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 amendment filed on 11/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/27/2025. With the exception of the interpretation of “an engaging portion” in claim 8, the claim interpretations invoked under 35 USC § 112(f) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/27/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 11/27/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 103 of Claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant amended the independent claim with newly added limitations. Such newly added limitations change the scope of the claims, render the previous 103 rejections identified in the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/27/2025 moot, and require a new ground of rejection.
Therefore, the 103 rejections previously identified in the non-final action dated 11/27/2025 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made. Please see section 35 USC § 103 below for further explanation.
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 limitations are:
“an engaging portion that engages in an attachable and detachable manner with the bendable portion or a fixing member fixed to the bendable portion” in claim 8 as described in Para. [0088 and 0090] of Applicant’s specification.
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 in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second opening portion side" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the second opening portion side” is being interpreted as “a second opening portion side.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the rail position" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the rail position” is being interpreted as “the rail portion.”
Claim 10 recite the limitation "the elastic body" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the elastic body” is being interpreted as “the elastic film.”
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0297193 A1 to Takahashi et al. (“Takahashi”) in view of Japanese Patent Pub. No. 2008043361 A to Honda (“Honda”) and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0121045 A1 to Levy et al. (“Levy).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses an endoscope (an endoscope 1; Fig. 1, paragraph 0020) comprising:
an insertion pipe that is to be inserted into a subject (an insertion section 9; Fig. 1, paragraph 0020);
a distal end portion body that is disposed at a distal end of the insertion pipe (a distal end portion 9A of an insertion section 9; Fig. 1, paragraph 0020) and includes a housing chamber (substantially cylindrical housing 10 is disposed in the distal end portion 9A of the insertion section 9; Fig. 2, paragraph 0021) in which an imaging unit is held (image pickup unit 30; Fig. 2, paragraph 0023), a lens cover for covering the imaging unit (distal end lens 21; Fig. 2, paragraph 0027), and elastic member disposed between the imaging unit and the lens cover (an annular member 55 covering an area between a front portion of a unit frame 39 and an adhesive agent 40 … the annular member 55 is composed of a silicone rubber tube; Fig. 9, paragraph 0055);
and the imaging unit that is housed and held in the housing chamber in an attachable (the image pickup device 2 is inserted into and fixed to the through hole H10; Fig. 2, paragraph 0021) and detachable manner (the image pickup device 2 excluding the distal end lens 21 can be easily pulled out backward from the housing 10; Fig. 4, paragraph 0034) in an airtight or liquidtight state with respect to an external space (the distal end lens 21 is watertightly fixed to a distal end portion of the through hole H10 in the housing 10; Fig. 2, paragraph 0026),
wherein the imaging unit has an image sensor (the image pickup unit 30 converts an object image converged by the optical unit 20 into an electrical signal. The image pickup unit 30 includes an image pickup element 31, a cover glass 32, a signal processing unit 33, and a signal cable 35; Fig. 3, paragraph 0029).
However, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic member is an elastic film that maintains the airtight or the liquidtight state with respect to the external space and wherein the image sensor observes a visual field region in a first direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the insertion part.
Honda teaches wherein the elastic member is an elastic film that maintains the airtight or the liquidtight state with respect to the external space (one O-ring 61 is provided as a sealing means between the connection portion 2 of the distal end portion 8 and the connection portion 41A of the insertion portion 6A … The sealing means is not limited to an O-ring 61, and other sealing means, for example, a packing formed of an elastic body on the entire inner peripheral surface of the tip end portion 26 may be provided; Fig. 9, paragraph 0099).
Honda is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with an insertion section and imaging unit that are freely connectable and separable. Since the prior art of Honda recognizes the equivalency of an O-ring and elastic film in the field of endoscopes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the O-ring of Takahashi with the elastic film of Honda as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent elastic members recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Additionally, Levy teaches an image sensor that observers a visual field region in a first direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the insertion part (side looking viewing element 116b; Fig. 2B, paragraph 0475). Levy teaches that a side looking image sensor helps to gain better visualization of some objects that may be less visible with a front looking viewing element (paragraph 0475).
