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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 19-22 are pending, 8-9 and 18 have been cancelled, claims 21-22 have been added, and claims 1-7, 10-17, and 19-22 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Previous 35 USC 112 Rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, on line 2, change “a proximal” to “the proximal” (i.e., previously recited).
Regarding claim 12, on line 4, change “corrugate” to “corrugated”.
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 2-3, 5-7, and 10-12 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the first media tube first corrugated section” lacks antecedent basis due to not being previously recited. It is unclear if this feature is referring to “a first media tube corrugated section” recited in claim 1 or a separate feature. Claims 5-7 and 10-12 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations in this claim are dependent on itself (i.e., “of claim 3”). It is unclear what the scope of the claims are. The Examiner will be interpreting this claim as being dependent on claim 1.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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. Claim 3 is dependent upon itself and fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon 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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 2013/0197309), in view of Yamaya (US 2017/0215709) and Tsai (US 2014/0236120).
Regarding claim 1, Sakata discloses an endoscope (1, figure 1) comprising: a handle (6, figure 1) including valves (see 13-14, figure 1 | 26-27, figure 3; [0054] | interpreted 26-27 to be a valve to control air/water/suction) configured to control fluid flow; and an insertion cord (5, figure 1) including: a distal tip (8, figure 1); a bending section (9, figure 1); a main tube (10, figure 1) extending from the handle to the bending section; a working channel (8c and/or 18, figure 3; [0039]); a first media tube (15, figure 3) attached to and extending between one of the valves (26, figure 3) and the distal tip (see figure 3), the first media tube comprising a first portion located in the main tube (see part of 15 in 10, figure 1) and a second portion located in the bending section (see part of 15 in 9, figure 1); and a second media tube (17, figure 3) attached to and extending between another of the valves (27, figure 3) and the distal tip (see figure 3), the second media tube comprising a first portion located in the main tube (see part of 17 in 10, figure 1) and a second portion located in the bending section (see part of 17 in 9, figure 1), wherein the first media tube and the second media tube each comprises a circumferential wall forming a fluid channel configured to transport a fluid through the insertion cord (air feeding conduit 15 [0049]; suction conduit 17 [0050]). Sakata is silent regarding the second portion comprising a first media tube corrugated section and a first media tube non-corrugated section; the second portion comprising a second media tube corrugated section and a second media tube non-corrugated section, the second media tube corrugated section overlapping the first media tube non- corrugated section, and the first media tube corrugated section overlapping the second media tube non-corrugated section in a cross-section perpendicular to a proximal to distal axial extending direction of the insertion cord.
Yamaya teaches an endoscope system (10, figure 4) with an assist device (16, figure 4). The assist device has an expansion-and contraction section (112, figure 5) with two bellows body (112a-b, figure 5) and a cylindrical flexible body (114, figure 5) interposed between the two. The length of the bellow and flexible body can be set to appropriate values ([0076]). The bellows are a more deformable structure ([0007]) and are shape-maintainable ([0038]). Liquid is prevented from externally leaking from the assist device ([0043]).
Tsai teaches a tube (10, figures 1) with layers (20 and 22, figures 1) that are able to slide past each other ([0027]). The layers each have a plurality of segments (12, 14, 16, and 18, figures 1) with different lengths, materials, and/or durometer rating ([0027]) The layers have alternating stiff and flexible segments ([0041]). Further, the alternating flexible and stiff regions can be either aligned with each other or moved out of alignment to provide a flexible or more rigid structure ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to modify the first and second media tubes with bellows (112a-b, figure 5) and a flexible body (114, figure 5) interposed between. Doing so would provide media tubes with a more deformable structure that is still shape maintainable ([0007] and [0038]). Further, it would have been obvious to modify the second portion of the first and second media tubes to have alternating flexible and stiff regions as taught by Tsai that can be aligned or moved out of alignment with each other ([0043]). Doing so would provide a structure that can be more flexible or rigid ([0043]). The modified endoscope would have the second portion comprising a first media tube corrugated section (see 112a or b, figure 5; Yamaya) and a first media tube non-corrugated section (see 114, figure 5; Yamaya); the second portion comprising a second media tube corrugated section (see 112a or b, figure 5; Yamaya) and a second media tube non-corrugated section (see 114, figure 5; Yamaya), the second media tube corrugated section overlapping the first media tube non-corrugated section (alternating flexible and stiff regions…moved out of alignment [0043]; Tsai), and the first media tube corrugated section overlapping the second media tube non-corrugated section in a cross-section perpendicular to a proximal to distal axial extending direction of the insertion cord (alternating flexible and stiff regions…moved out of alignment [0043]; Tsai).
