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 with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9, in the response of 22 December, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant traverses on the basis that a greater showing of significant burden should be provided.
The applicant first argues this on the basis that there is minimal search burden between the accessory channel being movable (Invention I) and the accessory channel having unspecified movability (Invention II) [applicant’s arguments of 22 December, 2025, page 1].
The examiner disagrees. The narrower limitation of Invention I excludes all endoscope systems where the inner tube is united with the outer tube. Classification subgroups A61B1/00135, 00142, 00154 are specifically for where inner and outer tubes are movable relative to one another, and there are several other classification subgroups where this feature is found at increased frequency. Otherwise, the vast majority of tubes within tubes in the endoscope art are fixed.
Thus, this argument is found to be unusually unconvincing.
The applicant next argues this on the basis that as Invention II requires a specific irrigation accessory through the accessory channel, while Invention I requires a camera catheter through the accessory channel, these are not a significant search burden to search together [applicant’s arguments of 22 December, 2025, page 1].
The examiner disagrees. These are clearly very different limitations requiring different search terms and classifications. Thus, this argument is found to be particularly and unusually unconvincing.
As such, this restriction requirement is hereby made final. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-9 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the claim reads “the irrigation opening is shaped and orient to direct” where it is clear this was instead intended to read “the irrigation opening is shaped and oriented to direct”.
In claim 5, the claim reads “the irrigation opening directs at least a portion of the fluid jet towards the at least one light source”. It is clear that the applicant intended to write this to indicate the configuration of the irrigation opening, rather than as a method step in a device claim.
This would be better written as, for example: “the irrigation opening to direct at least a portion of the fluid jet towards the at least one light source”, mirroring the language of antecedent claim 2.
In claim 7, the claim reads “a fluid channel is in fluid communication with the accessory lumen such that fluid flows from the accessory channel to the fluid channel”. It is clear that the applicant intended to write this to indicate the nature of the fluid communication configuration of the fluid channel and accessory lumen, rather than as a method step in a device claim.
This would be better written as, for example: “a fluid channel in fluid communication with the accessory lumen, the fluid channel and accessory lumen configured to allow fluid to flow from the accessory channel to the fluid channel”.
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.
Claims 2-5 and 7 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 2, the claim reads “a surface of the camera” [line 3] and “a surface of the camera” [line 4]. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same item. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed these instances of “a surface” refer to the same one item.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kuramoto et al. (US 5,630,795).
In regards to Claim 1, Kuramoto discloses a scope system, comprising:
an elongate tube [flexible tube of endoscope 1, including 5, Figs.2-3, 6] having a lumen [“treatment-tool channel”, Figs.2-3, col.6 ll.20-22] extending therethrough, the elongate tube having a distal portion [5, Figs.2-3, 6]; and
at least one accessory channel [2, Figs.2-3, 6, col. 6 ll.20-27] extending at least partially through the lumen, the accessory channel comprising a tubular structure [tube of 2, Figs.2-3, 6] having an accessory lumen extending therethrough [lumen in 2 through which fluid is sent and received, col.6 ll.20-35, 45-61], wherein the accessory channel is moveable relative to the distal portion of the elongate tube [col.6 ll.20-23],
wherein the accessory channel is configured to direct fluid to an irrigation opening [8, Fig.3, col.6 ll.23-27] located at a distal end of the accessory channel.
In regards to claim 6, Kuramoto discloses the scope system of claim 1, further comprising a fluid channel [any of channels from interior of 2 to ports 8, Fig.3, col.6 ll.25-27, 54-61] located at the distal end of the accessory channel, the fluid channel configured to direct a fluid to the irrigation opening.
In regards to claim 8, Kuramoto discloses the 8. (Original) The scope system of claim 1, wherein the irrigation opening includes at least two outlets such that a resulting jet of fluid includes at least two directions [Fig.3, col.6 ll.23-27].
In regards to claim 9, Kuramoto discloses the 9. (Original) The scope system of claim 1, wherein the irrigation opening includes a nozzle [any of 8, Fig.3, col.6 ll.24-27, 54-61] configured to divert at least a portion of a jet of fluid across a surface of an accessory.
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, 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 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramoto et al. (US 5,630,795) in view of Miyoshi (US 2006/0161047).
In regards to claim 2, Kuramoto discloses the scope system of claim 1, wherein
the irrigation opening is shaped and orient to direct at least a portion of fluid as a jet towards objective lenses [10, Fig.3, col.6 ll.56-61: note that “at the distal end” here can mean “near” to the distal end of the accessory channel] at the distal end of the accessory channel for cleaning the light receiving surface [col.6 ll.24-27, 54-61].
However, Kuramoto does not positively disclose wherein a camera is located at the distal end of the accessory channel, and wherein the irrigation opening is shaped and orient to direct at least a portion of fluid as a jet towards a surface of the camera for cleaning a surface of the camera.
Miyoshi teaches an analogous scope system wherein an objective lens [33a, Fig.2, para.32] is located at a distal end of an accessory channel [near distal end of channel 61a-b, Fig.2, para.56-58], the objective lens being part of a camera [31a, Fig.2, para.32], and wherein an irrigation opening [60, Figs.2-3, para.54] located at a distal end of the accessory channel is shaped and orient to direct at least a portion of fluid as a jet towards a surface of the objective lens for cleaning it [Figs.2-3, para.59-61].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the objective lens of Kuramoto to be part of a camera in accordance with the teaching of Miyoshi. This would be done for the predictable result of electronic capture of image data.
In regards to claim 5, Kuramoto in view of Miyoshi teaches the scope system of claim 2, however does not positively teach wherein at least one light source is located at a distal end of the accessory channel, and wherein the irrigation opening directs at least a portion of the fluid jet towards the at least one light source for cleaning the light source.
In a separate, analogous embodiment [Figs.17-18], Kuramoto teaches wherein at least one light source [112, Fig.18, col.11 ll.66-col.12 ll.6, near to distal end of channel 122 in Fig.18] is located at a distal end of an analogous accessory channel.
Kuramoto teaches that this light source is provided for the purpose of illuminating subject parts for imaging [col.12 ll.2-10].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scope system taught by Kuramoto in view of Miyoshi to comprise a light source in accordance with the teaching of Kuramoto. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
This would create a scope system where the irrigation opening directs at least a portion of the fluid jet towards the at least one light source for cleaning the light source [Kuramoto: Fig.3: as the accessory channel 2 is independent from scope 1, and could be rotated and advanced to provide fluid where required on a distal tip of the scope].
In regards to claim 7, Kuramoto in view of Miyoshi teaches the scope system of claim 5, wherein a fluid channel is in fluid communication with the accessory lumen such that fluid flows from the accessory channel to the fluid channel at the distal end of the accessory channel [Kuramoto: any of channels from interior of 2 to ports 8, Fig.3, col.6 ll.24-27, 54-61].
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiita et al. (US 5,313,934) in view of Nakazawa et al. (US 2003/0135091).
In regards to claim 1, Wiita discloses a scope system, comprising:
an elongate tube having a lumen extending therethrough, the elongate tube having a distal portion; and
at least one accessory channel [10, Figs.1, 3 and 6-7, col.3 ll.46-68, col.5 ll.37-53] the accessory channel comprising a tubular structure [Fig.1] having an accessory lumen [22 and passages distal thereto, Figs.1, 3, 6] extending therethrough,
wherein the accessory channel is configured to direct fluid to an irrigation opening [opening leading to 80, Fig.6, col.5 ll.37-53] located at a distal end of the accessory channel.
Wiita further discloses wherein the accessory channel is an overtube for an endoscope [12, Figs.1-2, 6, abstract, col.2 ll.3-5, col.3 ll.21-41, 47-51].
However, Wiita does not positively disclose an elongate tube having a lumen therethrough, the elongate tube having a distal portion, where the accessory channel extends at least partially through the lumen, and wherein the accessory channel is movable relative to the distal portion of the elongate tube.
Nakawzawa teaches an analogous scope system, comprising:
an elongate tube [4, 6, 8, Fig.9, para.73-74] having a lumen [interior of 6 and 8, Fig.9] extending therethrough, the elongate tube having a distal portion [6, Fig.9]; and
an accessory channel [84, Fig.9] extending at least partially through the lumen, the accessory channel comprising a tubular structure having an accessory lumen [passage through which 22 passes, Fig.9] extending therethrough, wherein the accessory channel is movable relative to the distal portion of the elongate tube [para.127, 130].
Nakazawa teaches that the elongate tube is provided for the purpose of allowing laproscopic access to a body cavity for the accessory channel [Fig.9, para.129-130].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scope system disclosed by Wiita to comprise an elongate tube in accordance with the teaching of Nakazawa. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
In regards to claim 2, Wiita in view of Nakazawa teaches the scope system of claim 1, wherein a camera [Wiita: 12, “lens”, “fiber optics”, Figs.1, 8, col.3 ll.34-38, col.5 ll.54-65: as these serve as optics for a camera, they serve as part of the camera] is located at the distal end of the accessory channel, and wherein the irrigation opening is shaped and orient to direct at least a portion of fluid as a jet towards a surface of the camera [Wiita: “lens”, col.3 ll.34-38, col.5 ll.42-50] for cleaning a surface of the camera.
In regards to claim 3, Wiita in view of Nakazawa teaches the scope system of claim 2, wherein the camera is comprised by a camera catheter [Wiita: Fig.8, col.5 ll.54-65; the camera may be flexible] that extends through the accessory lumen, and wherein the accessory channel for directing the fluid is outside the camera catheter [Wiita: Figs.6, 8, col.5 ll.42-50, 54-65].
In regards to claim 6, Wiita in view of Nakazawa teaches the scope system of claim 1, further comprising a fluid channel [Wiita: Fig.6: open space leading to the opening leading to 80, col.5 ll.42-50] located at the distal end of the accessory channel, the fluid channel configured to direct a fluid to the irrigation opening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include 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, a scope system comprising:
an elongate tube having a lumen and a distal portion,
an inner channel extending at least partly through the lumen, the inner channel having a tube with an inner lumen therethrough, the inner channel being movable relative to the distal portion of the elongate tube,
the inner channel having an irrigation opening at a distal end thereof, the inner channel configured to direct fluid to the irrigation opening,
a camera catheter located near the distal end of the inner channel, the irrigation opening shaped and oriented to direct at least some of the fluid as a jet towards a surface of the camera for cleaning the surface, the inner channel outside the camera catheter,
wherein an O-ring surrounds the camera catheter for preventing fluid from flowing distally out of the inner lumen.
Wiita et al. (US 5,313,934) discloses the above except for the elongate tube and the O-ring.
Kuramoto et al. (US 5,630,795) discloses the above except for the camera catheter and O-ring.
Nakazawa et al. (US 2003/0135091) discloses an elongate tube with an inner channel that carries a camera catheter.
Miyoshi (US 2006/0161047) discloses a camera catheter with an inner channel that directs fluid on a distal surface thereof.
Fritsch et al. (US 2008/0045859) discloses a fluid-providing inner channel over a camera catheter wherein an O-ring is provided between the camera catheter and inner channel to prevent backflow, and the fluid is provided in secondary lumens in the inner channel
Torasawa (US 2012/0053410) discloses a fluid-providing inner channel over a camera catheter wherein an O-ring is provided between the camera catheter and inner channel to cause fluid to flow into the camera catheter.
In obvious combination, the above art teaches the above except for the O-ring.
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.
Nakazawa et al. (US 2003/0135091)
Miyoshi (US 2006/0161047)
Fritsch et al. (US 2008/0045859)
Torasawa (US 2012/0053410)
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