Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/454,442

WEIGHTED MANIFOLD FOR AN ENDOSCOPE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 23, 2023
Examiner
BOICE, JAMES EDWARD
Art Unit
3795
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
OA Round
3 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
94 granted / 119 resolved
+9.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
175
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
57.7%
+17.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 119 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated November 25, 2025. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending. 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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0040658 – “Sano”) in view of Levy et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0280969 – “Levy”). Regarding Claim 1, Sano discloses: A container and tube set (Sano FIG. 1, liquid and air supply unit 15) arranged and configured to couple to an endoscope (Sano FIG. 1, fiberscope 10) for use in an endoscopic procedure (intended use, providing no additional component structures and thus no patentable weight), the container and tube set comprising: a container (Sano FIG. 4, water tank 81) configured to contain a fluid, the container having a bottom portion and a top portion (Sano FIG. 4, showing water tank 81 with a top portion and a fluid in the bottom portion); a water supply tube (Sano FIG. 4, flexible water supply tube 87) including a first end, a second end, and a first lumen extending therethrough (Sano FIG. 4, showing flexible water supply tube 87 having a first end, a second end, and a lumen therebetween), wherein the first lumen is in selective fluid communication with the bottom portion of the container (Sano FIG. 1, air and liquid supply button 71; Sano paragraph [0025], “When the air and liquid supply button 71 is pressed down, liquid spouts from the liquid supply nozzle 52 (as shown in FIG. 3) of the tip body 20”) and the second end of the water supply tube is positioned external to the container (Sano FIG. 3, liquid supply nozzle 52; Sano paragraph [0031], “flexible tube 87 connected to the liquid supply nozzle 52”); a gas supply tube (Sano FIG. 4, air supply tube 100) including a first end, a second end, and a second lumen extending therethrough, wherein the second lumen is in operative fluid communication with the container (Sano FIG. 4, showing air supply tube 100 in fluid communication with air in upper portion of tank 81) and the second end of the gas supply tube is positioned external to the container (Sano FIG. 4, showing air supply tube 100 positioned next to air supply pump 82); and a weight (Sano FIG. 4, weight 105) coupled to the first end of the water supply tube, the weight comprising a housing having a housing lumen extending from a first end of the housing to a second end of the housing (Sano FIG. 5, showing weight 105 having a lumen extending from deepest section 105c to a narrower insertion section 105b). Sano does not explicitly disclose the weight coupled to a first end of the gas supply tube. Levy teaches a weight (Levy FIG. 9A, tip section 230a including manifold channeling component 894) coupled to a first end of the water supply tube (Levy FIG. 9A, liquid tube 893) and a first end of the gas supply tube (Levy FIG. 9A, gas tube 892). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levy’s manifold with the container and tube set disclosed by Sano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a container and tube set that has a combined air and liquid hose secured at their distal ends by a weighted manifold. Regarding Claim 2, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above. Levy further teaches one or more apertures (Levy FIG. 9A, injectors 366a and 366b mated with holes 166b and 166b’ in cover 196a and inner part 890a; Levy paragraph [0510], “On the proximal surface 191 of unitary fluid channeling component 190 is the I/I tubes proximal opening 891 for gas tube 892 and liquid tube 893 (seen in FIG. 9A). Gas and fluid tubes may be inserted into, and affixed to proximal opening 110 of I/I channels manifold which delivers cleaning fluids to I/I injectors 364, 366a, and 366b”) extending through a side wall of the housing, the one or more apertures positioned between the first and second ends of the housing (Levy FIG. 9A, showing injectors 366a and 366b between first and second ends of tip section 230a). Regarding Claim 3, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein the housing lumen has a cross-sectional dimension that incrementally decreases from the first end to the second end (Examiner-annotated Levy FIG. 9B, presented below, which shows weight housing lumen decreasing from proximal internal chamber 891 to front channel 171). PNG media_image1.png 676 582 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 4, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein a first transition in the cross-sectional dimension of the housing lumen