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 without traverse of Species II, readable on claims 11-18 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims are 1-19 are pending, claims 1-10 and 19 are withdrawn, and claims 11-18 and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first memory is located in the sensor”. However the examiner believes “wherein the first memory is located in the image pickup unit” are the correct words to use here.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first memory is located in the sensor” (Claim 12), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0352410 to Okawa et al. (hereinafter “Okawa”).
Regarding claim 11, Okawa discloses an endoscope, comprising: a first memory configured to store a first identification information (26, Fig. 2, [0023]); and a second memory configured to store a second identification information (44, Fig. 2, [0030]) wherein the first identification information matches the second identification information ([0025], [0036]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Okawa discloses an endoscope system, comprising: an endoscope observing apparatus (1, Fig. 2, [0019]); and the endoscope according to claim 11 (2, Fig. 2, [0019]), further comprising: a sensor configured to monitor a subject (24, Fig. 2, [0023]); an operating unit (10, Fig. 1, [0020]); a universal cable extends from a side surface of the operating unit (11, Fig. 1, [0020]); and a connector configured to connect the universal cable to the endoscope observing apparatus (41, Fig. 2, [0027]), wherein the first memory is located in the sensor (23, 26, Fig 2, [0026]), and wherein the second memory is located in the connector (44, Fig. 2, [0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Okawa discloses the endoscope system according to claim 12, and Okawa further discloses wherein the sensor is an image sensor (26, Fig 2, [0026]).
Regarding claim 18, Okawa discloses the endoscope according to claim 11, and Okawa further discloses further comprising: a processor (3, Fig. 2, [0031]), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the first identification information stored in the first memory of the endoscope ([0049]-[0052]), acquire the second identification information stored in the second memory of the endoscope, compare the acquired first identification information with the acquired second identification information acquired, and based on a result of the comparing, perform a first processing or a second processing([0049]-[0052]).
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(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0352410 to Okawa and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0265052 to Morishima et al. (hereinafter “Morishima”).
Regarding claim 14, Okawa disclose the endoscope according to claim 11.
Okawa fails to expressly teach further including a single-use component.
However, Morihsima teaches of an endoscope (Morishima: 10, Fig. 5, [0032]) further including a single-use component (Morishima: 23, Fig. 5, [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Okawa to utilize a single-use component, as taught by Morishima. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of preventing infections ([0037] of Morishima).
Regarding claim 15, Okawa, in view of Morishima, teaches the endoscope according to claim 14.
Okawa, in view of Morishima, fails to expressly teach further including a multi-use component, wherein the first memory is provided in the multi-use component.
However, Morishima further teaches further including a multi-use component (Morishima: [0039]), wherein the first memory is provided in the multi-use component (Morishima: [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Okawa, in view of Morishima, to utilize a multi-use component, as taught by Morishima. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of reducing costs ([0039] of Morishima).
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0352410 to Okawa and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0265052 to Morishima et al. (hereinafter “Morishima”) and U.S. Publication No. 2021/0145265 to Morishima et al. (hereinafter “Morishima(65)”).
Regarding claim 16, Okawa, in view of Morishima, teaches the endoscope according to claim 14.
Okawa, in view of Morishima, fails to expressly teach wherein the second memory is provided in the single-use component.
However, Morishima further teaches wherein the second memory is provided in the component (Morishima: 19, Fig. 5, [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Okawa, in view of Morishima, to utilize a second memory provided in the component, as taught by Morishima. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing information about the endoscope ([0074] of Morishima).
Okawa, in view of Morishima, fails to expressly teach a single-use component.
However, Morishima(65) teaches of an endoscope including a single-use component (S, Fig. 2, [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Okawa, in view of Morishima, to utilize a single-use component, as taught by Morishima(65). It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of reducing costs ([0061] of Morishima).
Regarding claim 17, Okawa, in view of Morishima and Morishima(65) teaches the endoscope according to claim 16, and Okawa further discloses wherein the second memory is a onetime programmable ROM (Okawa: 44, Fig. 2, [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795