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 April 9th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) and 112(d) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed December 8th, 2025.
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 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.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikama (U.S. Patent 5167221) in view of Yeh et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0309791 hereinafter “Yeh”). Regarding claim 21, Chikama teaches a controller for an endoscope (figure 1 element 1), the controller comprising:
a handle (figure 1 element 2) including a first section (figure 1 element 2 pointed at with the downwards arrow below) and a second section (figure 1 element 10 pointed to with the upward arrow below) being moveable with respect to each other (process described in column 5 lines 37-65)
PNG
media_image1.png
262
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a control actuator (figure 1 element 22) on one or more of the first section or the second section;
a pull wire (figure 2 element 30) extending between the first section and the second section within the handle;
an elongate tube (figure 1 element 3) through which the pull wire extends, the elongate tube being flexible to permit the elongate tube to bend when the first section and the second section are moved with respect to each other (movement of first and second section in relation to each other increases or decreases tension of wires, allowing the tube to bend).
Chikama fails to teach a working channel opening on one or more of the first section or the second section, but Yeh teaches a working channel opening (figure 2 element 208 “working channel port”) on one or more of the first section or the second section. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Chikama with the addition of a working channel opening in order to allow for the introduction of a treatment tool to the target region within the patient, widening the therapeutic capabilities of the device, reducing the need for multiple endoscopic operations with differently-abled endoscopes.
Regarding claim 22, Chikama teaches a method for controlling an endoscope (figure 1 element 1), the method comprising: actuating a controller (column 5 lines 16-18 “in the endoscope 1 of the above construction, when the manipulation knob 22 is rotated in a clockwise direction”) comprising:
a handle (figure 1 element 2) including a first section (figure 1 element 2 pointed to with the downward arrow below) and a second section (figure 1 element 10 pointed at with the upwards arrow below) being moveable with respect to each other (process described in column 5 lines 37-65)
PNG
media_image1.png
262
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a control actuator (figure 1 element 22) on one or more of the first section or the second section
a pull wire (figure 2 element 30) extending between the first section and the second section within the handle
an elongate tube (figure 1 element 3) through which the pull wire extends, the elongate tube being flexible to permit the elongate tube to bend when the first section and the second section are moved with respect to each other (movement of first and second section in relation to each other increases or decreases tension of wires, allowing the tube to bend).
Chikama fails to teach a method for controlling an endoscope, the method comprising: actuating a controller comprising a working channel opening on one or more of the first section or the second section, but Yeh teaches a method for controlling an endoscope, the method comprising: actuating a controller (paragraph 39 “A user-controllable lever 114 is provided at the proximal end 103 to actuate a control device as described in further detail below.”) comprising a working channel opening (figure 2 element 208 “working channel port”) on one or more of the first section or the second section. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Chikama with the addition of a working channel opening in order to allow for the introduction of a treatment tool to the target region within the patient, widening the therapeutic capabilities of the device, reducing the need for multiple endoscopic operations with differently-abled endoscopes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed. The following limitations “A controller for an endoscope, the controller comprising: a handle wherein the handle is configured to adjust a distance between the first location and the second location; wherein the first pull wire tensioner comprises: a first anchor fixed to the handle proximate the working channel opening and a second anchor fixed to the handle proximate the control actuator, wherein the first anchor is configured to move with the first location and the second anchor is configured to move with the second location” are deemed allowable. The closest prior art of reference is found in Chikama. Chikama teaches a controller for an endoscope, with the controller comprising a handle wherein the handle is configured to adjust a distance between the first location and the second location, but fails to teach a pull wire tensioner comprising a first anchor fixed to the handle proximate the working channel opening and a second anchor fixed to the handle proximate the control actuator, wherein the first anchor is configured to move with the first location and the second anchor is configured to move with the second location. As claim 1 is allowed, its dependents 3, 4, and 6-20 are also deemed allowable due to their dependency on an allowable independent claim.
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 between 9:00 and 5:00 PM EST 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
Prosecution Insights