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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 1 and 7 in the response filed on 01/27/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 remain pending in the application
Claims 3-5 and 8 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are examined.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. The applicant has modified claims 1 and 7 to require a compensator to perform a compensation function to prevent abnormal tension from affecting the maintenance of the attitude of the bending section when the mechanical string has unexpected abnormal tension, wherein the compensator comprises a connecting pulley assembly including a plurality of pulleys connected through a compensation shaft capable of relatively rotating and the connecting pulley assembly is disposed on the control body, limitations heretofore not presented for examination in this application. As such, the scope of the claims was substantially changed and new grounds for rejection are presented.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described below in the Applicant’s specification [0061] as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
[0061]- “Here, the control means 310 includes, for example, a bending angle adjustment knob or a joystick”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “image capturing means” and an “illuminating means” in claims 1 and 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0374990 to Miyashita et al. (hereinafter “Miyashita”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0080533 to Awtar.
Regarding claim 1, Miyashita discloses an endoscope system comprising: an insertion tube (5, Fig. 2, [0019]) comprising a tube tip (11, Fig. 1, [0019]) including an image capturing means (22, Fig. 2, [0025]) and an illuminating means (21, Fig. 2, [0026]), a bending section (12, Fig. 1, [0019]) to which the tube tip is connected (Fig. 1), the bending section being configured to bend in a predetermined direction to allow a target portion of a subject to be observed ([0019]), and a flexible portion to which the bending section is connected (13, Fig. 1, [0019]), the flexible portion being configured to move flexibly so as to be smoothly inserted into the body of the subject ([0019]); a control body connected to the insertion tube (6, Fig. 1, [0020]), comprising a control means for controlling a bending angle of the bending section (6a, Fig. 1, [0020]), and dimensioned and configured to allow a user to easily hold the control body (Fig. 1); and an external device (3, Fig. 1, [0017]) connected to the control body (Fig. 1) and comprising a power source (38, Fig. 2, [0030]) for bending the bending section, a universal cord (7, Fig. 1, [0028]) connecting the control body and the external device (Fig. 1), a mechanical string (BW, Fig. 2, [0028]) transferring power generated by the power source to the bending section in order to bend the bending section ([0028]), wherein the mechanical string is disposed to pass through the interiors of the universal cord, the control body, and the insertion tube (BW, Fig. 2, [0028]).
Miyashita fails to expressly teach a compensator to perform a compensation function to prevent abnormal tension from affecting the maintenance of the attitude of the bending section when the mechanical string has unexpected abnormal tension, wherein the compensator comprises a connecting pulley assembly including a plurality of pulleys connected through a compensation shaft capable of relatively rotating and the connecting pulley assembly is disposed on the control body.
However, Awtar teaches of an endoscope system ([0050]) including a compensator (Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, [0119]) to perform a compensation function to prevent abnormal tension from affecting the maintenance of the attitude of the bending section when the mechanical string has unexpected abnormal tension, wherein the compensator comprises a connecting pulley assembly including a plurality of pulleys connected through a compensation shaft capable of relatively rotating and the connecting pulley assembly is disposed on the control body ([0119]).
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 Miyashita to utilize a compensator in the manner taught by Awtar. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of compensating for slack in a cable of a transmission system (Awtar: [0016]).
Regarding claim 2, Miyashita, in view of Awtar, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1, and Miyashita further discloses wherein the external device comprises an image processing device to receive and process image information collected by the image capturing means or a light source device to provide a light source to the illuminating means (38a, Fig. 2, [0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Miyashita, discloses an endoscope system comprising: an insertion tube (5, Fig. 2, [0019]) configured to be inserted into a body of a subject to provide illumination (21, Fig. 2, [0026]) and collect image information (22, Fig. 2, [0025]), and comprising a bending section (12, Fig. 1, [0019]) configured to bend in a predetermined direction ([0019]); a control body connected to the insertion tube to control the bending of the bending section (6, Fig. 1, [0020]); and an external device (3, Fig. 1, [0017]) configured to provide a light source for the illumination (31, Fig. 2, [0031]) or process the image information (22, Fig. 2, [0025]), and comprising a power source to provide power to the bending section (38, Fig. 2, [0030]); a universal cord connecting the control body and the external device (7, Fig. 1, [0028]); and a mechanical string (BW, Fig. 2, [0028]) transferring power generated by the power source to the bending section in order to bend the bending section ([0028]), wherein the mechanical string is disposed to pass through the interiors of the universal cord, the control body, and the insertion tube (BW, Fig. 2, [0028]).
Miyashita fails to expressly teach a compensator (Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, [0119]) to perform a compensation function to prevent abnormal tension from affecting the maintenance to perform a compensation function to prevent abnormal tension from affecting the maintenance of the attitude of the bending section when the mechanical string has unexpected abnormal tension, wherein the compensator comprises a connecting pulley assembly including a plurality of pulleys connected through a compensation shaft capable of relatively rotating and the connecting pulley assembly is disposed on the control body ([0119]).
However, Awtar teaches of an endoscope system ([0050]) including a compensator to perform a compensation function to prevent abnormal tension from affecting the maintenance of the attitude of the bending section when the mechanical string has unexpected abnormal tension, wherein the compensator comprises a connecting pulley assembly including a plurality of pulleys connected through a compensation shaft capable of relatively rotating and the connecting pulley assembly is disposed on the control body.
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 Miyashita to utilize a compensator in the manner taught by Awtar. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of compensating for slack in a cable of a transmission system (Awtar: [0016]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita in view of Awtar and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0369908 to Komatsu and U.S. Publication No. 2013/0047757 to Okamoto et al. hereinafter “Okamoto”).
Regarding claim 6, Miyashita, in view of Awtar, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1.
Miyashita fails to expressly teach wherein the external device includes a first connector connected to the power source, the universal cord includes a second connector connected to the mechanical string, and when the universal cord is connected to the external device, the first connector and the second connector interact with each other to transfer power generated by the power source to the mechanical string.
However, Komatsu teaches of an endoscope system (1, Fig. 1, [0018]) wherein the external device (200, Fig. 1, [0018]) includes a first connector connected to the power source (SL, Fig. 1, [0029]), the universal cord includes a second connector (106, Fig. 1, [0029]), and when the universal cord is connected to the external device, the first connector and the second connector interact with each other to transfer power generated by the power source.
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 Miyashita, in view of Awtar, to utilize a first and second connector in the manner as taught by Komatsu. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purposes of securing the connector to the external device ([0029] of Komatsu).
Miyashita, in view of Awtar and Komatsu, fails to expressly teach a second connector connected to the mechanical string, and to transfer power generated by the power source to the mechanical string.
However, Okamoto teaches of an endoscope system (1, Fig. 1, [0043]) a second connector (4C, Fig. 25, [0290]-[0291]) connected to the mechanical string (8, Fig. 25, [0291]), and to transfer power generated by the power source to the mechanical string ([0290]-[0294]).
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 Miyashita, in view of Awtar and Komatsu, to utilize the connector in the manner as taught by Okamoto. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of reducing the weight of the operation portion ([0294] of Okamoto).
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