defines a first ledge (Levy FIG. 9B, showing a first ledge defining start of proximal internal chamber 891) and the first end of the gas supply tube is configured to abut the first ledge (Levy FIG. 9B, showing gas tube 892 abutting the first ledge). Regarding Claim 5, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein the one or more apertures are positioned between the first ledge and the second end of the housing (Levy FIG. 9B, showing injector 366b between the first ledge and the second end of the manifold/weight). Regarding Claim 6, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein a second transition in the cross-sectional dimension of the housing lumen defines a second ledge (Levy FIG. 9B, second ledge) and the first end of the water supply tube is configured to abut the second ledge (Levy FIG. 9B, showing liquid tube 893 abutting the second ledge). Regarding Claim 7, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein a flow of gas through the second lumen is configured to exit the one or more apertures (Levy FIG. 9B, gas tube 892 and injector 366b; Levy paragraph [0510], “gas tube 892…delivers cleaning fluids to I/I injector… 366b”). Regarding Claim 8, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above. Sano further discloses wherein a flow of water is configured to enter the first lumen through the second end of the housing upon pressurization of the container (Sano paragraph [0030], “air pressure inside the tank 81 increases to push the liquid from the flexible tube 87 to the nozzle 52. Therefore, the liquid spouts from the liquid supply nozzle 52”). Regarding Claim 9, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above. Levy further teaches a one-way valve (Levy FIG. 81A, valve 8110) coupled to the one or more apertures (Levy FIG. 81A, aperture/jet connector 8120 and multi-jet controller 8130; Levy paragraph [0969], “multi jet controller 8130 has a screw formed on the valve 8110…a rotation of the screw…enables a selective flow of jet fluid into the selected front and/or side jet channels”). Regarding Claim 10, Sano discloses: A container and tube set (Sano FIG. 1, liquid and air supply unit 15) arranged and configured to couple to an endoscope (Sano FIG. 1, fiberscope 10) for use in an endoscopic procedure (intended use, providing no additional component structures and thus no patentable weight), the container and tube set comprising: a container (Sano FIG. 4, water tank 81) configured to contain a fluid, the container having a bottom portion and a top portion (Sano FIG. 4, showing water tank 81 with a top portion and a fluid in the bottom portion); a water supply tube (Sano FIG. 4, flexible water supply tube 87) including a first end, a second end, and a first lumen extending therethrough (Sano FIG. 4, showing flexible water supply tube 87 having a first end, a second end, and a lumen therebetween), wherein the first lumen is in selective fluid communication with the bottom portion of the container (Sano FIG. 1, air and liquid supply button 71; Sano paragraph [0025], “When the air and liquid supply button 71 is pressed down, liquid spouts from the liquid supply nozzle 52 (as shown in FIG. 3) of the tip body 20”) and the second end of the water supply tube is positioned external to the container (Sano FIG. 3, liquid supply nozzle 52; Sano paragraph [0031], “flexible tube 87 connected to the liquid supply nozzle 52”); a gas supply tube (Sano FIG. 4, air supply tube 100) including a first end, a second end, and a second lumen extending therethrough, wherein the second lumen is in operative fluid communication with the container (Sano FIG. 4, showing air supply tube 100 in fluid communication with air in upper portion of tank 81) and the second end of the gas supply tube is positioned external to the container (Sano FIG. 4, showing air supply tube 100 positioned next to air supply pump 82); and a weight (Sano FIG. 4, weight 105) coupled to the first end of the water supply tube, the weight comprises a housing having a first housing lumen extending from a first end of the housing to a second end of the housing (Sano FIG. 5, showing weight 105 having a lumen extending from deepest section 105c to a narrower insertion section 105b). Sano does not explicitly disclose the weight coupled to the first end of the water supply tube and a first end of the gas supply tube, the weight comprises a housing having a first housing lumen extending from a first end of the housing to a second end of the housing and a second housing lumen extending at a non-orthogonal angle relative to the first housing lumen and through a side wall of the housing. Levy teaches the weight (Levy FIG. 9A, tip section 230a including manifold channeling component 894) coupled to the first end of the water supply tube (Levy FIG. 9A, liquid tube 893) and a first end of the gas supply tube (Levy FIG. 9A, gas tube 892), the weight comprises a housing having a first housing lumen (Levy FIG. 2B, working channel 640a) extending from a first end of the housing (Levy FIG. 2B, fluid channeling component 600) to a second end of the housing and a second housing lumen (Levy FIG. 2B, fluid channel 640b) extending at a non-orthogonal angle relative to the first housing lumen and through a side wall of the housing (Levy FIG. 2B, showing working channel 640a and fluid channel 640b parallel to one another). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Levy’s manifold with the container and tube set disclosed by Sano. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a container and tube set that has a combined air and liquid hose secured at their distal ends by a weighted manifold. Regarding Claim 11, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above. Levy further teaches one or more apertures (Levy FIG. 2B, side injector 666a) formed in the second end of the housing (Levy FIG. 2B, proximal end of fluid channeling component 600). Regarding Claim 12, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein the first housing lumen has a cross-sectional dimension that incrementally decreases from the first end to the second end (Levy FIG. 9B, presented above in the rejection of Claim 3, showing weight housing lumen decreasing from proximal internal chamber 891 to front channel 171). Regarding Claim 13, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein a first transition in the cross-sectional dimension of the housing lumen defines a first ledge (Levy FIG. 9B, showing a first ledge defining start of proximal internal chamber 891) and the first end of the gas supply tube is configured to abut the first ledge (Levy FIG. 9B, showing gas tube 892 abutting the first ledge). Regarding Claim 14, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein a first opening of the second housing lumen is positioned between the first ledge and the second end of the housing (Levy FIG. 9B, showing injector 366b between the first ledge and the second end of the manifold/weight) and a second opening of the second housing lumen (Levy FIG. 2B, opening of fluid channel 640b) is positioned adjacent to the second end of the housing. Regarding Claim 15, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above. Levy further teaches wherein the first lumen of the water supply tube (Levy FIG. 9B, proximal opening of jet fluid channel; see also Levy paragraph [0507]and Levy FIG. 9A, liquid tube 893) is in fluid communication with the second housing lumen and the second lumen of the gas supply tube (Levy FIG. 9B, gas tube 892) is in fluid communication with the one or more apertures (Levy paragraph [0510], “gas and liquid tubes (such as gas tube 892 and liquid tube 893) may be threaded through the flexible shaft and are used for delivering fluid (gas and/or liquid) to I/I injectors 364, 366a, and 366b”). Regarding Claim 16, Sano in view of Levy teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above. Levy further teaches a one-way valve (Levy FIG. 81A, valve 8110) coupled to the one or more apertures (Levy FIG. 81A, aperture/jet connector 8120 and multi-jet controller 8130; Levy paragraph [0969], “multi jet controller 8130 has a screw formed on the valve 8110…a rotation of the screw…enables a selective flow of jet fluid into the selected front and/or side jet channels”). Claims 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0040658 – “Sano”) in view of Wilhelm et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0243695 – “Wilhelm”) and Woodard (US Patent 5,352,213 – “Woodard”). Regarding Claim 17, Sano discloses: A container (Sano FIG. 4, water tank 81) arranged and configured to couple to an endoscope (Sano FIG. 1, fiberscope 10) for use in an endoscopic procedure (intended use, providing no additional component structures and thus no patentable weight), the container comprising: the container having a bottom portion and a top portion (Sano FIG. 4, showing water tank 81 with a top portion and a fluid in the bottom portion); a water outlet positioned (Sano FIG. 4, flexible water supply tube 87) adjacent to the bottom portion of the container; and a gas inlet (Sano FIG. 4, air supply tube 100), the gas inlet in fluid communication with the container (Sano FIG. 4, showing air supply tube 100 in fluid communication with air in upper portion of tank 81); Sano does not explicitly disclose a flexible container configured to contain a fluid within a first receptacle thereof. Wilhelm teaches a flexible container (Wilhelm FIG. 12, flexible pouch 502) configured to contain a fluid within a first receptacle thereof (Wilhelm FIG. 12, first compartment 513). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Wilhelm’s flexible container for Sano’s water tank. