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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A from Group 1 and Species B from Group 2, readable on claims 1-5 and 9-11 in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1 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 “a pressing part that is movable between a braking position coming into contact with the engaging part and a non-braking position positioned on a distal side” which is confusing and unclear. Based on how the claim language is recited, it is indefinite as to whether “a braking position” and “a non-braking position” are recited structure or functional positions of the pressing part due to the language of “coming into contact with” and “positioned on a distal side” being confusing as to whether they are modifying the two braking positions or modifying the pressing part. The examiner suggests amending the claim language to better reflect the intended structure and functionality of the invention and avoid multiple interpretations.
Claim 1 further recites “the rotation operating part and the engaging part are relatively rotatable” which is indefinite language since it is not clear how the two parts are “relatively” rotatable, the examiner suggests amending the claim language to clarify what the two parts are relative in relation to, simply stating “relatively rotatable” does not provide clear structure or intended function for the invention.
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) 1-5, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christensen (EP 4306034 A1, using US 20240016369 A1 as an English equivalent).
Regarding Claim 1, Christensen discloses
An endoscope (2, FIG. 1) comprising:
a rotation operating part (wire drums 44/46, FIG. 3) that is rotatably provided on an endoscope operation unit (endoscope handle 4, FIG. 1) and that moves a bending operation wire (steering wires of wire drums 44/46, FIG. 3) forward and backward by being rotationally operated (par. 84 discloses rotations of manually operable elements leads to rotation of drums which leads to pulling movement of steering wires);
an engaging part (manually operable element 26/ 30, FIG. 2) that frictionally engages with the rotation operating part (par. 84 discloses manually operable element frictionally engaged to wire drum via snap connection); and
a pressing part (brake activator 32 + brake part 34/36, FIG. 2-3) that is movable between a braking position coming into contact with the engaging part (FIG. 9, par. 88 disclose frictional engagement of respective engagement surfaces in brake-on position) and a non-braking position positioned on a distal side with respect to the engaging part from the braking position (FIG. 8, par. 88 disclose no frictional engagement of respective engagement surfaces in brake-off position),
wherein the rotation operating part and the engaging part are integrally rotatable in a case where the pressing part is positioned at the non-braking position (par. 82 discloses manually operable elements freely rotatable in brake-off position, par. 84 discloses wire drums rotate in relation to manually operable elements) and
the rotation operating part and the engaging part are relatively rotatable in a case where the pressing part is positioned at the braking position par. 82 discloses rotation of manually operable elements restricted in brake-on position, par. 84 discloses wire drums rotate in relation to manually operable elements).
Regarding Claim 2, Christensen discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the pressing part is configured to be movable in a direction orthogonal to a rotary shaft of the rotation operating part (par. 87 discloses shaft portion of wire drum, FIG. 14 depicts brake activator would be rotatable in direction orthogonal to any part of wire drum).
Regarding Claim 3, Christensen discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the non-braking position is a position at which the pressing part is separated from the engaging part (FIG. 8, par. 88 disclose no frictional engagement of respective engagement surfaces in brake-off position).
Regarding Claim 4, Christensen discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the engaging part and the rotation operating part are frictionally engaged with each other by a friction material (par. 84 discloses manually operable element frictionally engaged to wire drum via snap connection, par. 35 discloses manually operable elements made of polymer or plastic material).
Regarding Claim 5, Christensen discloses
The endoscope according to claim 4, wherein the friction material is made of an elastic member (par. 35 discloses manually operable elements made of polymer or plastic material, i.e. elastic).
Regarding Claim 9, Christensen discloses
The endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the pressing part and the engaging part are frictionally engaged with each other in a case where the pressing part is positioned at the braking position (FIG. 9, par. 88 disclose frictional engagement of respective engagement surfaces in brake-on position).
Regarding Claim 10, Christensen discloses
The endoscope according to claim 9, wherein the pressing part and the engaging part are frictionally engaged with each other by a friction material (coil spring 80, FIG. 10, 17, par. 89 disclose frictional engagement of respective engagement surfaces via coil spring).
Regarding Claim 11, Christensen discloses
The endoscope according to claim 9, wherein in a case where the pressing part is positioned at the braking position (par. 88 discloses brake-on position),
a frictional force generated between the engaging part and the rotation operating part is defined as a first frictional force (par. 84 discloses manually operable element frictionally engaged to wire drum via snap connection), and
a frictional force generated between the pressing part and the engaging part is defined as a second frictional force (FIG. 9, par. 88 disclose frictional engagement of respective engagement surfaces),
the first frictional force is smaller than the second frictional force (par. 84 discloses snap connection between engaging element and drum, which are two rotatable elements, whereas par. 88 discloses a coil spring forcibly pressing rotationally stationary brake parts against rotationally movable manually operable elements, i.e. generating a larger frictional force).
Conclusion
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