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 cancellation of claim 17, addition of claims 21-24 and the amendments to claims 1 and 3 in the response filed on 23 April, 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 remain pending in the application.
Claims 17-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 23-24, the claims read “the second reusable endoscope.” [lines 2-3 in both claims] where it is clear this was instead intended to read “the second reusable endoscope hand-piece.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The applicant's amendments to claim 3 to overcome the 35 USC § 112 rejections of the previous action are acknowledged, and the rejections are withdrawn.
Claims 23-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 23-24, the claims read “the same features” [line 2, each claim]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Therefore, the claims are unclear. For the purpose of prosecution, it will be assumed this is a new item.
Further, as the “features” here are open-ended, this may be designated as any feature whatsoever that the hand-pieces have in common. If this is amended to require that the hand-pieces have all features in common the claims would be rejected under 112 (a) for new matter.
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 1-2, 9-11, 14-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Zhang (US 2023/0076439).
In regards to Claim 1, Zhang discloses a system, comprising:
a first reusable endoscope hand-piece [202, Fig.2];
a second reusable endoscope hand-piece [203, Fig.2], and
wherein both the first reusable endoscope hand-piece and the second reusable endoscope hand-piece are alternatively and selectively attachable and detachable to a single-use endoscope shaft assembly [Fig.2, para.57 and 59, further as anything may be disposed of] and configured to articulate a patient-insertable portion of the single-use endoscope shaft assembly when it is inserted within a body of a patient [102, Fig.1, para.53, 56], and
wherein in a portion arranged to contact a user's palm during operation the first reusable endoscope hand-piece has a different width than the second reusable hand-piece as measured along a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the single-use endoscope assembly [this “portion arranged to contact a user’s palm” is governed by intended use. As such, the full width of 202 may be this part for the first reusable hand-piece, and the tapered portion leading to 207 may be this part for the second re-usable handpiece, thus satisfying the width requirement.].
In regards to claim 2, Zhang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece and the second reusable endoscope hand-piece each include a housing [body of 101 and body of 202 or 203, Figs.1-2, para.56] and an articulation assembly [102, Fig.1, para.53], and wherein the articulation assembly includes a first articulation control for articulating the patient-insertable portion of the single-use endoscope shaft assembly along a first direction [para.53: in at least one direction].
In regards to claim 9, Zhang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece is a different size than the second reusable endoscope hand-piece [Fig.2]; and
wherein the difference in size is a difference in cross-sectional area of a portion arranged to contact a user's palm during operation of the reusable endoscope hand-piece [Fig.2: If held correctly].
In regards to claim 10, Zhang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece is a different size than the second reusable endoscope hand-piece [Fig.2]; and
wherein the difference in size is a difference in height [Fig.2: along at least one dimension.].
In regards to claim 11, Zhang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece is a different size than the second reusable endoscope hand-piece [Fig.2]; and
wherein the difference in size is a difference in total volume [Fig.2].
In regards to claim 14, Zhang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein both the first reusable endoscope hand-piece and the second reusable endoscope hand-piece are alternatively and selectively attachable and detachable to a second single-use endoscope shaft assembly [as this second single-use endoscope shaft assembly is not positively set forth, such an alternative endoscope shaft assembly may be used]; and
wherein the single-use endoscope shaft assembly is different in size and/or has at least one different feature than the second single-use endoscope shaft assembly [such an alternative endoscope shaft assembly may be used with the handles of Zhang].
In regards to claim 15, Zhang discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the second single-use endoscope shaft assembly is longer than the single-use endoscope shaft assembly [such an alternative endoscope shaft assembly may be used with the handles of Zhang].
In regards to claim 16, Zhang discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the second single-use endoscope shaft assembly has a greater insertion tube diameter than the single-use endoscope shaft assembly [such an alternative endoscope shaft assembly may be used with the handles of Zhang].
In regards to claim 24, Zhang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece has a different width than the second reusable endoscope hand-piece [Fig.2: the hand-pieces have different widths at different places] but has the same features [both hand-pieces share an outer diameter and a mating interface 208: also see the related 112 (b) rejection of the claim hereinabove] as the second reusable endoscope.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ouyang et al. (US 2022/0079418).
In regards to Claim 1, Ouyang discloses a system, comprising:
a first reusable endoscope hand-piece [1304, Fig.13b];
a second reusable endoscope hand-piece [1304, Fig.13c]; and
wherein both the first reusable endoscope hand-piece and the second reusable endoscope hand-piece are alternatively and selectively attachable and detachable to a single-use endoscope shaft assembly [102, Figs.13a-c, para.105-107] and configured to articulate a patient-insertable portion of the single-use endoscope shaft assembly when it is inserted within a body of a patient [para.105-107],
wherein in a portion arranged to contact a user's palm during operation the first reusable endoscope hand-piece has a different width than the second reusable hand-piece as measured along a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the single-use endoscope assembly [this “portion arranged to contact a user’s palm” is governed by intended use. As such, a wider part of 1304, Fig.13b, for example distal to 150, may be this part for the first reusable hand-piece, and a narrower part of 1304, Fig.13c, for example at the part leading to 1322, may be this part for the second re-usable handpiece, thus satisfying the width requirement.].
