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 cancellation of claim 3, the addition of claims 38-41, and the amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 31 and 36 in the response filed on 05/07/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 31-41 remain pending in the application
Claims 3 and 10-31 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 31-41 are examined.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. The applicant has modified claims1 (and similarly claim 36) to require “wherein the second material forms one continuous part including…a light emission window and a part of the side wall…forming an overlap comprising a fusion seam formed by the first material being overlapped by the second material, the fusion seam extending from the internal end wall surface to the external end surface the fusion seam having a length that is greater than a thickness of the end wall measured perpendicular to the external end surface”, limitations heretofore not presented for examination in this application. As such, the scope of the claims was substantially changed and new grounds for rejection are presented.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fusion seam”, “overlap”, “step”, “moulding artefact” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 31- 33, 36-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3539445A1 to Vilhelmsen et al. (hereinafter “Vilhelmsen”).
Regarding claim 1, Vilhelmsen discloses an endoscope comprising a distal tip part (5 Fig. 1, [0021]), the distal tip part comprising: a housing (10, Fig. 1, [0023]) integrally moulded from a first material and a second material ([0023]- the tip housing comprises two different materials 11, 12… both of these materials are preferably polymer materials, in particular thermoplastic materials suitable for injection moulding) , the second material being a transparent material ([0023]- The second material 12 is a transparent material), the housing comprising an end wall (Fig. 4) and a side wall (12, Fig. 4), the end wall including an internal end wall surface and an external end surface facing an exterior (Fig. 4), and the side wall including an internal side wall surface and an external surrounding side surface (12, Fig. 4), the internal end wall surface and the internal side wall surface forming an inner compartment (Fig. 4) configured to house an electronic vision device and a light source ([0022]- in the illustrated embodiment, the imaging and illumination relies on an electronics section 9 with LEDs and a video camera accommodated in the distal tip part 5), wherein the second material forms one continuous part including a vision window (19, Fig. 4, [0036]), a light emission window (windows on 12 in Fig. 4) and a part of the side wall (12), and wherein, in the end wall, said second material overlaps at least partially said first material (Fig. 1), when viewed from the exterior towards the external end surface, forming an overlap comprising a fusion seam formed by the first material being overlapped by the second material (seam where 11 and 12 meet in Fig. 1), the fusion seam extending from the internal end wall surface to the external end surface the fusion seam having a length that is greater than a thickness of the end wall measured perpendicular to the external end surface (the length of the seam in Fig. 1 is longer than the width of the end wall).
Regarding claim 2, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein said vision window and said light emission window are separated by a portion of the first material (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim, wherein the overlap is formed as a step between the first material and the second material (see step in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the overlap is formed as a step between the first material and the second material (see step in Fig. 4), and wherein the step comprises a first interface extending in parallel with the end surface and a second interface extending from the first interface not in parallel with the end surface (see step in Fig. 4), and wherein the part of the side wall formed by the second material is fused with the first interface and the second interface (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the overlap is formed as a step between the first material and the second material (see step in Fig. 4), wherein the step comprises a first interface extending in parallel with the end surface (see step in Fig. 4), and wherein the step comprises a second interface extending essentially at a right angle to said first interface (see step in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein said overlap is arranged at a central part of the end surface (Fig. 4), which central part is away from the side wall when viewed from said exterior facing the external end surface (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the light emission window comprises a light guide (18, Fig. 5, [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein said second material overlaps a moulding artefact in the first material (11, 12, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 31, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the first material forms one contiguous part so as to provide part of the side wall, part of the end wall, and a plane surface, wherein the one contiguous part includes part of the end wall, and wherein a portion of the second material extends radially from the vision window away from the part of the side wall formed by the second material and overlaps the plane surface to form the overlap (11, 12, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 32, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 31, wherein the fusion seam, measured at an intersection with a plane parallel to a longitudinal axis of the housing, is longer than a thickness of the end wall measured adjacent the fusion seam (see fusion seam in 11, 12, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 33, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 31, wherein the light emission window comprises a light guide extending proximally from the internal end wall surface (18, Fig. 5, [0035]).
Regarding claim 36, A method of manufacturing an endoscope, the method comprising: injecting a first material (11, Fig. 1), in a molten state of the first material, into a mould through a first gate having an outlet directed to a portion of a cavity configured to form a portion of a side wall of a housing (Figs. 6-9, [0023]- [0038]), the first material flowing through the first gate to form the portion of the side wall and a portion of an end wall of the housing (Figs. 6-9, [0023]- [0038]); injecting a second material (12), in a molten state of the second material (Figs. 6-9, [0023]- [0038]), into the mould through a second gate having an outlet directed to a portion of a cavity configured to form a portion of the end wall of the housing (Figs. 6-9, [0023]- [0038]), the second material being a transparent material and flowing through the second gate to form one continuous part including the portion of the side wall and the portion of the end wall of the housing ([0023]- The second material 12 is a transparent material), wherein the portion of the end wall formed from the second material provides a vision window (19, Fig. 4, [0036]) and a light emission window in the end wall (windows on 12 in Fig. 4), and wherein, in the end wall, said second material overlaps at least partially said first material (Fig. 4), when viewed from an exterior longitudinally towards the end wall, forming an overlap comprising a fusion seam extending from an internal end wall surface to an external end wall surface (seam where 11, 12 meet, Fig. 1 & Fig. 4), and wherein the injecting of the second material forms the overlap such that the fusion seam has a length greater than a local wall thickness due to a stepped interface between the first material and the second material (the length of the seam in Fig. 1 is longer than the width of the end wall).
Regarding claim 37, The method of claim 36, wherein the side wall and the end wall form an inner compartment, further comprising inserting an electronic vision device and a light source into the inner compartment ([0022]- in the illustrated embodiment, the imaging and illumination relies on an electronics section 9 with LEDs and a video camera accommodated in the distal tip part 5).
Regarding claim 38, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the overlap is located at a central portion of the external end surface spaced from the side wall and is radially aligned with the vision window (seam where 11, 12 meet, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 39, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the second material forms a single contiguous structure extending from the vision window into the side wall and across the overlap (12), and wherein a portion of the second material extends from the vision window toward the side wall and overlaps the first material to form the overlap (12, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 40, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the fusion seam comprises at least two planar interface segments extending in different orientations (seam where 11, 12 meet, Fig. 1 & Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 41, Vilhelmsen discloses the endoscope of claim 40, wherein the overlap is formed in a two-stage injection molding process such that the second material flows over a portion of the first material to create the fusion seam extending across the end wall ([0023], [0032]-[0038]).
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) 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3539445A1 to Vilhelmsen et al. (hereinafter “Vilhelmsen”) and futher in view of U.S. Publication No. 2005/0075538 to Banik et al. (hereinafter “Banik”).
Regarding claim 34, Vilhelmsen discloses a system comprising a video processing apparatus and the endoscope of claim 31, but Vilhelmsen fails to expressly teach wherein the endoscope is connectable to the video processing apparatus.
However, Banik teaches of an endoscope (Banik: Fig. 3C) including a system (Banik: 100) comprising a video processing apparatus (Banik: 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Vilhelmsen to utilize a video processing apparatus, as taught by Banik. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of controlling the system ([0066] of Banik).
Regarding claim 35, Vilhelmsen discloses a system comprising a video processing apparatus and the endoscope of claim 1, but Vilhelmsen fails to expressly teach wherein the endoscope is connectable to the video processing apparatus.
However, Banik teaches of an endoscope (Banik: Fig. 3C) including a system (Banik: 100) comprising a video processing apparatus (Banik: 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Vilhelmsen to utilize a video processing apparatus, as taught by Banik. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of controlling the system ([0066] of Banik).
Conclusion
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 CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights