DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on February 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 20, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome most but not all of the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 20, 2025. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-9, 11-15, 17, 18, and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 11/12/2025. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 102022000015456 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “body, which” in line 1 should read “body which”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a cantilevered length,” in line 2 should read “respective cantilevered lengths,”.
“is smaller than the” in line 2 should read “are smaller than”.
“branch, which” in line 3 should read “branch and which”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schreiner et al. (WO 2016210306 A1), hereinafter Schreiner.
Regarding claim 1, Schreiner discloses an endoscopic medical device (10 in Figure 1) comprising a main body (204 in Figure 1), cylindrical with respect to a main extension axis (L in Figure 1), which extends from a proximal end (bottom end of 204 in Figure 1) to a distal end (top end of 204 in Figure 1) (apparent from Figure 1),
said main body (204) being hollow so as to delimit a cavity (16 in Figure 1) adapted to at least partially house a distal portion of an endoscope (the “endoscope” described in Paragraph 00124) which can be associated therewith, on the side of said proximal end (bottom end of 204) of the main body (204) (Paragraph 00124),
said main body (204), at an outer side wall (212 in Figure 1), opposite to said cavity (16), having a plurality of flexible fins (a first fin of the two fins is shown circled and labeled “first fin” in an annotated version of Figure 1 of Schreiner, hereinafter Figure 1x, below, and a second fin of the two fins is located on the opposite rear side of 204 and is identical to the first fin) provided with arms (the arm of the first fin is shown circled and labeled “first arm” in a second annotated version of Figure 1 of Schreiner, hereinafter Figure 1y, below, and the arm of the second fin is identical to that of the first fin) which, in a resting condition, extend along main directions (the inclined radial extension directions of the arms) incident with said main extension axis (L) according to an opening angle (BB in Figure 2) comprised between 10 and 55 degrees (because angle BB can be 30 degrees to 55 degrees, as stated in Paragraph 00132), measured from the side of the distal end (clear when Figures 1y and 2 and Paragraph 00132 are considered together),
wherein said arms are engaged with the outer side wall (212) at an end (innermost end of the arms) for fixing to the main body (204) (apparent from Figure 1y below) and
wherein said arms, at cantilevered ends (outermost ends of the arms) opposite to the fixing ends (innermost end of the arms), branch into pairs of branches (the branches extending from the first arm are shown circled and labeled “branches” in Figure 1y below, and the branches extending from the second arm are identical to those of the first arm), arranged symmetrically with respect to a centerline plane (the vertical plane that is perpendicular to the plane of Figure 1 and coincident with axis L in Figure 1) passing through said arms and through said main extension axis (L) (apparent from Figure 1y below).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1x: an annotated version of Figure 1 of Schreiner
PNG
media_image2.png
872
909
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1y: a second annotated version of Figure 1 of Schreiner
Regarding claim 2, Schreiner discloses that said opening angle (BB) is comprised between 20 and 45 degrees (because angle BB can be 30 degrees to 45 degrees, as stated in Paragraph 00132).
Regarding claim 3, Schreiner discloses that said branches (shown circled in Figure 1y above), at free ends (the outermost ends of the “branches” in Figure 1y above), opposite to the cantilevered end (outermost end of the arms) of the arm, having rounded tips have a determined radius of curvature (it is apparent from Figure 1y above that the outermost ends of the “branches” have rounded tips having a radius of curvature).
Regarding claim 6, Schreiner discloses that the width (the “branch width” shown in Figure 1y above) of the branches (shown circled in Figure 1y above) is smaller than a diameter (the “diameter” shown in Figure 1y above) of said rounded tips of the branches (apparent from Figure 1y above).
Regarding claim 8, Schreiner discloses that the arms have a greater width (the “arm width” shown in Figure 1y above) than the width (the “width of each branch” shown in Figure 1y above) of said branches (apparent from Figure 1y).
Regarding claim 12, Schreiner discloses that said flexible fins have an increasing flexibility moving from the fixing ends (innermost ends of the arms) to the free ends (the outermost ends of the “branches” in Figure 1y above) (apparent from Figure 1x above because thickness of the fins decrease from the fixing ends to the free ends, especially at notches 26 which define “an easily flexible point” as described in Paragraph 00130).
Regarding claim 14, Schreiner discloses that the free ends (the outermost ends of the “branches” in Figure 1y above) of the branches (shown circled in Figure 1y above), opposite to the cantilevered end (outermost end of each arm) of the arm, diverge with respect to each other for a transversal distance (the “transversal distance” shown in Figure 1y above) which is greater than the length (the “arm length” shown in Figure 1y above) of the arms (apparent from Figure 1y above).
Regarding claim 17, Schreiner discloses that the main body (204), at the ends for fixing the arms, on the side of the proximal end (bottom end of 204 in Figure 1), has recesses (the spaces between adjacent ribs 18 in Figure 1) which serve as partial seats of the arms when rotated or bent towards the proximal end (bottom end of 204 in Figure 1) (the spaces between adjacent ribs 18 can serve as partial seats of the arms when the arms are rotated or bent towards the bottom end of 204 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Schreiner discloses that the main body (204), at the distal end (top end of 204 in Figure 1), comprises a cap (the topmost ring-shaped portion of 204 shown labeled as “cap / blocking ring” in Figure 1x above).
Regarding claim 20, Schreiner discloses that a blocking ring (the topmost ring-shaped portion of 204 shown labeled as “cap / blocking ring” in Figure 1x above) is provided for, positioned on the tip of the main body (204) and shaped so as to allow to correctly position the endoscopic medical device (10) on the tip of the endoscope (“endoscope”) (clear when Figure 1x and Paragraph 00124 are considered together).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiner.
Regarding claim 4, Schreiner discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: said radius of curvature (R) is comprised between 1.4 and 2.4 mm, preferably equal to 1.9 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the radius of curvature (R) of Schreiner be between 1.4 and 2.4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraph 0034 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Schreiner discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: said rounded tips (64) are cylindrical-shaped with circular cross-section or they are spherical.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have changed the shape of the rounded tips of Schreiner to be cylindrical-shaped with circular cross-section or spherical, since it has been held that changing the shape of an object involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in Paragraph 0035 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Schreiner discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: 3 to 5 flexible fins (36) are provided along the outer side wall (32) of the main body (8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have duplicated one or more of the flexible fins of Schreiner so that 3 to 5 flexible fins are provided along the outer side wall of the main body, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in Paragraph 0036 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Schreiner discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the arms (40) and the branches (52, 56) have a constant thickness with respect to a radial cross-sectional plane parallel with and passing through the main extension axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have changed the shape of the arms and/or the branches of Schreiner so that the arms and the branches have a constant thickness with respect to a radial cross-sectional plane parallel with and passing through the main extension axis, since it has been held that changing the shape of an object involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in Paragraph 0040 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Schreiner discloses that the main body (204) and the flexible fins are made of medical grade silicone material (the “silicone” described in Paragraph 00116) (Paragraph 00116).
However, Schreiner does not expressly disclose: said material has a hardness between 40 and 60 SHORE A, preferably equal to 50 SHORE A.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the hardness of the material of Schreiner to be between 40 and 60 SHORE A, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraph 0043 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Schreiner discloses that said arms (40) have a cantilevered length, with respect to the fixing end (44), which are smaller than the lengths of said branches.
However, Schreiner does not expressly disclose: the cantilevered length is equal to the distance between the cantilevered end (48) of the arm (40) and the free end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the cantilevered length of Schreiner to be equal to the distance between the cantilevered end of the arm and the free end, since it has been held that changing the size of an object involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). Please note that in Paragraph 0045 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Schreiner discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: said transversal distance (T) is equal to a diameter of the main body (8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the transversal distance of Schreiner and/or the diameter of the main body of Schreiner to be equal to each other, since it has been held that changing the size of an object involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). Please note that in Paragraph 0047 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 16, and 19 are 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-9, 11-15, 17, 18, and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that:
“In detail, the central arc (206) of the device disclosed in Schreiner cannot be considered as an "arm" which is part of a flexible fin, because it is too short and cannot be bended, as it is part of an annular portion.
…
Therefore, differently from the claimed invention, the fins of the endoscopic medical device disclosed in Schreiner are not provided with arms, which at cantilevered ends, branch into pairs of branches.”,
the examiner firstly asserts that the examiner interpreted the transition portion between protuberances 22 and body 204 shown circled and labeled “first arm” in Figure 1y above as being one of the “arms” of claim 1. Such a transition portion can be properly interpreted as being an arm according to claim 1 because claim 1 does not recite that the arms have a specific structure or shape. Secondly, the examiner asserts that the shortness of the “first arm” shown circled in Figure 1y above does not preclude it from being an arm according to claim 1 and that the “first arm” shown circled in Figure 1y above can be bent if enough bending force it applied since it made of a material with “flexibility, resilience, and deformability” as stated in Paragraph 00117 of Schreiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731