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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a jetting port” in line 4 should be amended to read –the jetting port—since claim 1 already recites the jetting port. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-11 and 13-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US2006/0009681; hereinafter Tanaka), in view of Morimoto et al. (US 2019/0133558; hereinafter Morimoto).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an ultrasonic endoscope. Tanaka shows an ultrasonic endoscope (see abstract; fig. 1) comprising: a radial type ultrasound transducer disposed in a distal end part of an elongated insertion part to be inserted into a subject (see par. [0053], [0057]; fig. 2A, 2B, and 4A), wherein a distal end surface of the distal end part includes, in a case of being viewed from a direction perpendicular to the distal end surface (fig. 3 and 4A), a center surface portion (see combination of elements 11, 11a, and 15 in fig. 4A) positioned on a center side of the distal end surface (see fig. 3 and 4A), and an annular outer peripheral surface portion positioned outside the center surface portion (see 19 in 4A; par. [0056]), an observation window (see 11 in fig. 3; par. [0054]), an illumination window (see 10 in fig. 3; par. [0054], a forceps port (see 15 in fig. 3; par. [0055]), and a nozzle are provided in the center surface portion (see 17 in fig. 3; par. [0055]), the outer peripheral surface portion is a dead space of the distal end surface caused by the ultrasound transducer (see fig. 2A, 2B and 4A), and wherein a longitudinal axis direction of the insertion part is defined as a height direction that is perpendicular to the distal end surface (see fig. 2A, 2B and 4A), a flat surface of the outer peripheral surface portion has a height in the height direction different from a height of a flat surface of the center surface portion in the height direction (4A shows a flat surface of the outer peripheral surface portion 19 has a height in height direction different from a height of a flat surface of the center surface portion, the examiner notes that the any flat surface of outer peripheral surface portion 19 has a height that is different from any flat surface between element 11 and 15).
Furthermore, Tanaka shows wherein the outer peripheral surface includes a nozzle region adjacent to the nozzle (see fig. 3; the examiner notes that the region of outer peripheral right next to nozzle 17 is the at least part of region includes the nozzle adjacent region) and a height of a flat surface of the center surface portion in the height direction (see fig. 4A), wherein the nozzle adjacent region includes a region sandwiched between a first virtual straight line and a second virtual straight line (see fig. 3), the region is disposed from an extending position of a jetting port of the nozzle on a side opposite to the forceps port in a width direction to a position of the nozzle on a side opposite to the observation window (see fig. 3), wherein the first virtual straight line passes through the extending position (see fig. 3), and the second virtual straight line passes through the position (see fig. 3), but fails to explicitly state that flat surface of the nozzle adjacent region has a height in the height direction lower than the height of the flat surface of the center surface portion in the height direction.
Morimoto discloses an ultrasonic endoscope. Morimoto teaches flat surface of the nozzle adjacent region (see nozzle adjacent region which is side in horizontal direction of nozzle 82) has a height in the height direction lower than the height of the flat surface of the center surface portion in the height direction (fig. 3 shows the side in horizontal direction of nozzle 82 has a height that is lower than height of the flat surface of the center surface portion in height direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claim invention, to have utilized the teaching of flat surface of the nozzle adjacent region has a height in the height direction lower than the height of the flat surface of the center surface portion in the height direction in the invention of Tanaka, as taught by Morimoto, to be able to provide a compact nozzle to supply jetted fluid without compromising the size of the distal end of the ultrasonic endoscope.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka shows wherein the at least part of region of the outer peripheral surface portion includes the nozzle adjacent region adjacent to the nozzle (see fig. 3; the examiner notes that the region of outer peripheral right next to nozzle 17 is the at least part of region includes the nozzle adjacent region).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka wherein the nozzle adjacent region includes the region from the extending position of the jetting port of the nozzle to a position of the nozzle on the side opposite to the observation window (see fig. 3, 4B and 5A; par. [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka shows wherein the at least part of region of the outer peripheral surface portion includes an observation window adjacent region adjacent to the observation window (see fig. 3; the examiner notes that the region of the outer peripheral right next to the observation window 11 is the at least part of region includes the observation window adjacent region).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka shows wherein the observation window adjacent region has a height lower than the center surface portion (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka shows wherein the observation window adjacent region has a height higher than the center surface portion (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka shows wherein the observation window adjacent region is positioned on a side opposite to the nozzle with respect to the observation window (see 3, 4a and 5A).