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 .
This communication is responsive to the correspondence filled on 1/28/26.
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
IDS Considerations
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/24 is/are being considered by the examiner as the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 with respect to claims 12-17 have been considered but are not persuasive, because claims 12-17 are restricted because of following reason.
Election/Restrictions (Election by Original Presentation)
It is noted that Election by Original Presentation is not limited to claim amendments relative to the originally presented claims. See MPEP 819 in which the examiner may permit a shift in claim scope (e.g. from one invention to another). In the present application, the examiner has permitted a shift in claim scope from the originally filed claims to the currently pending claims. Furthermore, MPEP 821.03 states “Claims added by amendment following action by the examiner, as explained in MPEP § 818.02(a), and drawn to an invention other than the one previously claimed, should be treated as indicated in 37 CFR 1.145” (emphasis added to highlight the fact that the broader term “previously claimed” is referenced instead of “originally presented”). Even further, impermissible invention shift via a reply by applicant following an office action is not governed by unity of invention analysis for national stage applications. See MPEP 823 stating “However, the guidance set forth in this chapter with regard to other substantive and procedural matters (e.g., double patenting rejections (MPEP § 804), election and reply by applicant (MPEP § 818), and rejoinder of nonelected inventions (MPEP § 821.04) generally applies to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371”.
The pending claims (particularly the independent claim 12 have been so heavily amended by the Reply filed on 1/28/26. Amended claims 12-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentable distinction. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Invention I: Claims 1-11 and 18 are directed to send a signal to the first switch only when power is supplied from the first power receiving section without any power being supplied from the second power receiving section; wherein when the first switch receives a signal from the voltage detection circuit, if only the first power receiving section receives power by causing the first electric wire and the third electric wire to electrically connect, which is explained in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 and classified under class A61B 1/00124 electrical, electrical plug-and-socket connection.
Invention II: Claims 12-17 are directed to a determining a type of an endoscope processor connected to the endoscope based on the detected voltages, and switching an electrical connection of a second power supply generation IC provided in the endoscope between the first power receiving section and the second power receiving section based on the determination, to:(i) electrically connect the first power receiving section to at least a first power supply generation IC and the second power supply generation IC when the endoscope processor is determined to be the first type;(ii) electrically connect the first power receiving section to the first power supply generation IC and electrically connect the second power receiving section to the second power supply generation IC when the endoscope processor is determined to be the second type which is described in Fig. 8, Fig. 11, Fig. 12 and classified under class A61B 1/00006 for control signals.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-17 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Allowable subject matter
Regarding to claim 1:
1. As explained in non-final rejection the Shelton and Ogihara are closest prior art and combined teaching of Shelton and Ogihara or any other reference do not teach:
a first switch, the first switch being electrically connected to the third electric wire to switch between a first state in which the second electric wire and the third electric wire are electrically connected and a second state in which the first electric wire and the third electric wire are electrically connected; and a voltage detection circuit configured to: send a signal to the first switch only when power is supplied from the first power receiving section without any power being supplied from the second power receiving section; wherein when the first switch receives a signal from the voltage detection circuit, if only the first power receiving section receives power by causing the first electric wire and the third electric wire to electrically connect, the power received by the first power receiving section is supplied to the first power supply circuit and the second power supply circuit,
So, claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding to claim 2-11:
Claim 2-11 are allowed for their dependency on base independent claim 1.
Regarding to claim 18:
The scope of new claim 18 is the combination of original claim 12, 13 and 15. The reason for allowance of original claim 15 was explained in the non-final rejection. So, for the same reason new claim 18 is allowable.
Closely related prior art
Examiner notes teaching of Fig, 3 of U.S. Pub. No. 20200026059 A1 is/are pertinent to the independent claim(s), however is not used in rejection because this does not teach the allowable subject matter of claim 1.
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 extension fee 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 NASIM N NIRJHAR whose telephone number is (571) 272-3792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8 am to 5 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William F Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NASIM N NIRJHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896