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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 3rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 3rd, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the following excerpt from claim 6 seems to be missing a “third” placed before “surface in the narrow portion” – “wherein a width of the narrow portion, which is a shortest distance between the second surface and the surface in the narrow portion”. As the claim currently reads, it is unclear what “surface in the narrow portion” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Otawara (US 2008/0064928, hereinafter “Otawara”). Regarding claim 1, Otawara teaches an endoscope comprising:
An insertion part that is inserted into a subject (Figure 1 component 11)
A first surface that is disposed on a distal end surface of the insertion part (Figure 4 component 24)
A forceps port that is disposed on the first surface (Figure 4 component 26)
A second surface that protrudes from the first surface along an insertion direction of the insertion part (Figure 4 the surface under component 31a)
An observation window that is disposed on the second surface (Figure 4 component 31a)
A nozzle that is disposed on the first surface and that jets a fluid from a jetting port toward the observation (Figure 4 component 60)
A third surface that protrudes from the first surface along the insertion direction of the insertion part (Figure 2+4 the surface under component 25b)
A first illumination window (Figure 4 25b) that is disposed on the third surface, wherein the third surface is located between the nozzle and the forceps port, and an end portion of the third surface in a jetting direction of the fluid is located further in the jetting direction than a formation position of the jetting direction is. (As seen in the attached image below, the two arrows forming a right angle show that the end portion of the third surface is further in the jetting direction than the formation position of the jetting direction, and the singular arrow shows that the surface is in between the nozzle and forceps port.)
PNG
media_image1.png
629
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Otawara teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the third surface (region under component 25b in figure 4) comprises a protruding region including the end portion and extending in the jetting direction between a formation position of the first illumination window and the nozzle. (In the image below, the protruding region is shown by the arrow, and the stars are the formation positions of the illumination window and nozzle.)
PNG
media_image2.png
506
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Otawara teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the third surface (region under component 25b in figure 4) is tapered toward the end portion in the jetting direction along the nozzle from an outer periphery of the third surface which follows an outer peripihery of the distal end surface (in the image below, both arrows depict the taper beginning from the outer periphery and ending between the points of the arrows).
PNG
media_image3.png
506
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Otawara teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, wherein a ridge line of the third surface on a side of the nozzle extends along the nozzle (edge of region under 25b closest to the nozzle. The rectangle in the image below outlines the ridge line of the third surface and its extension along the edge of the nozzle).
PNG
media_image4.png
581
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Otawara teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, further comprising: a narrow portion formed by the second surface and the third surface (distance between the two closest points on the regions below 25b and 31a. The two arrows in the image on the left below outline this narrow portion between the two surfaces.) wherein a width of the narrow portion, which is a shortest distance between the second surface and the “third” (see claim objection section above) surface in the narrow portion (as shown by the lower arrow in the image on the right below), is shorter than a shortest distance between the jetting port and the second surface (as shown by the upper arrow in the image on the right below).
PNG
media_image5.png
560
497
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
581
516
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otawara (2008/0064928) in view of Kawamoto (JP 2022152487).
In regards to claim 5, Otawara teaches the endoscope of claim 1; however, Otawara does not teach that a second illumination window is disposed on the second surface on a side opposite to the nozzle with the observation window interposed therebetween.
Kawamoto teaches an endoscope with a nozzle on the distal end; wherein a second illumination window (figure 2 component 42) is disposed on the second surface (figure 2 component 41b) on a side opposite to the nozzle (figure 2 component 58) with the observation window (figure 2 component 46) interposed therebetween. (The arrow in the image below points to the illumination window, and it can be seen that it is opposite the nozzle with the observation window in between.)
PNG
media_image7.png
286
315
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the specification of Kawamoto it is said that the “present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and provides an endoscope that enables treatment using a treatment tool to be performed accurately”, with those circumstances being described as “the capturing treatment tool may get in the way and make it difficult to see the diseased area, which may result in it being difficult to perform treatment accurately using the treatment tool”. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Otawara with the second illumination window on the second surface of Kawamoto in order to reduce the likelihood of the treatment tool getting in the way of procuring an accurate image of the treatment area due to poor illumination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s first argument consists of stating that the examiner’s interpretation and analogous reference structure of the “second surface” in claim 1 does not align with the claim itself. The applicant states that due to the specification of Otawara reciting “an observation lens 31a is disposed at the generally center of the distal end surface of the distal end cover 24” (paragraph 74), the observation lens 31a cannot be stated to reside on a “second surface” and instead resides on the “first surface” or the distal end cover 24. As seen in figure 2 of Otawara (inserted below), observation lens 31a can be seen to exist on a second surface raised from the distal end cover surface 24. Therefore, the examiner’s interpretation of this reference teaching the “second surface” as stated in claim 1 of the claimed invention is correct and the rejection stands.
PNG
media_image8.png
214
284
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The applicant’s second argument consists of a similar approach as their first, arguing that the examiner’s interpretation and analogous reference structure of the “third surface” in claim 1 does not align with the claim itself. The applicant states that due to the specification of Otawara reciting “on the distal end surface of the distal end cover 24, the illumination lenses 25a and 25b are disposed”, and again posits the illumination lens 25b is not on a separate surface from the “first surface” or the distal end cover 24. As seen in figure 2 of Otawara (inserted below), observation lens 25b can be seen to exist on a surface raised from the distal end cover surface 24. Therefore, the examiner’s interpretation of this reference teaching the “third surface” as stated in claim 1 of the claimed invention is correct and the rejection stands.
PNG
media_image9.png
214
284
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The applicant’s third argument is rejected as it fails to consider claim limitations to the examiner’s art. The applicant argues that paragraph 38 of their application states “there may be a case where the cleaning water is not dispelled with the fluid from the nozzle 27 and the cleaning water remains on the first surface 20” but that the examiner’s reference states in their specification that the cleaning gas or liquid is cleared from the surface. The difference between whether water does or does not get cleared from the surface during use of either invention is of no consequence in evaluating a rejection of claim 1 based on the reference art. Claim 1 makes no mention of whether liquid has to be fully cleared or may remain on the surface of the distal end, and so the applicant’s argument is rendered moot, and Otawara is still found to anticipate claim 1 of the applicant’s invention.
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 DAYTON BARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0912. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 – 5:00 Monday through 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 5712707235. 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.
/DAYTON HYUN JIN BARKER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795