Regarding claim 2, Yamaya further teaches the second portion of the first media tube further comprises a first media tube second corrugated section (112a-b, figure 5; Yamaya), wherein the first media tube non-corrugated section (114, figure 5) is positioned between the first media tube first corrugated section and the first media tube second corrugated section (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaya further teaches the first media tube non-corrugated section is longer than the first media tube first corrugated section and is also longer than the first media tube second corrugated section (114 can be set to appropriate values… [0076] | interpreted 114 can be set to be longer than 112a-b).
Regarding claim 4, Sakata further discloses a third media tube (16, figure 3; Sakata) comprising a first portion located in the main tube (see part of 16 in 10, figure 1) and a second portion located in the bending section (see part of 16 in 9, figure 1), wherein the third media tube comprises a circumferential wall forming a fluid channel configured to transport a fluid through the insertion cord (water feeding conduit 16 [0048]). Sakata, Yamaya, and Tsai are silent regarding the second portion comprising a third media tube corrugated section and a third media tube non-corrugated section, the third media tube corrugated section overlapping the second media tube non-corrugated section.
Yamaya teaches an endoscope system (10, figure 4) with an assist device (16, figure 4). The assist device has an expansion-and contraction section (112, figure 5) with two bellows body (112a-b, figure 5) and a cylindrical flexible body (114, figure 5) interposed between the two. The length of the bellow and flexible body can be set to appropriate values ([0076]). The bellows are a more deformable structure ([0007]) and are shape-maintainable ([0038]). Liquid is prevented from externally leaking from the assist device ([0043]).
Tsai teaches a tube (10, figures 1) with layers (20 and 22, figures 1) that are able to slide past each other ([0027]). The layers each have a plurality of segments (12, 14, 16, and 18, figures 1) with different lengths, materials, and/or durometer rating ([0027]) The layers have alternating stiff and flexible segments ([0041]). Further, the alternating flexible and stiff regions can be either aligned with each other or moved out of alignment to provide a flexible or more rigid structure ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to modify the third media tube with bellows (112a-b, figure 5) and a flexible body (114, figure 5) interposed between. Doing so would provide media tubes with a more deformable structure that is still shape maintainable ([0007] and [0038]). Further, it would have been obvious to modify the second portion of the first and second media tubes to have alternating flexible and stiff regions as taught by Tsai that can be aligned or moved out of alignment with each other ([0043]). Doing so would provide a structure that can be more flexible or rigid ([0043]). The modified endoscope would have the second portion comprising a third media tube corrugated section (112a-b, figure 5; Yamaya) and a third media tube non-corrugated section (114, figure 5), the third media tube corrugated section overlapping the second media tube non-corrugated section (alternating flexible and stiff regions…moved out of alignment [0043]; Tsai).
Regarding claim 13, Sakata and Yamaya further disclose a portion of the working channel (treatment instrument conduit 19…suction conduit 17, figure 3; Sakata | [0054]) extending from the main tube to the distal tip is located in the bending section and is not corrugated (interpreted “not corrugated” is referring to a portion of the working channel | 112, figure 5 of Yamaya is only a portion of 17, figure 3 of Sakata; therefore, there is a portion of 17 that would not be corrugated).
Regarding claim 17, Sakata discloses a method for assembling the endoscope of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), the method comprising: attaching the first media tube to the distal tip (conduit 15…inserted through the inside…[0048]; Sakata); attaching the second media tube to the distal tip (conduit 17 extend into…through the inside of the insertion portion 5…[0050]); arranging the first media tube in the bending section (inserted through the inside…[0048]); arranging the second media tube in the bending section (extend into…through the inside of…[0050]); attaching a proximal end of the first media tube to one of the valves (26-27, figure 3) and attaching a proximal end of the second media tube to another one of the valves (26-27, figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Sakata discloses a system comprising: the endoscope of claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above) further comprising an image sensor at the distal tip (image pickup apparatus 20, figure 3; Sakata); and a controller (3, figure 1) operable to cause presentation of images (video processor…[0038]) corresponding to images captured by the image sensor of the endoscope.
Regarding claim 21, Yamaya further teaches the first media tube corrugated section comprises corrugations (see bellows 112a-b, figure 5; Yamaya) in which each of the corrugations comprises a proximal wall connected to a distal wall (see the ridges/angled walls of 112a-b, figure 5), wherein the proximal wall and the distal wall are angled (see 112a-b, figure 5), relative to the proximal to distal axial extending direction (see figure 5), and wherein the proximal wall is angled more steeply than the distal wall when the bending section is straight (112 can be elongated…attached to a distal end side of the insertion section [0067] | the distal wall may be less angled due to elongation).
Regarding claim 22, Sakata and Yamaya further disclose the first media tube corrugated section and the second media tube corrugated section comprise diameters greater than diameters of the first media tube non-corrugated section and the second media tube non-corrugated section (see diameter of 112a-b vs. 114, figure 5; Yamaya), respectively, and wherein the first media tube corrugated section and the second media tube corrugated section overlap when viewed in the proximal to distal axial extending direction when the bending section is straight ([0066]; Sakata | the corrugated section 112a-b, figure 5 of Yamaya may overlap one another in the axial extending direction in conduits 15 and 17 of Sakata, figure 3; see how close 51 and 53, figure 4 of Sakata are to one another), said overlap reducing a transverse cross-section of the insertion cord (when the corrugated section 112a-b, figure 5 of Yamaya overlap each other for the first and second media tubes, the cross-section may be reduced/less).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 2013/0197309) and Yamaya (US 2017/0215709) and Tsai (US 2014/0236120) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Saito (US 2016/0249788).
Regarding claim 5, Sakata further discloses the endoscope is a four-way bending endoscope (four directions…[0039]; Sakata) comprising steering wheels (11, figure 1) at the handle, wherein manipulation of the steering wheels causes bending of the bending section to steer the distal tip ([0039]). They are silent regarding four steering wire portions extending to the distal end of the bending section.
Saito teaches an endoscope (10, figure 1) with an inserting section (20, figure 1) having a bending section (23, figure 1). The bending section bends by an operation of a bending operation portion (37, figure 1) in an upward, downward, right or left direction ([0043]). A bending wire (not shown) is connected to the distal end at its distal end portion, and connected to the bending operation portion at its proximal end ([0046]). The bending section is made of node rings that holds the bending wire ([0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Sakata, Yamaya, and Tsai with the bending wires and node rings ([0045]-[0046]) as taught by Saito. Doing so would allow the steering wheels to bend the bending section ([0046]). The modified endoscope would have four steering wire portions (bending wire…four holding members…[0045]; Saito) extending to the distal end of the bending section ([0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Saito further teaches the bending section includes segments (node rings [0044]; Saito), the segments including a proximal end segment (proximal most node ring [0044]), a distal end segment (distal most node ring [0044]), and intermediate segments arranged between the proximal end segment and the distal end segment (node rings [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Sakata further discloses the endoscope is a four-way bending endoscope (four directions…[0039]; Sakata) comprising steering wheels (11, figure 1) at the handle, wherein manipulation of the steering wheels causes bending of the bending section. Sakata, Yamaya, and Tsai are silent regarding and four steering wire portions extending to the distal end of the bending section.
Saito teaches an endoscope (10, figure 1) with an inserting section (20, figure 1) having a bending section (23, figure 1). The bending section bends by an operation of a bending operation portion (37, figure 1) in an upward, downward, right or left direction ([0043]). A bending wire (not shown) is connected to the distal end at its distal end portion, and connected to the bending operation portion at its proximal end ([0046]). The bending section is made of node rings that holds the bending wire ([0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Sakata, Yamaya, and Tsai with the bending wires and node rings ([0045]-[0046]) as taught by Saito. Doing so would allow the steering wheels to bend the bending section ([0046]). The modified endoscope would have four steering wire portions (bending wire…four holding members…[0045]; Saito) extending to the distal end of the bending section ([0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Saito further teaches the bending section includes segments (node rings [0044]; Saito), the segments including a proximal end segment (proximal most node ring [0044]), a distal end segment (distal most node ring [0044]), and intermediate segments arranged between the proximal end segment and the distal end segment (node rings [0044]).
Claim(s) 5-7, 10-12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 2013/0197309) and Yamaya (US 2017/0215709) and Tsai (US 2014/0236120) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Boulais (US 2013/0261396).
Regarding claim 5, Sakata further discloses the endoscope is a four-way bending endoscope (four directions…[0039]; Sakata) comprising steering wheels (11, figure 1) at the handle, wherein manipulation of the steering wheels causes bending of the bending section to steer the distal tip ([0039]). They are silent regarding four steering wire portions extending to the distal end of the bending section.
Boulais teaches an articulation joint (750, figure 13) with a number of control cable lumens (754, figure 13). Four control cables may be used to steer the distal tip of the endoscope, where the control cables are each connected to a servo motor ([0071]). The articulation joint can be made of a biocompatible polymer ([0177]), with living hinges (760, figure 13) and flexible webs (772, figure 13; [0174]) formed along its length ([0174]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Sakata, Yamaya, and Tsai with the bending wires (control cables [0071]) and articulation joint (750, figure 13) as taught by Boulais. Doing so would provide an articulation joint that allows the distal tip to be turned back on itself ([0173]). The modified endoscope would have four steering wire portions (four control cables [0071]; Boulais) extending to the distal end of the bending section ([0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Boulais further teaches the bending section includes segments (see 750, figure 13; Boulais), the segments including a proximal end segment (proximal most 772, figure 13), a distal end segment (distal most 772, figure 13), and intermediate segments arranged between the proximal end segment and the distal end segment (see 772, figure 13).
Regarding claim 7, Boulais further teaches the segments are connected by hinges (760, figure 13; Boulais), and the segments and the hinges of the bending section are molded or fused together to form a one-piece polymer part (see figure 13 | living hinge…cuts…[0174]; polymer [0177]).
Regarding claim 10, Sakata and Tsai further disclose the insertion cord defines a proximal to distal axial extending direction (see axial direction of 9-10, figure 1; Sakata), wherein the second media tube corrugated section does not overlap with the first media tube first corrugated section nor with the first media tube second corrugated section in any cross-section perpendicular to the axial extending direction (alternating flexible and stiff regions….moved out of alignment [0043]; Tsai).
Regarding claim 11, Sakata and Yamaya further disclose the first media tube non-corrugated section overlaps with the second media tube corrugated section in the axial extending direction ([0066]; Sakata | the corrugated section 112a-b, figure 5 of Yamaya of the first media tube may overlap with the non-corrugated section 114 of the second media tube in the axial extending direction; see how close 51 and 53, figure 4 of Sakata are to one another).
Regarding claim 12, Yamaya further teaches the first media tube non-corrugated section is longer, in the axial extending direction, than each of the first media tube first corrugated section and the first media tube second corrugate section (114 can be set to appropriate values… [0076]; Yamaya | interpreted 114 can be set to be longer than 112a-b).
Regarding claim 14, Sakata further discloses the endoscope is a four-way bending endoscope (four directions…[0039]; Sakata) comprising steering wheels (11, figure 1) at the handle, wherein manipulation of the steering wheels causes bending of the bending section. Sakata, Yamaya, and Tsai are silent regarding and four steering wire portions extending to the distal end of the bending section.
Boulais teaches an articulation joint (750, figure 13) with a number of control cable lumens (754, figure 13). Four control cables may be used to steer the distal tip of the endoscope, where the control cables are each connected to a servo motor ([0071]). The articulation joint can be made of a biocompatible polymer ([0177]), with living hinges (760, figure 13) and flexible webs (772, figure 13; [0174]) formed along its length ([0174]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Sakata, Yamaya, and Tsai with the bending wires (control cables [0071]) and articulation joint (750, figure 13) as taught by Boulais. Doing so would provide an articulation joint that allows the distal tip to be turned back on itself ([0173]). The modified endoscope would have four steering wire portions (four control cables [0071]; Boulais) extending to the distal end of the bending section ([0071]).
Regarding claim 15, Boulais further teaches the bending section includes segments (see 750, figure 13; Boulais), the segments including a proximal end segment (proximal most 772, figure 13), a distal end segment (distal most 772, figure 13), and intermediate segments arranged between the proximal end segment and the distal end segment (see 772, figure 13).
Regarding claim 16, Boulais further teaches the segments are connected by hinges (760, figure 13; Boulais), and the segments and the hinges of the bending section are molded or fused together to form a one-piece polymer part (see figure 13 | living hinge…cuts…[0174]; polymer [0177]).
Regarding claim 19, Sakata discloses a system comprising: the endoscope of claim [[8]] 10 (see claim 10 rejection above) further comprising an image sensor (image pickup apparatus 20, figure 3; Sakata) at the distal tip; and a controller (3, figure 1) operable to cause presentation of images corresponding to images (video processor…[0038]) captured by the image sensor of the endoscope.
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 PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 PM.
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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
May 19, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights