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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated June 22, 2026.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 12, 16, and 18-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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 12 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. More specifically, dependent Claim 12 is a duplicate of dependent Claim 6. 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 § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Specifically, there is no antecedent basis for “the two projection portions are disposed on the side surface of the holder so as to face each other at an interval along the height direction orthogonal to an optical axis of the image pickup lens”, as claimed in lines 17-18.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets this phrase as “the projection portion is disposed on the side surface of the holder so as to face each other another projection at an interval along the height direction orthogonal to an optical axis of the image pickup lens”.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “each of the pair of arm portion is disposed between the two projecting portions, and the projecting portion, the arm portion and the projecting portion are linearly arranged in this order” as claimed in lines 19-20. That is, it is unclear if “the projecting portion” and “the projecting portion” are the same projecting portion of different projecting portions.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes, the phrase “the projecting portion, the arm portion and the projecting portion are linearly arranged in this order” is interpreted as “each arm portion of the pair of arm portions is disposed between the projecting portions”.
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 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”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 12, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano ‘780 (US PGPUB 2016/0249780 – “Kitano ‘780”) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0128669 – “Kobayashi”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitano ‘780 discloses:
An endoscope image pickup device (Examiner-annotated Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2 shown below, imaging unit 20) that acquires an image of an observation target,
PNG
media_image1.png
492
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the endoscope image pickup device comprising:
a lens barrel (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, lens barrel 22) provided with an internal image pickup lens (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 6, showing lenses within lens barrel 22);
an image pickup element (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, image sensor 21) that receives light which has passed through the image pickup lens to perform photoelectric conversion (Kitano ‘780 paragraph [0025], “an imaging optical system for forming a subject image on a photodetecting surface 21a of the image sensor 21”);
a holder (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, holder 23) that holds the lens barrel (Kitano ‘780 paragraph [0025], “holder 23 which holds the image sensor 21 and the lens barrel 22”);
a signal cable (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, electric wires 27) electrically connected to the image pickup element (Kitano’780 paragraph [0031], “circuit board 24 and the image sensor 21 mounted on it are connected to the processor unit 4 via the plural electric wires 27”); and
a connecting member (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, cover portion 34) that connects the holder and the signal cable to each other (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, pressure pieces 38 of cover portion 34 that attach to the electric wires 27, and Examiner-annotated Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3 shown below, showing cover portion 34 connected to holder flange of holder 23),
PNG
media_image2.png
502
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the holder and the connecting member are engaged with each other at an engaging portion (Kitano ‘780, FIG. 2, surface of projecting portion of holder flange engaged with arm portion of cover portion 34),
the connecting member has a pair of arm portions (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3, arm portion of side walls 35) facing each other,
the holder has a projecting portion (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, projecting portion) on a side surface (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3, proximal side surface of holder flange),
the projecting portion protrudes in a direction perpendicular to the side surface (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3, showing projecting portion protruding in a direction perpendicular to the proximal side surface of holder flange) in a state in which each of the pair of arm portions is bonded to the side surface of the holder (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, showing arm portion bonded to side surface of holder flange of holder 23);
the projection portion is disposed on the side surface of the holder so as to face another projection at an interval along the height direction orthogonal to an optical axis of the image pickup lens” (Examiner-annotated Kitano FIG. 4 shown below, in which a first projection portion adjacent to the image sensor 21 faces another projection portion at an interval along the height direction orthogonal to the optical axis of the lens barrel 22),
PNG
media_image3.png
504
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
each arm portion of the pair of arm portions is disposed between the projecting portions (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3, showing an arm portion between a projection portion and another projection portion), and
a gap between the projecting portion and each of the pair of arm portions in the height direction is 5 µm or more (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3, showing vertical/height gap between projection portion and one or the arm portions).
Kitano ‘780 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the engaging portion of the holder and the connecting member are connected by an adhesive containing a filler, and wherein the filler has a form of particles.
Kobayashi is analogous art in the field of endoscopic devices that teaches:
wherein the holder (Kobayashi FIG. 4, lens frame 47) and the connecting member (Kobayashi FIG. 4, distal end cover 24) are engaged with each other at an engaging portion (Kobayashi FIG. 4, distal end hard section 23), and the engaging portion is provided with an adhesive layer (Kobayashi FIG. 4, adhesive layer 25) containing a filler (Kobayashi paragraph [0034], “adhesive composition according to the embodiment includes alumina as a filler”), and wherein the filler has a form of particles (Kobayashi paragraph [0011], “filler may further contain spherical alumina having an average particle diameter of 1 µm”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Kobayashi’s adhesive composition with filler in the endoscope image pickup device disclosed by Kitano ‘780. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a securely assembled endoscope (see paragraph [0005] of Kobayashi, “A medical instrument such as an endoscope device or the like is generally configured such that a plurality of members are assembled using an adhesive”). Furthermore, it would be "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., Kobayashi and Kitano ‘780) to be combined with a reasonable expectation of success of securely assembling the claimed device.
