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 AI and BI, Figures 4-8 and 12, in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species BII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Although applicant asserts that claim 15 is drawn to Species BI, claim 15 is properly classified under nonelected species BII, as it recites a lid, which is exclusive to species BII.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(t). The sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, within the sight as defined in 37 CFR 1.84(g).
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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 11-12, reads “the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe are fixated in the first channel and the second channel of the wire pipe fastener.” According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a common definition for fixated is to focus or concentrate one’s gaze. One suggested modification for improving the clarity of the scope of the claimed invention is “the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe are affixed in the first channel and the second channel of the wire pipe fastener.” For the purposes of examination, “the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe are fixated in the first channel and the second channel of the wire pipe fastener” is being interpreted as “the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe are contained within the first channel and the second channel of the wire pipe.”
In claim 4, line 1, claim 7, line 1, and claim 8, 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.
In claim 15, line 2, “and of the second channel” should read “and the second channel”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 9 and 14 are 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 9 recites the limitation “wherein the channels are arranged in parallel displaced planes” in lines 1-2. With the Merriam-Webster dictionary defining displace to mean to remove from the usual or proper place or to move physically out of position, it is unclear how the channels are arranged in displaced planes. The applicant has not defined a “proper or usual” position for the planes. It is unclear how the channels are arranged.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the direction of the first axis or the direction of the second axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the direction of the first axis or the direction of the second axis” is being interpreted as “a direction of the first axis or the direction of the second axis.”
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0237891 A1 to Sato et al. (“Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses an endoscope comprising (endoscope 1; Fig. 1, paragraph 0027):
an insertion cord including a main tube and a bending section distal to the main tube (the insertion portion 2 includes a flexible tubular portion 4, a curing portion 5, and a distal hard portion 6 in order from the proximal direction side; Fig. 1, paragraph 0027);
a handle comprising a steering wire actuator (a curving operation lever 10 is provided in the plane 9a of the lever attachment portion 9, and is a curving portion which performs a curving operation to curve the curving portion 5 in the first curving direction or the second curving direction; Fig. 1 and 3B, paragraph 0029) and a wire pipe base (the curving mechanism 30 includes a movement regulating portion 36 which is provided within the operation portion 3 and which regulates the movement of the wire crossing portion 41 from within the operation portion 3 into the insertion portion 2; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0046), the wire pipe base including channels comprising a first channel and a second channel (the coupling member 19 is provided with a first inner 42a that defines a fist hole portion 37a, and a second inner peripheral surface portion 42b that defines a second hole portion 37b; Fig. 3B and 5A, paragraph 0047);
steering wires comprising a first steering wire and a second steering wire (first operation wire 23a and the second operation wire 23b; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0036), both connected to the steering wire actuator and running through the insertion cord so that manipulation of the steering wire actuator causes bending of the bending section (when the curving operation lever 10 is rotated in the direction of arrow B1 in Fig. 3B (in the first rotation direction), the second draw-wire 32b is pulled. Thus, the first operation wire 23a connected to the second draw-wire 32b is pulled. As the first operation wire 23a is pulled, the curving portion 5 is curved in the second curbing direction; Fig. 3B, paragraphs 0043-0045);
wire pipes comprising a first wire pipe and a second wire pipe, the wire pipes extending from the wire pipe base to a distal end of the main tube (the distal ends of the first wire guide 34a and the second wire guide 34b are firmly fixed by, for example, solder to the curving piece 21 located to the most proximal direction side. 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) 35 provided within the operation portion 3; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0037), the first steering wire and the second steering wire running inside the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe, respectively (a first wire guide 34a through which the first operation wire 23a is inserted and a second wire guide 34b through which the second operation wire 23b is inserted are provided within the flexible tubular portion 4; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0037);
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 first wire guide 34a is inserted through the first hole portion 37a of the coupling member 19, and the second wire guide 34b is inserted through the second hole portion 37b; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0048), the first wire pipe and the second wire pipe extending proximally of the wire pipe base along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, 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 curving direction setting portion 40 includes a wire crossing portion 41 which is provided within the operation portion 3 and which crosses the first wire guide 34a (first operation wire 23a) and the second wire guide 34b (second operation wire 23b) in the second set condition; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 9, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Sato further discloses wherein the channels are arranged in parallel displaced planes (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).
Regarding claim 10, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Sato further discloses wherein the wire pipes extend proximally from the wire pipe base and past the position (C) (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) 35 provided within the operation portion 3; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0037).
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 Sato.
Regarding claim 11, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato 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). While not explicitly stated in Sato, the distance between the curving operation lever and the wire crossing portion appears to be larger than a distance between the movement regulating portion and the wire crossing portion (Fig. 3B).
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 Sato 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, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 11. However, Sato 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 Sato 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 Sato in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0374124 A1 to Fuchs et al. (“Fuchs”).
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato 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 Sato 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, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato 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 Sato 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, Sato, as previously modified Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 4. 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, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato 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 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 first channel and the second channel each has a centerline extending in parallel with the first axis and the second axis (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), respectively, 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 Sato 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 13, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato 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 Sato 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, Sato, 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 the 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, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato 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 Sato 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, Sato, as previously modified by Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 18. Sato, 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 Sato in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0137355 A1 to Lund et al. (“Lund”).
Regarding claim 16, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Sato further discloses a method for assembling the endoscope of claim 1, the method comprising:
providing a handle shell part (housing of operation portion 3; Fig. 4);
arranging the wire pipe base and a roller in the handle shell part (a movement regulating portion 36 which is provided within the operation portion 3; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0046)(the first pulley 33 and the second pulley 22b are provided in the operation portion 3; Fig. 3B),
connecting the first steering wire and the second steering wire to the roller (the first draw-wire 32a is passed around the first pulley 33a from a second curving direction side … and the proximal end (terminal end) thereof is firmly fixed by, for example, solder to the peripheral wall of the first pulley 33a. The second draw-wire 32b is passed around the second pulley 33b from a first curving direction side … and the proximal end (terminal end) thereof is firmly fixed by, for example, solder to the peripheral wall of the second pulley 33b; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0038),
connecting the wire pipes, through which the steering wires are inserted, to the wire pipe base (the first wire guide 34a is inserted through the first hole portion 37a of the coupling member 19, and the second wire guide 34b is inserted through the second hole portion 37b; Fig. 3B, paragraph 0048).
However, Sato 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 Sato 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 Sato in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0000329 A1 to Tezuka et al. (“Tezuka”).
Regarding claim 17, Sato discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato 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 Sato, as taught by Tezuka, to increase the functionality of the endoscope of Sato by enabling the user to visualize images taken at the distal tip of the endoscope in real time.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, 19, and 21 of copending Application No. 18/824,592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘592 disclose all the limitations of claims 1-17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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, Sato, as previously modified by Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 3. However, neither Sato 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 20, Sato, as previously modified by Fuchs, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 18. Sato teaches wherein the handle comprises a handle shell (housing of operation portion 3; Fig. 1). However, neither Sato 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0338052 A1 to Ouyang et al. teaches an endoscope with control wires that cross each other in the handle as described in the descriptive text.
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
Prosecution Insights