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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 16th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7. 9-13 and 17-19 have been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled and claim 21 has been newly added. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are now pending in the application, with claims 3, 7, 13-16 and 19-20 withdrawn. The previous drawing objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment. The previously withdrawn claims 4 and 5 have been rejoined upon reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-12 and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the universal code" in its first appearance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner recognizes this is a typographical error but suggests amending the claim for clarity of the record.
The term “approximately” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner is unable to ascertain the meets and bounds of the intended structure of the invention due to the indefiniteness of this limitation, the examiner suggests amending the claim language to recite "substantially" to more distinctly claim the intended structure.
Examiner’s Comments
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”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9, 17-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujitani et al. (US 20160331214 A1, hereinafter Fujitani).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujitani discloses
An endoscope (electronic endoscope 1, FIG. 1), comprising:
an insertion portion (insertion portion 2, FIG. 1);
an operation portion (operation portion 3, FIG. 1) located proximally relative to the insertion portion (depicted in FIG. 1); and
a universal cord (universal cord 4, FIG. 1) including a first end (bend preventing portion 14, FIG. 1) connected to the operation portion (depicted in FIG. 1),
a second end connected to a connector (endoscope connector 5, FIG. 1, par. 15 disclose endoscope connector disposed at distal end of universal cord, i.e. second end), and
a first folding region provided in the middle of the universal code (depicted in FIG. 1),
the universal cord foldable in two by the first folding region (depicted in FIG. 1),
wherein a minimum radius of curvature of the first bending region is a first value (FIG. 1 depicts minimum radius of curvature of middle portion of universal cord; it is well known in the art that minimum radius of curvature refers to the smallest allowable radius a bent/ folded object can achieve without structural damage, i.e. the folded middle portion of the universal cord, as depicted in FIG. 1, will have a minimum radius of curvature of a first value),
wherein other regions of the universal cord than the first folding region of the universal cord have a minimum radius of curvature of a second value (FIG. 1, par. 21 disclose bend preventing portion covers proximal portions of the universal cord, i.e. other regions, and limits flexibility, i.e. limits minimum radius of curvature of other regions of universal cord; it is well known in the art that minimum radius of curvature refers to the smallest allowable radius a bent/ folded object can achieve without structural damage, i.e. the straightened portions of the universal cord, proximal to the middle portion, and affected by the bend preventing portion, as depicted in FIGS. 1-2, will have a minimum radius of curvature of a second value), and
wherein the first value is smaller than the second value (FIGS. 1-2 depict despite flexibility of rest of universal cord, the proximal portion which is affected by the bend prevention portion will remain straightened; it is well known in the art that folded objects have a smaller minimum radius of curvature than straight objects, i.e. the folded middle portion compared to the proximal straight segments of the universal cord, as depicted in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Fujitani discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the first folding region of the universal cord is located at a position at which an overall length of the universal cord is divided approximately into two equal-length parts (depicted in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Fujitani discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the first value is greater than 50% and less than 250% of an outer diameter of the universal cord (depicted in FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujitani discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the first folding region has a length greater than 3% and less than 10% of an overall length of the universal cord (depicted in FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6, Fujitani discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1,
wherein the insertion portion has a distal end portion (distal end portion 6, FIG. 1),
a bending portion (bending portion 7, FIG. 1), and
a flexible tube (flexible tube portion 8, FIG. 1),
wherein a structure of the first folding region is the same as a structure of the bending portion (FIG. 1 depicts the structures of both the first folding region, as well as, the bending portion are flexible), and
wherein the structure of the first folding region is different from a structure of the flexible tube (depicted in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujitani discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1,
wherein the insertion portion has a distal end portion (distal end portion 6, FIG. 1),
a bending portion (bending portion 7, FIG. 1), and
a flexible tube (flexible tube portion 8, FIG. 1),
wherein the flexible tube has a second folding region (depicted in FIG. 1),
wherein a minimum radius of curvature of the second folding region is a third value (FIG. 1 depicts minimum radius of curvature of folded portion of flexible tube portion; it is well known in the art that minimum radius of curvature refers to the smallest allowable radius a bent/ folded object can achieve without structural damage, i.e. the folded portion of the flexible tube portion, as depicted in FIG. 1, will have a minimum radius of curvature of a third value), and
wherein the third value is smaller than the second value (it is well known in the art that folded objects have a smaller minimum radius of curvature than straight objects, i.e. the folded portion of the flexible tube compared to the straight segments of the universal cord, as depicted in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Fujitani discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the minimum radius of curvature of the first folding region is a minimum value of a radius of curvature of the first folding region in a bent state at which the first folding region is not plastically deformed (depicted in FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 18, Fujitani discloses
The endoscope according to claim 17, wherein the minimum radius of curvature of the other regions is a minimum value of a radius of curvature of the other regions in a bent state at which the other regions are not plastically deformed (depicted in FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 21, Fujitani discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein an internal structure of the other regions of the universal cord differs from an internal structure of the folding region of the universal cord and the internal structure of the other regions of the universal cord limits the second value from being equal to or smaller than the first value (par. 19-21 disclose proximal end of universal cord is provided with a bend preventing portion, i.e. limiting its ability to fold and the proximal end has internal connections with the operation potion and insertion portion).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitani et al. (US 20160331214 A1, hereinafter Fujitani) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 20170354319 A1, hereinafter Sato).
