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 Invention I, claims 1-17, in the response of 17 November, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are examined, and 18-20 have been cancelled by the applicant. Claim Interpretation In regards to claim 3, the claim recites “a backstrap” [lines 1, 3]. Here, these backstraps could be understood to be only functionally claimed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), fourth paragraph: Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA)], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim s 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In regards to claim 3 , as the backstraps can be understood to be functionally claimed, the backstraps could be in any position. Therefore, the distances between the backstraps and the axes of rotation of the respective handpieces being different is not further limiting, hence the claim fails to further limit claim 2 from which it depends . In regards to claim 17, the claim reads “The system of claim 1, wherein the system is a line of products”. This fails to further limit claim 1 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim s 1- 3, 9-11 and 14-17 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] , wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece is a different size and/or has at least one different feature than the second reusable endoscope hand-piece [Fig.2, para.59] ; 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] . 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 3, Zhang discloses the system of claim 2, 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 [As the backstrap is not positively claimed here and this distance could be performed in this fash i on. See the related 112 (d) rejection hereinabove.] . 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 17, Zhang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is a line of products [see the related 112 (d) rejection hereinabove] . Claim s 1- 5, 12 and 14-17 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.13 b ] ; a second reusable endoscope hand-piece [1304, Fig.13c] , wherein the first reusable endoscope hand-piece is a different size and/or has at least one different feature than the second reusable endoscope hand-piece [ Figs.13a, 13c, para.106, 107 ] ; 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 ] . 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, 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 [As the backstrap is not positively claimed here and this distance could be performed in this fashion. See the related 112 (d) rejection hereinabove.] . 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 1 2 , Ouyang disclose s 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 portion s 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 17, Ouyang discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is a line of products [see the related 112 (d) rejection hereinabove] . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 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. 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, the first handpiece differing in size or at least one feature from the second handpiece, 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, (claim 6) 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 (claim 13) 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 . 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5276 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Carey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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