Levy is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with image sensors found at the distal end. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viewing angle of the image sensor of Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Levy by changing the viewing angle from parallel to the axial direction of the insertion part to perpendicular to the axial direction of the insertion part. Doing so would help to gain better visualization of some objects that may be less visible with a front looking viewing element, as recognized by Levy.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Takahashi further discloses wherein the distal end portion body further includes:
a first opening portion that is positioned on a proximal end side of the housing chamber (proximal end of through hole H10; Fig. 3) as the imaging unit is separated from the housing chamber through the first opening portion in a case where the imaging unit held in the housing chamber is pulled toward a proximal end side of the distal end portion body (the image pickup device 2 excluding the distal end lens 21 can be easily pulled out backward from the housing 10 when the image pickup device 2 is replaced; Fig. 4, paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, does not explicitly disclose wherein the insertion pipe is composed of a distal end portion including the distal end portion body, a bendable portion installed consecutively to the distal end portion, and a soft portion installed consecutively to the bendable portion,
the distal end portion body further includes:
an engaging portion that engages in an attachable and detachable manner with the bendable portion or a fixing member fixed to the bendable portion, and
the imaging unit is separated, integrally with the housing chamber, from the bendable portion or the fixing member in a case where the engaging portion is disengaged from the bendable portion or the fixing member.
Honda teaches wherein the insertion pipe is composed of a distal end portion including the distal end portion body (a distal end rigid part 8; Fig. 1, paragraph 0022), a bendable portion installed consecutively to the distal end portion (a bending portion 9; Fig. 1, paragraph 0022), and a soft portion installed consecutively to the bendable portion (the distal end side guide tube 13; Fig. 1, paragraph 0022),
the distal end portion body includes:
a holding portion in which the imaging unit is held (the imaging unit 27 includes a substantially annular holding ring 28a; Fig. 11, paragraph 0035); and
an engaging portion that engages in an attachable and detachable manner with the bendable portion or a fixing member fixed to the bendable portion (a locking portion 60a, which is a locking means 60, is formed on the proximal end side of the connecting portion 26A of the distal end portion 8, while locking portion 6a is engaged with the distal side of the insertion portion 6A (curved portion 9); Fig. 9 and 11, paragraph 0095), and
the imaging unit is separated, integrally with the holding portion, from the bendable portion or the fixing member in a case where the engaging portion is disengaged from the bendable portion or the fixing member (the imaging unit 27 is separated, integrally with the holding ring 28a, when the locking portion 60a is disengaged from locking groove 60b on the bending portion 9; Fig. 9 and 11). Honda teaches the use of the engaging portion to help provide an endoscope tip which can be easily attached to the insertion portion while securing a sterilized state sufficiently (paragraph 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of removing the imaging unit of Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, to incorporate the teachings of Honda by using an engaging portion to attach the imaging unit to the insertion portion of the endoscope. Doing so would help to provide an endoscope tip which can be easily attached to the insertion portion while securing a sterilized state sufficiently, as recognized by Honda.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1-2. Takahashi, as modified by Levy for a change in orientation of the imaging unit, further discloses wherein the imaging unit includes a chamfer portion that is inclined from an upper end surface facing the lens cover to a proximal end surface or from the upper end surface to a distal end surface (chamfer portion as indicated by a circle in annotated Fig. 9 below; Fig. 9), and
the imaging unit comes into contact with a distal end surface or a proximal end surface of the housing chamber or a corner portion of the housing chamber (corner portion of the housing 10 indicated by a square in annotated Fig. 9 below; Fig. 9) that is positioned diagonally opposite to the chamfer portion with the chamfer portion being pressed by an elastic force of the elastic member (chamfer portion indicated by a circle in annotated Fig. 9 below; Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0259100 A1 to Ito et al. (“Ito ‘100”).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1-2. Takahashi further discloses wherein the housing chamber includes a locking portion that locks the imaging unit (an outer peripheral surface of the inserted front portion is bonded to the through hole H10 using an adhesive agent 40; Fig. 4, paragraph 0031), and
the imaging unit is allowed to move to the proximal end side in a case where the imaging unit is unlocked (although the housing 10 and the image pickup device 2 are bonded to each other using the adhesive agent 40, the adhesive agent 40 having a modulus of elasticity of 10 MPa or less can be easily fractured by a sheer stress; Fig. 4, paragraph 0034).
However, Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, does not explicitly disclose a locking claw.
Ito ‘100 teaches a locking claw (the connection unit 80 has a stopper (a lock) 82a to prevent removal of the imaging unit 100 from the connection unit 80… the lock 82a is a claw, for example, and prevents removal by locking in a groove 110a in the separate imaging connector; Fig. 8E, paragraph 0065).
Ito ‘100 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with an endoscope main body and imaging unit that are freely connectable and separable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted the adhesive of Takahashi with the locking claw of Ito ‘100, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Ito ‘100 is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one locking mechanism for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda, Levy, and Ito ‘100, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1-3. Takahashi, as modified by Ito ‘100, teaches wherein the locking claw locks a proximal end surface of the imaging unit (the connection unit 80 has a stopper (a lock) 82a to prevent removal of the imaging unit 100 from the connection unit 80… the lock 82a is a claw, for example, and prevents removal by locking in a groove 110a in the separate imaging connector; Fig. 8E, paragraph 0065).
Claims 5, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0259532 A1 to Ito et al. (“Ito ‘532”).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, does not explicitly disclose wherein the distal end portion body further includes:
a second opening portion at which the lens cover is held in an attachable and detachable manner; and
the imaging unit is separated from the housing chamber through the second opening portion in a case where the lens cover held at the second opening portion is removed and the imaging unit held in the housing chamber is pulled toward the second opening portion side.
Ito ‘532 teaches wherein the distal end portion body includes:
a lens cover through which at least a portion of the imaging unit is exposed (behind the window plate 145, an observation window 132 and two illumination windows 133 arranges on the left and right sides of the observation window 132 are provided; Fig. 3, paragraph 0049);
a second opening portion at which the lens cover is held in an attachable (the window 145 is fitted into the window plate frame 75 and attached to the distal tip frame 70 by any means such as bonding or ultrasonic welding; Fig. 3, paragraph 0053) and detachable manner (the window plate is removed from the distal tip frame 70; Fig. 20, paragraph 0113); and
a housing chamber in which the imaging unit is held (the imaging/cable unit 15 is fixed to the distal tip frame 70 by a fixing screw 69 screwed into the communication hole 712; Fig. 3, paragraph 0057), and
the imaging unit is separated from the housing chamber through the second opening portion in a case where the lens cover held at the second opening portion is removed and the imaging unit held in the housing chamber is pulled toward a second opening portion side (the imaging/cable unit 15 can be taken out from the endoscope 10 by pulling the claw jig 82; Fig. 20-23, paragraphs 0113-0117). Ito teaches the use of jigs for removing the imaging unit without pulling on the cable assembly helps to prevent damaging the cable assembly (paragraph 0123).
Ito ‘532 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a distal end body and imaging unit that are freely connectable and separable. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of removing the imaging unit of Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, to incorporate the teachings of Ito ‘532 by using jigs to first remove the lens cover and then the imaging unit through the hole where the lens cover was housed. Doing so would help to prevent damaging the cable assembly, as recognized by Ito ‘532.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1-2. Takahashi further discloses a cable connected to the imaging unit (signal cable 35; Fig. 2, paragraph 0020). However, Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, does not explicitly disclose a relay connector that is coupled to the imaging unit; and a cable that is connected to the imaging unit via the relay connector, wherein the relay connector is disposed inside the distal end portion body.
Ito ‘532 teaches a relay connector that is coupled to the imaging unit (the imaging/cable unit 15 is configured by connecting a cable assembly 50 … and an imaging unit 60; Fig. 11, paragraph 0079); and
a cable that is connected to the imaging unit via the relay connector (cable bundle 51; Fig. 11, paragraph 0080),
wherein the relay connector is disposed inside the distal end portion body (cable assembly 50 is disposed inside distal tip frame 70; Fig. 20). Ito teaches that the cable assembly helps to create a strong connection state (paragraph 0101).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cable of Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, to incorporate the teachings of Ito ‘532 by using a relay connector to connect the cable to the imaging unit. Doing so would help to create a strong connection state, as recognized by Ito ‘532.
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1-2. Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens cover is fixed to the distal end portion body, and the distal end portion body includes a jig cutout portion that adjoins the lens cover, for insertion of a jig that unfixes the lens cover.
Ito ‘532 teaches wherein the lens cover is fixed to the distal end portion body (the window plate 145 is fitted into the window plate frame 75 and attached to the distal tip frame 70 by any means such as bonding or ultrasonic welding; Fig. 3, paragraph 0053), and
the distal end portion body includes a jig cutout portion that adjoins the lens cover, for insertion of a jig that unfixes the lens cover (the window plate 145 is removed from the distal tip frame 70. This work is carried out, for example, by inserting a jig into the gap between the edge of the window plate 145 and the edge of the window plate frame 75 described with reference to Fig. 2, and picking the gap; paragraph 0113). Ito teaches that removing the lens cover allows the imaging/cable unit to be removed from the distal end side opening (paragraph 0113-0117).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens cover of Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, to incorporate the teachings of Ito ‘532 by removing the lens cover with a jig. Doing so would help to allow the imaging/cable unit to be removed from the distal end side opening, as recognized by Ito ‘532.
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, does not explicitly disclose wherein the imaging unit includes a light source that irradiates a subject with illumination light.
Ito ‘532 teaches wherein the imaging unit includes a light source that irradiates a subject with illumination light (light emitting element 136 to illuminate a predetermined range; Fig. 6, paragraph 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a light source in the endoscope of Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, as taught by Ito ‘532, in order to improve visualization, i.e. brightness of the image, with the Takahashi endoscope by illuminating the area being observed.
Regarding claim 16, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda and Levy, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the endoscope is disposable except the imaging unit.
Ito ‘532 teaches wherein at least a portion of the endoscope is disposable except the imaging unit (it is possible to provide an endoscope 10 in which the imaging unit 60 can be reused. By reusing expensive components, a high-definition single-use endoscope 10 can be provided at low cost; paragraph 0121). Ito ‘532 teaches that reusing the imaging unit and not the rest of the endoscope helps to provide an endoscope assembly at a low cost (paragraph 0123).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Takahashi, as modified by Honda and Levy, to incorporate the teachings of Ito ‘532 by reusing the imaging unit and disposing of the rest of the endoscope. Doing so would help to provide an endoscope at a low cost, as recognized by Ito ‘532.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi, as previously modified by Honda, Levy, and Ito ‘532, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 5. However, Takahashi, as modified by Honda, Levy, and Ito ‘532, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the distal end portion body further includes a rail portion that is slidably fitted to a side edge of the lens cover, and the lens cover is disposed at a position facing the imaging unit in a case where the side edge of the lens cover is fitted to the rail portion.
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi, as previously modified by Levy and Honda, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 8. However, Takahashi, as modified by Levy and Honda, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the housing chamber includes a locking claw that locks the imaging unit,
the distal end portion body includes an unlocking hole that communicates with the housing chamber, and
the imaging unit is unlocked or at least a portion of the locking claw is removed in a case where a jig is inserted through the unlocking hole to press the locking claw.
Additionally, there is no reason, teaching, or suggestion provided with any prior art of record to modify the above endoscope to have the above features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 OLIVIA G STARKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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 5712707235. 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.
/OLIVIA GRACE STARKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795