Regarding Claim 10, Fujitani discloses all of the elements of the current invention disclosed in claim 1, however, Fujitani does not disclose further comprising a first tube attachable to and detachable from the first folding region, wherein a portion of the first folding region is covered with the first tube, wherein a minimum radius of curvature of the portion of the first bending folding region covered with the first tube is a fourth value, and wherein the fourth value is substantially equal to the second value.
Sato teaches an analogous endoscope (2, FIGS. 1-3) comprising a long insertion portion (10, FIG. 1) and a universal cable (12, FIG. 1, i.e. second end) connected to a rear grasping portion (22, FIG. 1, i.e. first end). The insertion portion (2) having a rigid distal end portion (15, FIG. 1), a bending portion (16, FIG. 1) and a flexible tube portion (17, FIG. 1) which has a (movable joint portion 41, FIG. 1, i.e. folding region) with a respective minimum radius of curvature [FIGS. 1-3]. The flexible tube portion (17) is covered with a bend preventing portion (40, FIGS. 1-2, i.e. second tube) at its folding region and is capable of straightening said folding region, as depicted in FIGS. 2-3, wherein the minimum radius of curvature of the folding region when provided with the bend preventing portion (40) is capable of being a larger value (i.e. fifth value) since the bend preventing portion is intended to change stiffness of the universal cable to prevent buckling [FIGS. 2-3, 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the flexible tube of Fujitani with the bend preventing portion of Sato in order to provide a modification that covers an outer periphery of the insertion portion and variably adjusts stiffness of the universal cable to prevent buckling in one portion while still allowing flexibility in another portion [Sato - 0041].
Additionally, the fifth value (FIG. 2) of Sato would be substantially equal to the second value (FIG. 1) of Fujitani because both respective regions that the values correlate to are substantially straight, i.e. alluding to similarly large minimum radius of curvature values.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitani et al. (US 20160331214 A1, hereinafter Fujitani) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Okamoto (US 20140180008 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Fujitani discloses all of the elements of the current invention disclosed in claim 9, however, Fujitani does not disclose further comprising a second tube attachable to and detachable from the second folding region, wherein a portion of the second folding region is covered with the second tube, wherein a minimum radius of curvature of the portion of the second folding region covered with the second tube is a fifth value, and wherein the fifth value is substantially equal to the second value.
Okamoto teaches an analogous endoscope (1, FIGS. 1, 12) comprising an insertion portion (2, FIG. 12) and a universal cord (4, FIG. 12). The insertion portion (2) having a distal end rigid portion (2s, FIG. 13), a bending portion (2w, FIG. 13) and an insertion portion main body (2h, FIG. 13, i.e. flexible tube) which has a folding region with a respective minimum radius of curvature [FIGS. 12-13]. The flexible tube (2h) is covered with a rotation body (70, FIG. 12, i.e. second tube) at its folding region and is capable of straightening said folding region, as depicted in FIGS. 12-13, wherein the minimum radius of curvature of the folding region when provided with the rotation body (70) is capable of being a larger value (i.e. fifth value) than when not provided [FIGS. 12-13, 0133].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the flexible tube of Fujitani with the rotation body of Okamoto in order to provide a function portion that covers an outer periphery of the insertion portion and enhances insert ability into a subject during operation [Okamoto - 0128].
Additionally, the fifth value (FIG. 13) of Okamoto would be substantially equal to the second value (FIG. 1) of Fujitani because both respective regions that the values correlate to are substantially straight, i.e. alluding to similarly large minimum radius of curvature values.
Regarding Claim 12, Fujitani, as previously modified by Okamoto, discloses all of the elements of the current invention disclosed in claim 11, and Okamoto further teaches
wherein the second folding region covered with the second tube has a flexibility that is substantially the same as a flexibility of the flexible tube (par. 133 discloses rotation body covers a corrugated tube portion of the insertion portion before the bending portion and distal end, i.e. part of the main body and sharing its flexibility).
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 ABDUL HADI ABBASI whose telephone number is (571)272-4076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ABDUL HADI ABBASI/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights