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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takasaki (US 2011/0074941).
As to claim 1, Takasaki discloses an endoscope comprising:
an imaging device (69,100, Fig.4) that includes a lens barrel (lens barrel 69, Fig.4) and an imaging unit (imaging unit 100, Figs.2,4);
a distal end part body (60/62, Fig.4) that has an insertion hole (space through 60/62 which accommodates lens barrel 69) into which at least the lens barrel is inserted; and
an extending part (either 58 or portion of 60 that extends proximally, see annotated figure below, both of which extend proximally from the distal end body 60/62) that is provided by being extended from a proximal end surface of the distal end part body (see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
269
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the imaging device includes, in a state in which the lens barrel is inserted into the insertion hole (Fig.4), an exposed part (see annotated figure above) that is exposed from a proximal end of the distal end part body, and
the extending part is disposed at a position facing at least the exposed part of the imaging device (the portions of the extending part facing upward in the annotated figure above will face the exposed part).
As to claim 2, wherein a space between the imaging device and the extending part is filled with a filler having thermally conductive properties (insulative resin 112, which inherently has thermally conductive properties to some extent, [0051], extends between the imaging device 100 and the extending part as shown in Fig.4; additionally, a further insulative resin 120 may be added, Fig.9A,9B, [0070]).
As to claim 4, the imaging unit includes an imaging element (light receiving surface 104), Fig.3) and a substrate (image pickup element 102 or frame 114, Fig.3), and the extending part faces the substrate (the extending parts, as set forth above in the annotated figures have surfaces that face the substrate, Fig.4).
As to claim 5, wherein a distal end ring (64, Fig.4) that is disposed on a proximal end side of the distal end part body (as shown in Fig.4) and constitutes a distal end part of a bendable part is provided (64 is the distal end sleeve of a bending part, [0056]), and a heat dissipation sheet (coating member 66, Fig.4, [0056]) that has thermally conductive properties (inherent) is disposed on an outer circumference of the distal end ring (surrounds ring 64, Fig.4), the distal end ring including an inner periphery on which at least the extending part is positioned (extending parts as set forth above are positioned on the inner periphery of the ring 64, as shown in Fig.4).
As to claim 6, wherein the heat dissipation sheet is disposed within a range where the extending part is positioned, in an axial direction of the distal end part body (axially, the sheet 66 overlaps the extending parts, as shown in Fig.4).
As to claim 7, wherein the distal end part body has a disposition space in which the imaging unit is disposed (space that accommodates the imaging unit, Fig.4), the disposition space being consecutively installed to the insertion hole (the space that accommodates the imaging unit intersects/communicates with the space that accommodates the lens barrel, Fig.4).
As to claim 8, wherein the heat dissipation sheet is disposed within a range where the disposition space and the extending part are positioned in an axial direction of the distal end part body (axially, the sheet 66 overlaps the extending parts and disposition space, as shown in Fig.4).
As to claim 9, wherein the extending part is disposed only at a position facing the exposed part of the imaging device in a circumferential direction of the distal end part body (as shown in Fig.4, disposed only on one side of the imaging device).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasaki (US 2011/0074941) in view of Sakai et al. (US 2010/0208473, hereinafter “Sakai”).
As to claim 3, Takasaki discloses that the filler is a thermally conductive resin (such as silicon resin) mixed with a thermally conductive filler ([0051]) but fails to disclose that the filler base is a grease (as opposed to a resin). However, it is known in the thermally conductive filler art that a silicon grease can be substituted for a silicon resin in a filler material designed to increase thermal conduction efficiency (Sakai: [0054],[0072]). Given this known equivalency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide the filler as a grease as a known equivalent alternative to a resin in order to provide the same predictable results of conducting heat away from the imaging unit.
Response to Arguments
Rejections and objections from the previous Office Action that have not been repeated in this Office Action should be considered as addressed or corrected, and thus hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Takasaki does not disclose the limitation of “an extending part that is provided by being extended from a proximal end surface of the distal end part body”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out in the previous rejection of claim 1, there is a portion of main body 60 that extends proximally of another portion of main body 60, such “another portion” being the proximal end surface. This is now illustrated in the annotated figure above with respect to claim 1. This is substantially similar to the arrangement of Applicant’s distal end part body, wherein a portion (156) of such distal end part body extends proximally of a proximal end surface (154), as shown in Fig.5. In addition, considering forceps channel 58 in Takasaki as the “extending part”, there is a portion of such forceps channel that extends proximally of the same proximal end surface of the main body 60. Either interpretation explicitly meets the limitation of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is being maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN P LEUBECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4769. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 5:30-2:00.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/JOHN P LEUBECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795