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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I the first structural schematic view of an endoscopic system as illustrated in Figs. 3a-12 and citing claims 1-13, 16-18 and 19-25 apply to Species I, in the reply filed on 09/23/2025 is acknowledged. The requirement was deemed proper and therefore made final in the office action dated 10/29/2025. However, Applicant’s response dated 12/18/2025 stated original claim 14 was inadvertently omitted from the claims selected for Species I in Applicant’s response dated 09/23/2025. Applicant cites support for original claim 14 to be a part of Species I in paragraph 171 and Fig. 5. Therefore, Applicant has amended the pending independent claim 1 to include the subject matter of original dependent claim 14 and canceling original claim 14. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s explanation within Remarks dated 12/18/2025. Therefore, claims 1-13, 16-18 and 19-25 are examined below. Claims 15 and 26-35 are withdrawn as being drawn to directed to non-elected species.
Status of Claims
In the present application, claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, 15-35 are pending, claims 1-2, 4, 6-13 and 16-25 currently read on the elected species, Species I, which is the first structural schematic view of an endoscopic system as illustrated in Figs. 3a-12. Claims 15 and 26-35 are withdrawn because they read on a non-elected species. Claims 3, 5, and 14 are canceled.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the independent claim has been amended with new limitations.
Such newly added limitations change the scope of the claims, renders the previous rejection moot, and requires a new ground of rejection. As such, the previous grounds of rejection identified in the final office action dated, 04/23/2026, have been withdrawn and a new ground of rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1 lines 23-27. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2, 7-9, 13, 15, and 17-28 are 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.
Claim 2 recites the term “the axis” in line 2. However, claim 2 directly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 2 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the term “the axis” in line 3. However, claim 7 directly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 7 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the term “the axis” in line 3. However, claim 8 indirectly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 8 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the term “the axis” in line 3. However, claim 9 directly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 9 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the circular cross-section shape" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “a circular cross-section shape.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the drain holes" five times in lines 1-2, 4, 6, 7, and 8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend each limitation to state, “the one or more drain holes.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the non-adhesive coating" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the non-adhesive removeable coating.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the term “the axis” in line 2. However, claim 18 indirectly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 18 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the term “a lateral notch” in lines 1-2. However, claim 19 indirectly depends from claim 1, wherein claim 1 introduces the same term in line 21. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 19 is introducing a new and distinct “lateral notch” or merely referencing the same lateral notch of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the term “short side” in line 2. However, claim 19 indirectly depends from claim 1, wherein claim 1 introduces the same term in line 5. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 19 is introducing a new and distinct “short side” or merely referencing the same term previously introduced ‘short side’ of claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the term “the axis” in line 2. However, claim 19 indirectly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 19 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the term “said axis” in line 3. However, claim 20 directly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 20 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 25-28 are also rejected because of their dependence on the rejected base claim 20.
Claim 21 recites the term “said axis” in line 2. However, claim 21 indirectly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 21 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites the term “a short side” in line 2. However, claim 22 indirectly depends from claim 1, wherein claim 1 introduces the same term in line 5. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 22 is introducing a new and distinct “short side” or merely referencing the same term previously introduced ‘short side’ of claim 1.
Claim 22 recites the term “the axis” in lines 3-4. However, claim 22 indirectly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 22 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 23 is also rejected because claim 23 is dependent on the rejected base claim 22.
Claim 24 recites the term “said axis” in line 2. However, claim 24 indirectly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 24 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a lateral notch which transverses to said axis and extends through the passage is formed over the forward edge” in lines 1-2. However, claim 24 indirectly depends from claim 1, which also states a very similar phrase in lines 20-21. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 24 is introducing a second ‘lateral notch’ or merely referencing the lateral notch of claim 1. Additionally, line 3 of claim 24 also references the phrase “the lateral notch,” which is also unclear whether “the lateral notch” is also referencing the same lateral notch of claim 1 or referencing the second lateral notch introducing lines 1-2 of claim 24. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites the term “the axis” in line 2. However, claim 27 indirectly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 introduces “an axis of the passage” in line 9 and “an axis of the proximal portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 27 is in reference to the axis of claim 1 line 9 or the axis of claim 1 line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the circumferential sidewall" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “a circumferential sidewall.” Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 10-12, and 16 are allowed.
Claims 2, 7-9, 13, 15, 17-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim rejections above because they depend on an allowable base claim.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to teach, among other features, an endoscopic attachment, comprising: a proximal portion configured to be coupled to an insertion tube of an endoscope; and a distal portion having a proximal end coupled to the proximal portion and extending a fully open distal end, wherein the distal portion extends forwardly from the proximal portion to a forward edge, with the forward edge having a short side and a long side; wherein the distal portion comprises: a first axial segment that extends from the proximal portion axially to the forward edge by a first axial length, and defines a passage, wherein the first axial segment extends circumferentially entirely around an axis of the passage; and a second axial segment that extends a second axial length from the first axial segment to the forward edge, and over at least part of the second axial length, the second axial segment extends circumferentially around an axis of the proximal portion less than 360 degrees, wherein on a plane perpendicular to the axis of the proximal portion, a projection of the forward edge forms a complete 360-degree circle, and coincides with and overlaps a projection of the first axial segment, and wherein the endoscopic attachment further comprises one or more drain holes configured as an outlet for trapped water or air, wherein a lateral notch which transverses to said axis of the proximal portion and extends through the passage is formed over the forward edge, wherein the forward edge is axially recessed to form the lateral notch with respect to a plane extending laterally across the passage and intersecting both the short side of the forward edge and the long side of the forward edge, respectively, the short side being a portion of the forward edge at the first axial length in the first axial segment, the long side being a portion of the forward edge at the second axial length in the second axial segment, such that the second axial segment defines an open surgical space via the forward edge, and a knife extending from a distal end of the insertion tube to the distal portion extends into the open surgical space.
In obvious combination of Gross et al. (2017/0119435) in view of Wales et al. (US2018/0000321) teach the above device except for the distal portion having a fully open distal end, the forward edge having a short side and a long side, wherein a lateral notch which transverses to said axis of the proximal portion and extends through the passage is formed over the forward edge, wherein the forward edge is axially recessed to form the lateral notch with respect to a plane extending laterally across the passage and intersecting both the short side of the forward edge and the long side of the forward edge, respectively, the short side being a portion of the forward edge at the first axial length in the first axial segment, the long side being a portion of the forward edge at the second axial length in the second axial segment, such that the second axial segment defines an open surgical space via the forward edge, and a knife extending from a distal end of the insertion tube to the distal portion extends into the open surgical space.
In obvious combination of Tsutomu Okada (US2009/0043154) in view of Wales et al. (US2018/0000321) in view of Calabrese et al. (US2018/0214015) teach the above device except for the forward edge having a short side and a long side, and wherein the forward edge is axially recessed to form the lateral notch with respect to a plane extending laterally across the passage and intersecting both the short side of the forward edge and the long side of the forward edge, respectively, the short side being a portion of the forward edge at the first axial length in the first axial segment, the long side being a portion of the forward edge at the second axial length in the second axial segment, such that the second axial segment defines an open surgical space via the forward edge.
Malchey et al. (2017/0311789), Kresch et al. (US5456689), Bhatt et al. (US2015/0133926), Tyler McLawhorn (US2014/0100570), Jagelski et al. (US2017/0112523), and/or Takayasu Mikkaichi (US2007/0203395), alone or in obvious combination teach the above device except for wherein on a plane perpendicular to the axis of the proximal portion, a projection of the forward edge forms a complete 360-degree circle, and coincides with and overlaps a projection of the first axial segment, forward edge having a short side and a long side, and wherein the forward edge is axially recessed to form the lateral notch with respect to a plane extending laterally across the passage and intersecting both the short side of the forward edge and the long side of the forward edge, respectively, the short side being a portion of the forward edge at the first axial length in the first axial segment, the long side being a portion of the forward edge at the second axial length in the second axial segment, such that the second axial segment defines an open surgical space via the forward edge.
There is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to have the additional features as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant’s disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E MONAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm.
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.
/MEGAN ELIZABETH MONAHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights