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 on 6/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 15 remains withdrawn.
On page 10 of applicant’s arguments, filed on 6/30/2026, Applicant asserts that claim 4 has been amended to address the informalities presented in the objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/8/2026. However, claim 4, in the amendment filed on 6/30/2026, does not reflect this. The examiner believes the discrepancy is due to possible oversight. Accordingly, the objection to claim 4 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/8/2026 stands. Please see section Claim Objections below for further explanation.
With the exception of the aforementioned objection, Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/8/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The objection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) of Claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The rejection of Claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-15, filed 6/30/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 102 of Claim 1 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. Applicant amended the independent claim with newly added limitations. Such newly added limitations change the scope of the claims, render the previous 102 rejections identified in the non-final dated 4/8/2026 moot, and require a new ground of rejection.
Therefore, the 102 rejections previously identified in the non-final action dated 4/8/2026 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made. Please see section 35 USC § 102 below for further explanation.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/30/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/824,592 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 1, “the endoscope according to” should read “the endoscope of.” The suggested amendment would render the introductory language consistent across the claims and improve the overall clarity of the claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2023/0108741 A1 to Kawakami et al. (“Kawakami”).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami discloses an endoscope (endoscope 1; Fig. 1, paragraph 0050) comprising:
an insertion cord (insertion portion 2; Fig. 1, paragraph 0051) including a main tube (flexible tube portion 8; Fig. 1, paragraph 0051) and a bending section distal to the main tube (a bending portion 7; Fig. 1, paragraph 0051);
a handle (operation portion 3; Fig. 1, paragraph 0052) comprising a steering wire actuator (pulley 21; Fig. 16, paragraphs 0069 and 0147) and a wire pipe base (the housing member 31a includes a fastening plate portion 31a2 in a shell; Fig. 16, paragraph 0081), the wire pipe base including channels comprising a first channel and a second channel (two cutout portions 31a3 are formed in the fastening plate portion 31a2; Fig. 16, paragraph 0081);
steering wires comprising a first steering wire and a second steering wire (two bending wires 23; Fig. 16, paragraph 0067), both connected to the steering wire actuator (each of one end of the two bending operation wires 23 can be fixed to the pulley 21; Fig. 16, paragraph 0067) and running through the insertion cord (each of the other end of the two bending operation wires 23 is connected to the distal portion; paragraph 0067) so that manipulation of the steering wire actuator causes bending of the bending section (the respective bending operation wires 23 are traction members that pull a distal end side portion of the insertion portion 2; paragraph 0067);
wire pipes comprising a first wire pipe and a second wire pipe (the sheaths 35; Fig. 16, paragraph 0076), the wire pipes extending from the wire pipe base to a distal end of the main tube (the two sheaths 35 are inserted in parallel through the operation portion 3 and the flexible tube portion 8 along a central axis of the flexible tube portion 8; Fig. 16, paragraph 0076), the first steering wire and the second steering wire running inside the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe, respectively (the sheaths 35 are wire sheaths or guide coils through which the bending operation wires 23 are inserted; Fig. 16, paragraph 0076);
wherein the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe are fixated in the first channel and the second channel of the wire pipe base, respectively (the circumferential grooves 36a are engaged in the cutout portions 31a3 of the fastening plate portion 31a2, whereby the end portions of the respective sheaths 35 are fixed to the housing 31 in the housing 31; Fig. 16, paragraph 0083), the first steering wire and the steering wire extending proximally of the wire pipe base along a first axis and a second axis, respectively (one ends of the respective bending operation wires 23 extending from end portions of the sheath 35 are fixed to the pulley 21; Fig. 1 6, paragraph 0077), and
wherein the first axis and the second axis cross each other at a position (C) between the wire pipe base and the steering wire actuator (the two bending operation wires 23 are hooked on the pulley 38A to cross in the vicinity of the pulley 21 when viewed in the direction parallel to the central axis of the shaft member 22; Fig. 16, paragraph 01047).
Regarding claim 9, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Kawakami further discloses wherein the channels are arranged in parallel displaced planes (in order for the bending operation wires 23 exiting the cutout portions 31a3 to cross, they must be disposed on parallel, spatially displaced planes; Fig. 14 and 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kawakami.
Regarding claim 11, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the steering wire actuator and the position (C) is larger than a distance between the wire pipe base and the position (C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position (C) of Kawakami to be larger than a distance between the wire pipe base and the position (C) since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the steering assembly would not operate differently with the claimed spacing between the position (C), the steering wire actuator, and the wire pipe fastener. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “in a variation of the present embodiment, the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position C is larger than the distance between the wire pipe base and the position C” (paragraph 0020 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 12, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 11. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position (C) is at least double the distance between the wire pipe base and the position (C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position (C) of Kawakami to be at least double the distance between the wire pipe base and the position (C) since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the steering assembly would not operate differently with the claimed spacing between the position (C), the steering wire actuator, and the wire pipe fastener. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “in a variation of the present embodiment, the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position C is larger than the distance between the wire pipe base and the position C, preferably the distance between the steering wire actuator and the position C is at least double of the distance between the wire pipe base and the position C” (paragraph 0020 of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 2-4, 8, 13-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0374124 A1 to Fuchs et al. (“Fuchs”).
Regarding claim 2, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis, respectively.
Fuchs teaches wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with a first axis and a second axis which intersect (by being accommodated in the slots 35, 35’ of the clamping plate 30, the Bowden cable sheaths 21, 21’ are held in approximately V-shaped arrangement; Fig. 3 and 8a, paragraph 0078). Fuchs teaches a V-shaped channel arrangement helps to ensure the wires run in a straight line to the control wheel (paragraph 0078).
Fuchs is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a wire pipe fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs by angling the first channel and the second channel such that the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis, respectively. Doing so helps to ensure the wires run in a straight line to the control wheel, as recognized by Fuchs.
Regarding claim 3, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis, respectively, wherein the endoscope further comprises a support platform within the handle, the wire pipe base connected to and extending from the support plate, wherein the support plate and the wire pipe base made in one piece.
Fuchs teaches wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with a first axis and a second axis which intersect (by being accommodated in the slots 35, 35’ of the clamping plate 30, the Bowden cable sheaths 21, 21’ are held in approximately V-shaped arrangement; Fig. 3 and 8a, paragraph 0078), wherein the endoscope further comprises a support platform within the handle, the wire pipe base connected to and extending from the support plate, wherein the support plate and the wire pipe base made in one piece (support 36 with which the clamping plate 30 is held on the housing 11 of the handpiece 10; Fig. 4 and 12, paragraph 0082). Fuchs teaches that the support platform helps to secure the wire pipe fastener in the handle housing (paragraph 0082), thereby improving mechanical stability and reducing movement of the wires during use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs by angling the first channel and the second channel such that the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis and placing the wire pipe fastener on a support platform. Doing so helps to secure the wire pipe fastener in the handle housing, thereby improving mechanical stability and reducing movement of the wires during use, as recognized by Fuchs.
Regarding claim 4, Kawakami, as previously modified Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 3. Fuchs further teaches wherein the support plate is a wall part of an encasement for protecting a PCB (support 36 is wall part that is capable of being a part of an encasement for anything including a PCB).
Regarding claim 8, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein the endoscope further comprises a support plate within the handle, the wire pipe base connected to and extending from the support plate, and wherein the support plate and the wire pipe base are made in one piece.
Fuchs teaches wherein the endoscope further comprises a support plate within the handle, the wire pipe base connected to and extending from the support plate, and wherein the support plate and the wire pipe base are made in one piece (support 36 with which the clamping plate 30 is held on the housing 11 of the handpiece 10; Fig. 4 and 12, paragraph 0082). Fuchs teaches that the support platform helps to secure the wire pipe fastener in the handle housing (paragraph 0082), thereby improving mechanical stability and reducing movement of the wires during use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs by placing the wire pipe fastener on a support platform. Doing so helps to secure the wire pipe fastener in the handle housing, thereby improving mechanical stability and reducing movement of the wires during use, as recognized by Fuchs.
Regarding claim 13, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein the channels are defined by walls, and wherein ribs extend from at least one of the walls.
Fuchs teaches wherein the channels are defined by walls, and wherein ribs extend from at least one of the walls (the segments of the transverse walls 32, 33, 34, which are each arranges on after another in a straight row; are connected to form clamping strips 37, 37’, wherein the clamping slots 35, 35’, into which the Bowden cable sheaths 21, 21’ can be pressed, are formed in each case between two adjacent clamping strips 37, 37’ running parallel to each other; Fig. 5, paragraph 0083). Fuchs teaches that the clamping strips help fix the Bowden cable sheaths in the channels (paragraph 0084), thereby improving bending control precision.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs by adding ribs to the walls of the channel. Doing so helps to fix the Bowden cable sheaths in the channels, thereby improving bending control precision, as recognized by Fuchs.
Regarding claim 14, Kawakami, as previously modified by Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 13. Fuchs further teaches wherein the ribs extend in a direction transverse to a direction of the first axis or the second axis (the segments of the transverse walls 32, 33, 34, which are each arranges on after another in a straight row; are connected to form clamping strips 37, 37’, wherein the clamping slots 35, 35’, into which the Bowden cable sheaths 21, 21’ can be pressed, are formed in each case between two adjacent clamping strips 37, 37’ running parallel to each other; Fig. 5, paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 18, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein the endoscope further comprises a support plate comprising a one-piece part including the wire pipe base, wherein the wire pipe base extends from a planar surface of the support plate, wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis, respectively, wherein the wire pipe base comprises a first pair of walls defining the first channel therebetween, and wherein the wire pipe base comprises a second pair of walls defining the second channel therebetween.
Fuchs teaches wherein the endoscope further comprises a support plate comprising a one-piece part including the wire pipe base, wherein the wire pipe base extends from a planar surface of the support plate (support 36 with which the clamping plate 30 is held on the housing 11 of the handpiece 10; Fig. 4 and 12, paragraph 0082), wherein the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis, respectively (by being accommodated in the slots 35, 35’ of the clamping plate 30, the Bowden cable sheaths 21, 21’ are held in approximately V-shaped arrangement; Fig. 3 and 8a, paragraph 0078), wherein the wire pipe base comprises a first pair of walls defining the first channel therebetween, and wherein the wire pipe base comprises a second pair of walls defining the second channel therebetween (the segments of the transverse walls 32, 33, 34, which are each arranges on after another in a straight row; are connected to form clamping strips 37, 37’, wherein the clamping slots 35, 35’, into which the Bowden cable sheaths 21, 21’ can be pressed, are formed in each case between two adjacent clamping strips 37, 37’ running parallel to each other; Fig. 5, paragraph 0083). Fuchs teaches that the support platform helps to secure the wire pipe fastener in the handle housing (paragraph 0082), thereby improving mechanical stability and reducing movement of the wires during use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs by angling the first channel and the second channel such that the first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis and placing the wire pipe fastener on a support platform. Doing so helps to secure the wire pipe fastener in the handle housing, thereby improving mechanical stability and reducing movement of the wires during use, as recognized by Fuchs.
Regarding claim 19, Kawakami, as previously modified by Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 18. Kawakami, as modified by Fuchs, discloses wherein a first plane parallel to the planar surface traverses the first pair of walls and not the second pair of walls, and wherein a second plane parallel to the planar surface traverses the second pair of walls and not the first pair of walls (in order for the wire guides 34a and 34b exiting the hole portions 37a and 37b to cross, they must be disposed on parallel, spatially displaced planes; Fig. 3B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0137355 A1 to Lund et al. (“Lund”).
Regarding claim 16, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Kawakami further discloses a method for assembling the endoscope of claim 1, the method comprising:
providing a handle shell part (the operation portion includes a housing 31; Fig. 3);
arranging the wire pipe base and a roller in the handle shell part (the housing member 31a includes a fastening plate portion 31a2 in a shell; Fig. 2, paragraph 0081)(a pulley 21, which is a rotating member, is provided in the operation portion 3; Fig. 2, paragraph 0066),
connecting the first steering wire and the second steering wire to the roller (each of one end of the two bending operation wires 23 can be fixed to the pulley 21; Fig. 2, paragraph 0067)),
connecting the wire pipes, through which the steering wires are inserted, to the wire pipe base (the circumferential grooves 36a are engaged in the cutout portions 31a3 of the fastening plate portion 31a2, whereby the end portions of the respective sheaths 35 are fixed to the housing 31 in the housing 31; Fig. 2, paragraph 0083).
However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose adjusting a tension for the first steering wire and a second tension for the second steering wire, and after adjusting the tension for the first steering wire and the second tension for the second steering wire, respectively, fixating a proximal end of the first steering wire to the first steering wire and fixating a proximal end of the second steering wire to the second steering wire.
Lund teaches adjusting a tension for the first steering wire and a second tension for the second steering wire, and after adjusting the tension for the first steering wire and the second tension for the second steering wire, respectively, fixating a proximal end of the first steering wire to the first steering wire and fixating a proximal end of the second steering wire to the second steering wire (during the assembly of the endoscope, the direction guide 24 serves to keep the direction and the tension on the part of the pull wire 17 which is drawn back along itself, i.e. the remainder 17’ … the tensioning device ensures that the correct tension is on the pull wire 17 when the loop is secured by attaching the pull wire 17 to itself, e.g. crimping the tube 22 on it; Fig. 5, paragraph 0040). Lund teaches that it is important to have good control over the tension of the pull wires for the proper function of the Bowden cable in the operation of the articulated tip part (paragraph 0037).
Lund is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a wire pipe fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Kawakami to incorporate the teachings of Lund by adjusting the tension in the wire and crimping the wires. Doing so helps with having good control over the tension of the pull wires for the proper function of the Bowden cable in the operation of the articulated tip part, as recognized by Lund.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0000329 A1 to Tezuka et al. (“Tezuka”).
Regarding claim 17, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose a system comprising a monitor and a control unit.
Tezuka teaches a system (flexible tube insertion apparatus 10; Fig. 1, paragraph 0060) comprising an endoscope (endoscope 20; Fig. 1, paragraph 0061), a monitor (display 40; Fig. 1, paragraph 0060), and a control unit (insertion control apparatus 30; Fig. 1, paragraph 0060).
Tezuka is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscope systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a monitor and a control unit in the endoscope system of Kawakami, as taught by Tezuka, to increase the functionality of the endoscope of Kawakami by enabling the user to visualize images taken at the distal tip of the endoscope in real time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Kawakami, as previously modified by Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 3. However, neither Kawakami nor Fuchs teaches the endoscope further comprising a structure defining a slot, wherein the slot is placed at the position (C) where the first steering wire and the second steering wire cross.
U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2013/0190566 A1 to Miyoshi et al. teaches wires crossing in the handle portion (Fig. 6). However, Miyoshi does not explicitly teach the endoscope further comprising a structure defining a slot, wherein the slot is placed at the position (C) where the first steering wire and the second steering wire cross.
Regarding claim 10, Kawakami discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Kawakami does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire pipes extend proximally from the wire pipe fastener and proximally of the position (C).
U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0237891 A1 to Sato et al. teaches wherein the wire pipes extend proximally from the wire pipe fastener (the proximal ends of the first wire guide 34a and the second wire guide 34b are fixed to a wire guide fixing member (wire guide fixing portion) 235 provided within the operation portion 3; Fig 3B, paragraph 0037).
Sato fails to explicitly teach wherein the wire pipes extend proximally from the wire pipe fastener and proximally of the position (C).
Regarding claim 20, Kawakami, as previously modified by Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 18. Kawakami teaches wherein the handle comprises a handle shell (the operation portion includes a housing 31; Fig. 3). However, neither Kawakami nor Fuchs teaches wherein the support plate is configured to cover the encasement circumferential wall forming a circuit board encasement therewith.
U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0156330 A1 to Berg et al. teaches wherein the handle comprises a handle shell and a circuit bard encasement therewithin (overmolding 720 may provide a covering that protects all sides and is resilient to protect circuit board 722 from mechanical insult during manufacturing and use; Fig. 7F-7J, paragraph 0187).
However, Berg does not explicitly teach an encasement circumferential wall attached to the handle shell, and wherein the support plate is configured to cover the encasement circumferential wall forming a circuit board encasement therewith.
Additionally, there is no reason, teaching, or suggestion provided with any prior art of record to modify the above endoscope to have the above features.
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 OLIVIA G STARKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/OLIVIA GRACE STARKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
