Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/169,324

FLEXIBLE TUBE FOR ENDOSCOPE, ENDOSCOPE MEDICAL DEVICE, AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 15, 2023
Examiner
HENDERSON, RYAN N
Art Unit
3795
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 3m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
514 granted / 807 resolved
-6.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 3m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
853
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 807 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-9 are pending in the application with claim 1 amended, claims 8, 9 withdrawn, claims 2-4 cancelled. 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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitani et al. (WO 2019/013243 A1, hereinafter Yoshitani) using US2020/0100652 as an English equivalent in view of Ailinger et al. (US Patent No. 5,271,381, hereinafter Ailinger). In regard to claim 1, Yoshitani discloses a flexible tube (3a) for an endoscope (2), the flexible tube comprising: a flexible-tube base (11, 12) that is tubular and that has flexibility (Fig. 2); and a polymer cover layer (15) covering the flexible-tube base (Fig. 2), wherein the flexible-tube base has a spiral tube (11) made of a metal strip and a tubular mesh member (12) covering the spiral tube and made of braided metal wires (Par. 42), and the flexible tube comprises, between the flexible-tube base and the polymer cover layer, a primer layer including a silane coupling agent (Par. 9), wherein the silane coupling agent includes an amino silane coupling agent (Par. 9), wherein the polymer cover layer has a two-layer structure (17, 18) composed of an inner layer and an outer layer and a polyurethane elastomer is included at least in the inner layer in contact with the primer layer (Par. 76). Yoshitani does not expressly teach the tubular mesh member has a porosity of 3% to 6%. Ailinger teaches an analogous endoscope comprising an insertion tube (31) having a bending section (32). The insertion tube includes a plurality of vertebrae (39) surrounded by a metal braid (72) and, a polymeric jacket (74) and a sheath (76). The metal braid (72) is a relatively heavy braid providing greater torsional stability. The metal braid (72) preferably provides a coverage of 85-100% (Col. 7, Lines 17-27). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tubular mesh member (12) of Yoshitani to provide a coverage in the range of 94-97% as taught by Ailinger since Ailinger teaches the range of coverage can be 85-100% which encompasses the range of 94-97% provides increased torsional stability and adjusting the coverage would merely increase or decrease the degree of torsional stability of the insertion tube. There being no unexpected results in modifying the tubular mesh member of Yoshitani to have a coverage within the range of 85-100% as taught by Ailinger, which encompasses the range of 94-97%. In regard to claim 5, Yoshitani teaches wherein metal that constitutes the flexible-tube base is stainless steel (Par. 124). In regard to claim 6, Yoshitani teaches wherein metal that constitutes the flexible-tube base has a passivation film on a surface of the metal (Par.124). In regard to claim 7, Yoshitani and Ailinger discloses an endoscopic medical device (2) comprising the flexible tube for an endoscope according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5-7 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 January 20, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599298
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING PHYSICAL CONTACT OF A SURGICAL INSTRUMENT WITH PATIENT TISSUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588804
ENDOSCOPE BENDING SECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12543931
ENDOSCOPE CONTROL UNIT WITH BRAKING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543928
ELEVATOR FOR DIRECTING MEDICAL TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539019
A HANDLE FOR AN ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+17.9%)
4y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 807 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month