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka shows wherein the observation window adjacent region is a region including a jetting range of a liquid jetted from the nozzle (see 3, 4a and 5A; par. [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka shows wherein the observation window adjacent region is a region including a range sandwiched between two virtual tangent lines in contact with an outer periphery of the observation window with a center of the jetting port of the nozzle as a starting point (see fig. 3 and 5A; the examiner notes that from the figures of Tanaka, adding two virtual tangent lines in contact with an outer periphery of the observation window 11 will provide the observation window adjacent region is a region including a range sandwiched between two virtual tangent lines in contact with an outer periphery of the observation window with a center of the jetting port of the nozzle as a starting point).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka shows wherein the at least part of region of the outer peripheral surface portion includes the nozzle adjacent region adjacent to the nozzle see fig. 3; the examiner notes that the region of outer peripheral right next to nozzle 17 is the at least part of region includes the nozzle adjacent region and an observation window adjacent region adjacent to the observation window (see fig. 3; the examiner notes that the region of the outer peripheral right next to the observation window 11 is the at least part of region includes the observation window adjacent region).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka shows wherein the outer peripheral surface portion has a chamfer structure in an outer peripheral end portion (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka shows wherein the outer peripheral surface portion is configured with a distal end cap that is a separate member from the center surface portion (see par. [0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka shows wherein the at least part of region of the outer peripheral surface portion includes a nozzle adjacent region adjacent to the nozzle (see fig. 3; the examiner notes that the region of outer peripheral right next to nozzle 17 is the at least part of region includes the nozzle adjacent region), on the outer peripheral surface portion, a height of the nozzle adjacent region is different from a height of a region of the outer peripheral surface portion other than the nozzle adjacent region (see fig. 3 and 4A).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka shows wherein the at least part of region of the outer peripheral surface portion includes an observation window adjacent region adjacent to the observation window (see fig. 3; the examiner notes that the region of the outer peripheral right next to the observation window 11 is the at least part of region includes the observation window adjacent region), on the outer peripheral surface portion, a height of the observation window adjacent region is different from a height of a region of the outer peripheral surface portion other than the observation window adjacent region (see fig. 3 and 4A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US2006/0009681; hereinafter Tanaka), in view of Morimoto et al. (US 2019/0133558; hereinafter Morimoto) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yagami et al. (US 5,546,947; hereinafter Yagami).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka and Morimoto disclose the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein the at least part of region is different in surface wettability from the center surface portion.
Yagami discloses an ultrasonic endoprobe. Yagami teaches wherein the exterior surface of the endoscope has increased wettability (col. 4, lines 43-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of having the exterior surface of the endoscope having increased wettability in the invention of Tanaka and Morimoto, as taught by Yagami, to reduce the sliding friction and makes it easier the insertion of the endoscope into the patient. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Tanaka to incorporate the teaching of Yagami would provide the at least part of region is different in surface wettability from the center surface portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument with respect to amended claim 1 and prior arts Tanaka and Morimoto, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains that combined invention of Tanaka and Morimoto does disclose all the claim limitation set forth in amended claim 1, particularly the claim limitations “wherein the nozzle adjacent region includes a region sandwiched between a first virtual straight line and a second virtual straight line, the region is disposed from an extending position of a jetting port of the nozzle on a side opposite to the forceps port in a width direction to a position of the nozzle on a side opposite to the observation window (see fig. 4), wherein the first virtual straight line passes through the extending position, and the second virtual straight line passes through the position”.
PNG
media_image1.png
575
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please see above of examiner annotated claim reciations “the region” and “virtualstraight line” in Fig. 3 of prior art Tanaka. Examiner annotated fig. 3 of prior art Tanaka shows wherein the nozzle adjacent region includes a region (see “the region”) sandwiched between a first virtual straight line (see “virtual straight line”) and a second virtual straight line (see “virtual straight line”), the region is disposed from an extending position of a jetting port of the nozzle on a side opposite to the forceps port in a width direction to a position of the nozzle on a side opposite to the observation window (see “the region” in fig. 3), wherein the first virtual straight line passes through the extending position (see fig. 3), and the second virtual straight line passes through the position (see fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsuruta (US 2013/0137990) discloses an ultrasound endoscope with nozzle (see par. [0052).
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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights