fitted to an outer peripheral surface of the stranded wire (Figs. 4A-4C).
In regard to claim 23, Yamaya teaches wherein the endoscope component is a raising base (201) disposed at a distal-end-portion main body (25) provided on a distal end side of an insertion unit of the endoscope (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaya (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0020370) in view of Hansen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0231179, hereinafter Hansen), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hosogoe (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0397233).
In regard to claim 15, Yamaya does not expressly teach wherein the endoscope component is an injection molded body made of a resin material.
Hosogoe teaches an analogous endoscope comprising an elevator at a distal end of the endoscope for changing an angle at which a treatment instrument exits a distal end of a working channel of the endoscope. Hosogoe teaches the elevator can be molded from a resin material (Par. 118).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevator of Yamaya to be formed of a resin material as taught by Hosogoe as a matter of design choice thereby forming the elevator of a material having an appropriate tensile yield stress to withstand the forces for actuating the elevator (Par. 116-118).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-13, 15, 21 and 23 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 May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights