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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claim 1, 4, and the cancellation of claims 2-3 and 7-10 in the response filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 was amended to include the subject matters of claims 2-3 (now cancelled). As such, Applicant’s arguments, see arguments, filed 10/17/2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 over Harada and the 103 rejection of claims 1-2 over Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the incorporation of the limitations of claim 3 (now cancelled). The above rejections have been withdrawn accordingly.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 USC 103 over Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa further in view of Yasuda, Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Sueyasu, Nakazawa and Yasuda taken alone or in combination fail to disclose the feature "wherein the fixation portion includes a fixation hole in which an opening portion, in which the locking target portion is accommodable, is formed and at least a portion of an inner wall surface of the fixation hole is configured as the restriction surface" recited in claim 1. The Office action page 9-10 asserts Yasuda FIG. 6 discloses locking portion 70, fixation portion 50D, and fixation hole 50D, which assertedly may correspond to the feature of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
413
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specifically, Applicant submitted that Yasuda FIG. 6 shows a configuration for a standing base 50 (elevator) that is disposed at a distal end side of the elevation operation wire, and is not a configuration for a proximal end side of the elevation operation wire. Therefore, Applicant submitted, it is non-obvious for a person of the art to combine a configuration for a distal end side of the elevation operation wire shown by Yasuda with a configuration for a proximal end side of an elevation operation wire as shown by Sueyasu and Nakazawa. The motivation for the Office to do so is merely in hindsight of the present disclosure. Accordingly, Applicant submitted, Sueyasu, Nakazawa and Yasuda taken alone or in combination fail to disclose the feature "wherein the fixation portion includes a fixation hole in which an opening portion, in which the locking target portion is accommodable, is formed and at least a portion of an inner wall surface of the fixation hole is configured as the restriction surface" recited in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s submission. In response to applicant's argument that Applicant submitted, it is non-obvious for a person of the art to combine a configuration for a distal end side of the elevation operation wire shown by Yasuda with a configuration for a proximal end side of an elevation operation wire as shown by Sueyasu and Nakazawa, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, in the non-final rejection mailed on 7/18/2025, the Examiner focused on very specific components in the primary reference Sueyasu as well as in the combination of Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa to show obviousness of the combination.
Also, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). On page 9, paragraph 28, the Office Action clearly asserts that “the locking hole of the wire catch of Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa to include a fixation portion that fixes a locked state between the locking target portion inserted into the locking hole.” That is, the locking hole of the wire catch of the combination of Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa is specifically modified. As much as Yasuda’s fixation portion 50D is in an elevator, the Office Action is relying on Yasuda specifically for the structure of the fixation portion 50D that mates in a “locked state” with an analogous locking target portion of an analogous elevation operation wire. Given that the structural features of the proximal end side of the elevation operation wire are already rendered obvious by the combination of Sueyasu n view of Nakazawa, the specific teachings of the structures relied upon in Yasuda are combined into the proximal end side structure of the combination of Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa. Yasuda merely is relied upon to show/teach a fixation portion within the field of elevation operation wire. Thus, one skilled in the art would be motivated to look at ends of any elevation operation wires in endoscopes. Similarly, the fixation portion 50D is a fixation portion and just because it is located in a distal elevator, does not disqualify it from being a fixation portion 50D structure that would function in proximal portion of the elevation operation wire. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the amended claim 1 remains rejected over Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa in view of Yasuda.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sueyasu US 2017/0000316 in view of Nakazawa US 5569157 in view of Yasuda US 2018/0078121.
Regarding claim 1, Sueyasu discloses an endoscope 10 (fig. 1A) comprising: an operation portion 50 that is provided with an operation member 73 (fig. 1C); an insertion portion 20 that is provided on a distal end side of the operation portion 50 and that is inserted into a subject ([0033-0042],fig. 1A); a treatment tool elevator 70,71 that is provided at a distal end portion 25 of the insertion portion 20 [0037]; an elevation operation wire 85 of which a distal end side is connected to the treatment tool elevator 70,71 [0039] and that is pushed and pulled, as the operation member 73 is operated, so that the treatment tool elevator 70,71 is operated [0043]; and a wire fixation mechanism 80 that fixes a proximal end side C of the elevation operation wire 42 (fig. 1c), wherein the wire fixation mechanism 80 includes a wire catch 83,83B that attachably and detachably locks and fixes the proximal end side of the elevation operation wire 85 (FIGS. 2a-2d), a catch guide 89 that guides the wire catch 83,83B in a wire axis direction of the elevation operation wire 85 ([0055,0060,0062], FIGS. 2a-2d), and a sliding lever 73A,73B that operates as the operation member 73 is operated so that the wire catch 83,83B is moved forward and backward VIA81,83A in the wire axis direction.
Sueyasu does not explicitly disclose the elevation operation wire includes a locking target portion that is positioned on a proximal end side of a long wire main body and is formed to have an outer shape larger than that of the wire main body, and the wire catch includes a locking hole into which the locking target portion is insertable and at which the locking target portion is lockable, and a fixation portion that fixes a locked state between the locking hole and the locking target portion inserted into the locking hole wherein the fixation portion includes a restriction surface that restricts the locking target portion locked at the locking hole from moving in a direction orthogonal to the wire axis direction, wherein the fixation portion includes a fixation hole in which an opening portion, in which the locking target portion is accommodable, is formed and at least a portion of an inner wall surface of the fixation hole is configured as the restriction surface.
Nakazawa teaches an analogous wire fixation mechanism 29 including an analogous wire catch 452 that attachably and detachably locks and fixes a proximal end side of an analogous elevation operation wire 26, the elevation operation wire 26 includes a locking target portion 451 that is positioned on a proximal end side of a long wire main body 26 and is formed to have an outer shape larger than that of the wire main body 26 (figs. 68A-68C), and the wire catch 452 includes a locking hole 461 into which the locking target portion 451 is insertable and at which the locking target portion 451 is lockable via 460,464, allowing fixing of the wire such that removal of the wire from the catch is prevented (col. 38, lines 5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the wire catch 83,83b and the proximal end side of the elevation operation wire 85 of Sueyasu with the elevation operation wire includes a locking target portion that is positioned on a proximal end side of a long wire main body and is formed to have an outer shape larger than that of the wire main body, and the wire catch includes a locking hole into which the locking target portion is insertable and at which the locking target portion is lockable as taught by Nakazawa in order to have provided an improved wire catch and proximal end side of the wire main body such that fixing of the wire is optimized such that removal of the wire from the catch is prevented (Nakazawa, col. 38, lines 5-20).
Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa discloses the invention as discussed above. Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa does not explicitly disclose a fixation portion that fixes a locked state between the locking hole and the locking target portion inserted into the locking hole wherein the fixation portion includes a restriction surface that restricts the locking target portion locked at the locking hole from moving in a direction orthogonal to the wire axis direction, wherein the fixation portion includes a fixation hole in which an opening portion, in which the locking target portion is accommodable, is formed and at least a portion of an inner wall surface of the fixation hole is configured as the restriction surface.
Yasuda teaches a fixation portion 50D (the part of 50D that has a smaller diameter than the locking portion 70, [0093]) that fixes a locked state between an analogous locking hole and an analogous locking target portion 70 of an analogous elevation operation wire 26 inserted into an analogous locking hole 50C (fig. 6, [0091-0093]), for the purpose of providing a fixation portion that has a larger diameter at an upper part thereof and smaller diameter at the lower part thereof to lock the target portion to keep the wire from separating [0093], wherein the fixation portion 50D includes a restriction surface (the part of the tapered surface 50D that is smaller than the diameter of the locking portion 70, [0093]) that restricts the locking target portion 70 at the locking hole 50C,50D from moving in a direction orthogonal to the wire axis direction [0093], wherein the fixation portion 50D includes a restriction surface (the part of the tapered surface 50D that is smaller than the diameter of the locking portion 70, [0093]) that restricts the locking target portion 70 at the locking hole 50C,50D from moving in a direction orthogonal to the wire axis direction [0093].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was modified the locking hole of the of the wire catch of Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa to include a fixation portion that fixes a locked state between the locking hole and the locking target portion inserted into the locking hole wherein the fixation portion includes a restriction surface that restricts the locking target portion locked at the locking hole from moving in a direction orthogonal to the wire axis direction, wherein the fixation portion includes a fixation hole in which an opening portion, in which the locking target portion is accommodable, is formed and at least a portion of an inner wall surface of the fixation hole is configured as the restriction surface as taught by Yasuda in order to have provided an improved wire catch that has a fixation portion that allows for locking the target portion of the wire in place so to keep the wire from separating (Yasuda, [0093]).
Regarding claim 4, Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa in view of Yasua discloses the invention as discussed above. Yasuda teaches the fixation hole 50D includes a conical guide surface (tapered surface, and since the structure of 50C is round, it forms a conical structure with a smaller diameter expanding into a larger diameter, [0093]) that becomes narrower toward an inner portion of the fixation hole [0093].
Regarding claim 5, Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa discloses the invention as discussed above with regards to claim 1.
Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa does not explicitly disclose the locking hole has an opening shape in which a first hole of which a size is enough for the locking target portion to be inserted thereinto and a second hole of which an outer shape is larger than an outer shape of the wire main body and is smaller than an outer shape of the locking target portion is continuously connected to each other.
Yasuda teaches an analogous locking hole 50C that has an opening shape 50D in which a first hole X (see annotated fig. 6 below) of which a size is enough for an analogous locking target portion 70 of an analogous elevation wire 26 to be inserted thereinto and a second hole Y of which an outer shape is larger than an outer shape of the wire main body 42 and is smaller than an outer shape of the locking target portion 70 are continuously connected to each other (holes X and Y are continuously connected to each other) [0093], providing a locking hole that has a larger diameter opening at the upper part thereof and smaller diameter opening at the lower part thereof to lock the target portion to keep the wire from separating during operation [0093].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was modified the locking hole of the of the wire catch of Sueyasu in view of Nakazawa to include the locking hole to have an opening shape in which a first hole of which a size is enough for the locking target portion to be inserted thereinto and a second hole of which an outer shape is larger than an outer shape of the wire main body and is smaller than an outer shape of the locking target portion are continuously connected to each other as taught by Yasuda in order to have provided an improved wire catch that has an improved locking hole that allows for locking the target portion of the wire in place and to keep the wire from separating or moving around in the locking hole (Yasuda, [0093]).
PNG
media_image2.png
267
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art references of Sueyasu, Nakazawa, and Yasuda, either taken alone or in combination do not reasonably disclose or teach the wire catch is configured to be rotatable around a rotation axis eccentric from the elevation operation wire, and the locking hole is provided at a position eccentric from the rotation axis and the first hole and the second hole are formed to be continuously connected to each other along a trajectory of rotation around the rotation axis.
The disclosed/taught wire catch features of the references above move in a linear fashion along the longitudinal axis of the elevation operation wire (forward/backward).
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 ALIREZA NIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Alexander S Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786