Regarding Claim 2, Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kobayashi further teaches wherein the adhesive layer has a thickness of 5 µm or more (Kobayashi paragraph [0093], “The adhesive composition was applied on the flat plate formed of SUS, and cured at 80.degree. C. for two hours to manufacture an appearance estimation specimen 1 in which an adhesive layer (a film thickness of 100 µm) was formed on the flat plate.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kitano ‘780 further discloses:
wherein each of the pair of arm portions (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, arm portion(s)) has a latch portion that latches onto the projecting portion of the holder (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 1, interfacing surfaces between projecting portion and arm portion) in an optical axis direction of an optical axis of the image pickup lens (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, showing interface between projecting portion and arm portion in the optical axis of the imaging optical system 22).
Kobayashi further teaches a position of the connecting member in the optical axis direction is restricted by the latch portion (Kobayashi FIG. 4, lens frame 47 and distal end cover 24 secured to distal end hard section 23 by adhesive layer 25, such that the position of the distal end cover 24 is restricted by the adhesive layer 25).
Regarding Claim 9, Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the adhesive layer has the filler and a resin containing the filler (Kobayashi paragraph [0009], “adhesive composition…includes one or more kinds of epoxy resin…and a filler which contains alumina”), and
a thermal conductivity of the filler is higher than a thermal conductivity of the resin. (Examiner notes that the thermal conductivity of alumina filler is 16-30 W/m·K, and thermal conductivity of epoxy resin is approximately 0.2 W/m·K. See attached documents “Epoxy Technology” and “Associated Ceramics”: “Understanding How to Choose an Appropriate Thermally Conductive Epoxy, Epoxy Technology, November 2, 2021, https://www.epotek.com/docs/en/Related/Tech%20Tip%2030%20Understanding%20How%20to%20Choose%20an%20Appropriate%20Thermally%20Conductive%20Epoxy.pdf – “Epoxy Technology”; and “Alumina Ceramic – Aluminum Oxide”, Associated Ceramics, March 5, 2020, https://www.associatedceramics.com/alumina.php - “Associated Ceramics”).
Regarding Claim 12, Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kitano ‘780 further discloses wherein each of the pair of arm portions (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, arm portion(s)) has a latch portion that latches onto the projecting portion of the holder (Kitano FIG. 1, interfacing surfaces between projecting portion and arm portion) in an optical axis direction of an optical axis of the image pickup lens (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, showing interface between projecting portion and arm portion in the optical axis of the imaging optical system 22).
Kobayashi further teaches a position of the connecting member in the optical axis direction is restricted by the latch portion (Kobayashi FIG. 4, lens frame 47 and distal end cover 24 secured to distal end hard section 23 by adhesive layer 25, such that the position of the distal end cover 24 is restricted by the adhesive layer 25).
Regarding Claim 16, Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Kobayashi further teaches, as evidenced by attached documents “Understanding How to Choose an Appropriate Thermally Conductive Epoxy”, Epoxy Technology, November 2, 2021, https://www.epotek.com/docs/en/Related/Tech%20Tip%2030%20Understanding%20How%20to%20Choose%20an%20Appropriate%20Thermally%20Conductive%20Epoxy.pdf – “Epoxy Technology”; and “Alumina Ceramic – Aluminum Oxide”, Associated Ceramics, March 5, 2020, https://www.associatedceramics.com/alumina.php - “Associated Ceramics”), the features of :
wherein the adhesive layer has the filler and a resin containing the filler (Kobayashi paragraph [0009], “adhesive composition…includes one or more kinds of epoxy resin…and a filler which contains alumina”), and
a thermal conductivity of the filler is higher than a thermal conductivity of the resin. (Examiner notes that the thermal conductivity of alumina filler is 16-30 W/m·K, and thermal conductivity of epoxy resin is approximately 0.2 W/m·K. See attached documents “Epoxy Technology” and “Associated Ceramics”.)
Regarding Claim 18, Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kitano ‘780 further discloses an endoscope (Kitano ‘780 Fig. 1, endoscope 10).
Regarding Claim 19, Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Kitano ‘780 further discloses an endoscope (Kitano ‘780 Fig. 1, endoscope 10).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano ‘780 (US PGPUB 2016/0249780 – “Kitano ‘780”) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0128669 – “Kobayashi”), Kitano ‘790 (US PGPUB 2016/0249790 – “Kitano ‘790”), and Deutschendorf et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0347861 – “Deutschendorf”).
Regarding Claim 7, Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kobayashi teaches an adhesive used in constructing an endoscope (“the groove is provided with the adhesive layer in a state in which the distal end portion is locked to the groove”), as described in the Abstract of Kobayashi.
Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi does not explicitly teach the feature of wherein a distal end portion of each of the pair of arm portions is bent inward.
Kitano ‘790 is analogous art in the field of endoscopic instruments that teaches wherein a distal end portion of each of the pair of arm portions is bent inward (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 5, showing arm sections 40c bent inward as engaging pawls 40d and 34b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kitano ‘790’s engaging pawls with the endoscope image pickup device taught by Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope image pickup device having backup (engaging pawls) attachments for the lens barrel.
Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi and Kitano ‘790 does not explicitly teach wherein the holder has a groove that is engaged with the distal end portion of each of the pair of arm portions,
Deutschendorf is analogous art in the field of endoscopic instruments that teaches wherein the holder (Deutschendorf FIG. 2, sleeve 21 holding rod lens 11 via sleeve-shaped coupling element 12) has a groove (Deutschendorf FIG. 2, groove 23 in sleeve 21) that is engaged with the distal end portion of each of the pair of arm portions (Deutschendorf FIG. 2, latching hook 25 engaged with groove 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Deutschendorf’s hook and groove with the endoscope image pickup device taught by Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi and Kitano ‘790. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope having an optical system that is securely (using Deutschendorf’s hook and groove with Kobayashi’s adhesive) attached to the endoscope.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano ‘780 (US PGPUB 2016/0249780 – “Kitano ‘780”) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0128669 – “Kobayashi”), Aizenfeld et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0063976 – “Aizenfeld), and Trojanowski (US PGPUB 2014/0060878 – “Trojanowski”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kitano ‘780 discloses:
An endoscope image pickup device (Examiner-annotated Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, imaging unit 20) that acquires an image of an observation target, the endoscope image pickup device comprising:
a lens barrel (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, lens barrel 22) provided with an internal image pickup lens (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 6, showing lenses within lens barrel 22);
an image pickup element (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, image sensor 21) that receives light which has passed through the image pickup lens to perform photoelectric conversion (Kitano ‘780 paragraph [0025], “an imaging optical system for forming a subject image on a photodetecting surface 21a of the image sensor 21”);
a holder (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, holder 23) that holds the lens barrel (Kitano ‘780 paragraph [0025], “holder 23 which holds the image sensor 21 and the lens barrel 22”);
a signal cable (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, electric wires 27) electrically connected to the image pickup element (Kitano paragraph [0031], “circuit board 24 and the image sensor 21 mounted on it are connected to the processor unit 4 via the plural electric wires 27”); and
a connecting member (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, cover portion 34) that connects the holder and the signal cable to each other (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, pressure pieces 38 of cover portion 34 that attach to the electric wires 27, and Examiner-annotated Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3, showing cover portion 34 connected to holder flange of holder 23),
wherein the holder and the connecting member are engaged with each other at an engaging portion (Kitano ‘780, FIG. 2, surface of projecting portion of holder flange engaged with arm portion of cover portion 34),
the connecting member has a pair of arm portions (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3, arm portion of side walls 35) facing each other (Kitano FIG. 2, showing arm portions facing each other),
the holder has engaging projecting portions (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, projecting portion) disposed so as to face each other in a disposition direction of the pair of arm portions (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, showing projecting portions facing each other in the disposition direction of the arm portions), and the engaging projecting portion has a polygonal outer shape (Kitano ‘780 FIG. 2, rectangular shape of projecting portions).
Kitano ‘780 does not explicitly disclose the engaging portion is provided with an adhesive layer containing a filler.
Kobayashi is analogous art in the field of endoscopic devices that teaches: wherein the holder (Kobayashi FIG. 4, lens frame 47) and the connecting member (Kobayashi FIG. 4, distal end cover 24) are engaged with each other at an engaging portion (Kobayashi FIG. 4, distal end hard section 23), and the engaging portion is provided with an adhesive layer (Kobayashi FIG. 4, adhesive layer 25) containing a filler (Kobayashi paragraph [0034], “adhesive composition according to the embodiment includes alumina as a filler”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Kobayashi’s adhesive composition with filler in the endoscope image pickup device disclosed by Kitano ‘780. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a securely assembled endoscope (see paragraph [0005] of Kobayashi, “A medical instrument such as an endoscope device or the like is generally configured such that a plurality of members are assembled using an adhesive”).
Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi does not explicitly teach:
an opening portion,
the opening portion is engaged with the engaging projecting portion of the holder, and the opening portion has a same shape as the outer shape of the engaging projecting portion, and
there is a gap between the engaging projecting portion and the opening portion and the gap is 5µm or more.
Aizenfeld is analogous art in the field of endoscopic devices that teaches:
an opening portion (Aizenfeld FIG. 10, hole 126 in cap 120),
the opening portion of each of the pair of arm portions is engaged with the engaging projecting portion (Aizenfeld FIG. 10, protrusion 124 that engages in hole 126 to snap-fit cap 120 to optical head 110), and the opening portion has a same shape as the outer shape of the engaging projecting portion (Aizenfeld FIG. 10, showing hole 126 and protrusion 124 having the same shape), and
there is a gap between the engaging projecting portion and the opening portion and the gap is 5µm or more. As described above, Aizenfeld teaches a protrusion 124 that fits into a hole 126, similar to the engaging projecting portion 84 that fits into the opening portion 82c in FIG. 13 of the present specification. Although paragraph [0199] of the present specification states that the width d6 shown in FIG. 13 “is preferably 5 µm or more”, the present specification never states why this particular range of space is chosen, much less being critical to the present invention. As stated in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, the range of the bap between the projecting portion and the opening portion being 5µm or more holds no patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aizenfeld’s locking system with the endoscope image pickup device taught by Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope having a lens holder that is securely attached to an endoscope insertion portion.
Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi and Aizenfeld does not explicitly teach that the attachment projection and the receiving hole both have a polygonal shape (“the holder has engaging projecting portions disposed so as to face each other in a disposition direction of the pair of arm portions, the engaging projecting portion has a polygonal outer shape, and the opening portion has the same shape as the outer shape of the engaging projecting portion”).
Trojanowski is analogous art in the field of endoscopic instruments that teaches the attachment projection and the receiving hole both have a polygonal shape (Trojanowski FIG. 1A, showing rectangular ends 50 that snap into rectangular openings 33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Trojanowski’s polygonal snaps and ends with the device taught by Kitano ‘780 in view of Kobayashi and Aizenfeld. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of device with a snap connection for a holder that prevents rotation of the holder when secured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 6, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive/moot, since Claim 4 is now cancelled. As such, the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest “1) two projecting portions are present, and 2) the projecting portion, the arm portion, and the projecting portion are linearly arranged”. Neither element is clear under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as described above. Not only is there no antecedent basis for “two projecting portions”, but “the projecting portion, the arm portion, and the projecting portion are linearly arranged” is unclear (i.e., are “the projecting portion” and “the projecting portion” a same projecting portion?). As described in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 1) “the two projections” are interpreted as a first projection portion and a second projection portion, which Examiner-annotated Kitano FIG. 4 shows as a first projection portion adjacent to the image sensor 21 that faces another projection portion at an interval along the height direction orthogonal to the optical axis of the lens barrel 22. The feature of “the projecting portion, the arm portion, and the projecting portion are linearly arranged” is so unclear, for reasons stated above, that Examiner is unable to examine this feature. As such, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. The rejections of Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 12, 16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained for their dependence on Claim 1 without adding any patentable features.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Aizenfeld et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0063976 – “Aizenfeld), and Trojanowski (US PGPUB 2014/0060878 – “Trojanowski”). That is, arguments related to the teachings of Kawula et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0278615 – “Kawula’) are moot, since Kawula is no longer cited in the rejection of Claim 8.
Applicant further asserts that Kobayashi dos not disclose the “arm portion and the like”. Examiner believes that Kobayashi teaches features that are analogous to the “arm portion and the like” when teaching the holder (Kobayashi FIG. 4, lens frame 47) and the connecting member (Kobayashi FIG. 4, distal end cover 24) that are engaged with each other at an engaging portion (Kobayashi FIG. 4, distal end hard section 23). As such, Kobayashi teaches the engaging portion is provided with an adhesive layer (Kobayashi FIG. 4, adhesive layer 25) containing a filler (Kobayashi paragraph [0034], “adhesive composition according to the embodiment includes alumina as a filler”).
Finally, Applicant asserts that Kitano ‘780 FIG. 3 teaches “that the side wall 35 is merely bonded on the projecting portion, so amended independent claim 8 and Kitano ‘780 are different in configuration”. Examiner is unclear what current amendments are being referenced in this argument, and therefore maintain the rejection of Claim 8 as described above.
As such, the rejection of Claims 1-2, 6-9, 12, 16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
08/23/26
Prosecution Insights