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a vessel that “can be stacked and stored in a space-saving manner” (see Wilhelm paragraph [0077]). Sano in view of Wilhelm does not explicitly teach a gas inlet in fluid communication with a second receptacle, wherein the second receptacle comprises a hydrophobic membrane; wherein the hydrophobic membrane is configured to allow gas to pass from the second receptacle to the first receptacle and to preclude a passage of water from the first receptacle to the second receptacle. Woodward teaches a gas inlet (Woodward FIG. 2, horizontal leg portion 76) in fluid communication with a second receptacle (Woodward FIG. 2, manometer tube 36), wherein the second receptacle comprises a hydrophobic membrane (Woodward FIG. 2, hydrophobic gas membrane 84); wherein the hydrophobic membrane (Woodard FIG. 2, gas permeable hydrophobic membrane 84) is configured to allow gas to pass from the second receptacle (Woodward FIG. 2, manometer tube 36) to the first receptacle (Woodard FIG. 2, fluid reservoir 50) and to preclude a passage of water from the first receptacle to the second receptacle (Woodard col., “gas permeable hydrophobic membrane 84 allows air to flow back and forth from the fluid reservoir 50 to the manometer tube 36 as required during normal operation…the gas membrane 84 does not allow liquid 22 to flow out of the fluid reservoir 50 into the manometer tube 36.”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard’s hydrophobic membrane 84 and first and second receptacles for with the container taught by Sano in view of Wilhelm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a container that prevents fluid from flowing into an air container (see Woodard col. 11, lines 58-68). Regarding Claim 19, Sano in view of Wilhelm and Woodard teach the features of Claim 17, as described above. Sano further discloses: a water supply tube (Sano FIG. 4, flexible water supply tube 87) including a first end, a second end, and a first lumen extending therethrough (Sano FIG. 4, showing flexible water supply tube 87 having a first end, a second end, and a lumen therebetween), wherein the first lumen is in fluid communication with the first receptable in the bottom portion of the container and the second end of the water supply tube is positioned external to the container (Sano FIG. 3, liquid supply nozzle 52; Sano paragraph [0031], “flexible tube 87 connected to the liquid supply nozzle 52”); a gas supply tube (Sano FIG. 4, air supply tube 100) including a first end, a second end, and a second lumen extending therethrough, wherein the second lumen is in operative fluid communication with the first container(Sano FIG. 4, showing air supply tube 100 in fluid communication with air in upper portion of tank 81; see also Wilhelm’s teaching of two containers as described above) and the second end of the gas supply tube is positioned external to the container (Sano FIG. 4, showing air supply tube 100 positioned next to air supply pump 82). Regarding Claim 20, Sano in view of Wilhelm and Woodard teach the features of Claim 17, as described above. Sano further discloses: a port (Sano FIG. 4, tube holder 92) positioned adjacent to the top portion of the container, wherein the port is configured to selectively fluidly couple the first receptacle of the container with an external water source (Sano FIG. 1, air and liquid supply button 71; Sano paragraph [0025], “When the air and liquid supply button 71 is pressed down, liquid spouts from the liquid supply nozzle 52 (as shown in FIG. 3) of the tip body 20”); and a removable cap (Sano FIG. 4, tank lid 95) selectively coupled to the port. Regarding Claim 21, Sano in view of Wilhelm and Woodard teach the features of Claim 20, as described above. Wilhelm teaches wherein the water outlet (Wilhelm FIG. 12, access 508 to second compartment 514 of container 501) extends through an outer wall (Wilhelm FIG. 12, lid 503) of the flexible container (Wilhelm FIG. 12, flexible pouch 502). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed November 25, 2025, with respect to the objection to Claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments to the claims. The objection to Claims 1 and 10 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Reasons for this conclusion are presented below: Regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 10 presented above, Sano in view of Levy teaches a weight coupled to the first end of the water supply tube and a first end of the gas supply tube, the weight comprising a housing having a housing lumen extending from a first end of the housing to a second end of the housing. On pages 6-7 of the November 26, 2025 response, Applicant first argues that the present claims describe a single weight coupled to a water supply tube and a gas supply tube. Examiner responds by pointing out that Levy includes a single weight that attaches to a water supply tube and a gas supply tube (Levy teaches a weight (Levy FIG. 9A, tip section 230a including manifold channeling component 894) coupled to a first end of the water supply tube (Levy FIG. 9A, liquid tube 893) and a first end of the gas supply tube (Levy FIG. 9A, gas tube 892). Applicant then argues that Levy’s manifold is part of the endoscope tip and is not a water reservoir bottle weight. Examiner begins by stating that Levy’s manifold is structurally similar to the presently claimed weight (e.g., tubing weight 700 shown in FIG. 7D). That is, both have a housing structure connected to a gas supply tube and a liquid supply tube. Levy FIG. 9A and paragraph [0510] teach a weighted tip (230a) with internal conduits that connect gas tube 892 and liquid tube 893 to injectors 366a/b and injectors 364 (shown in Levy FIG. 9B). Levy solves the problem of cleaning optical surfaces and inflating a body cavity. As described in MPEP 2144(IV), the motivation to modify a reference can be for a different purpose or to solve a different problem than that of the present invention. As such, it would be obvious to combine the structure of Levy with the structure of Sano, since both use a manifold/weight to utilize air and liquid in an endoscopic procedure. Applicant further argues that “There is nothing in Levy about a weight or any indication the endoscope tip could or would function as a weight”. Examiner responds by stating that every physical structure has weight, including an endoscope tip. Applicant further argues that there is no reason to combine Levy with Sano, “as it would not appear to provide any advantage to Sano, which specifically teaches the air supply tubes ending in the stopper 93/tube holder 92 structure. The only reason for making the asserted modification is found in Applicants' specification, which is improper.” Examiner responds by stating that Levy provides a redundant source of air to the system disclosed by Sano. That is, as described in Sano FIG. 4 and Sano paragraph [0030], “air from the inlet 84 is sent through the air supply pump 82 to the water tank 81 only. As a result, the air pressure inside the tank 81 increases to push the liquid from the flexible tube 87 to the nozzle 52. Therefore, the liquid spouts from the liquid supply nozzle 52.” It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present patent application to have a backup/secondary air source to pressurize tank 81 if the distal end tube 100 is clogged, collapses, etc. Regarding the rejection of Claim 17 presented above, Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the November 26, 2025 response that “Wilhelm appears to be non-analogous art with respect to Sano and the claimed subject matter.” First, Examiner notes that the issue of analogous/non-analogous art only applies to the cited art and the present invention. MPEP 2141.01(a). Applicant then argues that Sano in view of Wilhelm fails to teach a flexible container with receptacles for liquid and gas, with a hydrophobic member within the gas receptacle. Newly-cited art Woodard is now cited as teaching these features as described above in the rejection of Claim 17, making this argument moot. Finally, Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine/substitute flexible container for Sano's water tank to obtain a vessel that "can be stacked and stored in a space- saving manner", since Sano fails to identify any storage or stacking issue as a problem. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Teaching/Suggestion/Motivation (TSM) in the prior art is no longer required in an obviousness rejection after KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Rather, as described in MPEP 2141(III), rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include, but are not limited to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, etc. As described in the rejection of Claim 17 presented above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Wilhelm’s flexible container for Sano’s water tank. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a vessel that “can be stacked and stored in a space-saving manner” (see Wilhelm paragraph [0077]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard’s hydrophobic membrane 84 and first and second receptacles for with the container taught by Sano in view of Wilhelm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a container that prevents fluid from flowing into an air container (see Woodard col. 11, lines 58-68). The rejections of Claims 1-17 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are 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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern. 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 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. JIM BOICE Examiner Art Unit 3795 /JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795 /ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 1/30/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599385
ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM AND ENDOSCOPIC LIGATOR ATTACHMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594126
INTRALUMINAL NAVIGATION USING VIRTUAL SATELLITE TARGETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569117
ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12533012
METHOD FOR FIXING CABLES FOR ACTUATING THE DISTAL HEAD OF A MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12507875
ENDOSCOPE AND ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 119 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month