In regards to claim 2, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece and the second reusable endoscope hand-piece each include a housing [140, Figs.13b-c, para.106-107] and an articulation assembly [1320, Fig.13b, 1310, Fig.13c], and wherein the articulation assembly includes a first articulation control for articulating the patient-insertable portion of the single-use endoscope shaft assembly along a first direction [para.106-107: translational movement. In the alternative, this could be 1320 and 1046 of the first and second reusable endoscope hand-pieces, bending the insertion part left-right or up-down].
In regards to claim 3, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising a backstrap [As the applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer, this appears to be an arbitrary portion of a surface of the endoscope handpiece: see applicant’s Fig.12], wherein a distance between a backstrap and an axis of rotation of the first articulation control of the first reusable endoscope hand-piece is greater than a distance between a backstrap and an axis of rotation of the first articulation control of the second reusable hand-piece [Figs.13b-c: as the backstrap may be an arbitrary portion of the surface of the endoscope handpieces, this may be designated to satisfy this requirement.].
In regards to claim 4, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 2, wherein a distance between a centerline of the first articulation control and a centerline of the handle portion of the first reusable endoscope hand-piece is greater [Fig.13b, para.106: when the joystick is tilted off-axis its centerline will not intersect the centerline of the handle portion] than a distance between the centerline of the first articulation control and a centerline of the handle portion of the second reusable hand-piece [Fig.13c: the centerline of 1310 will intersect the centerline of the hand piece].
In regards to claim 5, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising a second articulation control for articulating the patient-insertable portion of the single-use endoscope shaft assembly along a second direction that is transverse to the first direction [1046, Fig.13c, para.105].
In regards to claim 12, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece and the second reusable endoscope hand-piece [para.109, “like multiple-use portions… 1304 described elsewhere herein”] each include an electronic integrated circuit [within 1406, para.109] storing settings for control and/or imaging functions of an assembled reusable endoscope hand-piece and single-use endoscope shaft assembly [para.109: “programmed to interact with portions 102 and 1404”].
In regards to claim 14, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein both the first reusable endoscope hand-piece and the second reusable endoscope hand-piece are alternatively and selectively attachable and detachable to a second single-use endoscope shaft assembly [as this second single-use endoscope shaft assembly is not positively set forth, such an alternative endoscope shaft assembly may be used]; and
wherein the single-use endoscope shaft assembly is different in size and/or has at least one different feature than the second single-use endoscope shaft assembly [such an alternative endoscope shaft assembly may be used with the handles of Ouyang].
In regards to claim 15, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the second single-use endoscope shaft assembly is longer than the single-use endoscope shaft assembly [such an alternative endoscope shaft assembly may be used with the handles of Ouyang].
In regards to claim 16, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the second single-use endoscope shaft assembly has a greater insertion tube diameter than the single-use endoscope shaft assembly [such an alternative endoscope shaft assembly may be used with the handles of Ouyang].
In regards to claim 24, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece has a different width than the second reusable endoscope hand-piece [Figs.13b-c: the hand-pieces have different widths at different places] but has the same features [both hand-pieces share an outer diameter and a display 150: also see the related 112 (b) rejection of the claim hereinabove] as the second reusable endoscope.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 102 - Ouyang et al. (US 2022/0079418)
or
Rejection under 35 USC 102 - Zhang (US 2023/0076439)
Argument:
In regards to the amended claim 1, the applicant argues that neither Zhang or Ouyang disclose have the new feature in the amended claim 1 [in the applicant's arguments dated 23 April, 2026, pages 7-8].
Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The new claim amendment is exceptionally broad, only requiring different widths at “a portion arranged to contact a user’s palm during operation” in the reusable hand-pieces. As such, this could be at any designated surface portions of the hand-pieces: see the respective rejections of claim 1 hereinabove.
Thus, this argument is found to be unconvincing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 13 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.
Claims 21-22 are now allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach, among other features, an endoscope system comprising:
first and second reusable endoscope handpieces,
both the handpieces alternatively and selectively attachable and detachable to a single-use endoscope shaft assembly and configured to articulate a patient-insertable portion of the single-use endoscope shaft assembly when it is inserted within a body of the patient,
the hand-pieces having different widths at least at some portion that may contact a user’s palm during operation,
(claims 6, 21) each of the handpieces having a housing and first articulation controls, at least one of the handpieces having second articulation controls, the articulation controls for articulating the patient-insertable portion long directions that are transverse to one another,
the articulation controls being control knobs, these knobs selectively attachable and detachable to the first handpiece
OR
(claims 13, 22) the handpieces each having an electronic integrated circuit storing settings for control and/or imaging functions of the respective handpiece and endoscope shaft assembly when assembled, wherein the settings stored in the respective handpieces are different.
Birnkrant (US 2014/0107416) discloses an endoscope system having first and second reusable endoscope handpieces respectively having different widths and features, with some of the handpieces having an integrated circuit storing settings for control and/or imaging functions of the endoscope shaft.
Ouyang et al. (US 2022/0079418) discloses the above except for the underlined details of claims 6 and 13.
Zhang (US 2023/0076439) discloses the above except for the second articulation control, or the controls being detachable knobs, or the electronic integrated circuit storing settings.
There is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Birnkrant (US 2014/0107416)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (additional interpretation of art). 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 AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights