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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/22/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 12 have been amended, claims 2 and 8 have been cancelled and claims 14-20 remain withdrawn. Thus, claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant’s amendments/cancellation of claims overcome the drawing objections for not showing claimed matter. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the USC 112(f) interpretation of claims limitations have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant amendments to the claims to include further structural limitations causes 112(f) to no longer be invoked in the claims.
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the USC 112(b) rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues amended claim 12 specifies features of the oversheath alone. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “the second inner diameter part is located on a distal end part side of the endoscope” positively and structurally claims the endoscope as well, which is inconsistent with the preamble of “The oversheath”.
As such the 112(b) rejection will be maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dejima et al (US 20220087513 A1), herein referenced to as “Dejima” have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The applicant has amended claim 1 to further recite “an outer sheath in which the first tubular part and the second tubular part are provided integrally with each other; and an inner sheath in which a fitting part has a tapered part that is externally fitted to a tapered part of the endoscopic treatment tool, and a third tubular part that slides on the inner peripheral slide sliding part and covers at least a part of the flexible sheath are provided integrally with each other”.
The examiner agrees that Dejima does not explicitly disclose “an inner sheath in which a fitting part has a tapered part that is externally fitted to a tapered part of the endoscopic treatment tool, and a third tubular part that slides on the inner peripheral slide sliding part and covers at least a part of the flexible sheath are provided integrally with each other”.
The examiner agrees that Ueda (WO 2020071378 A1), herein referenced to Ueda, additionally does not teach “a fitting part has a tapered part that is externally fitted to a tapered part of the endoscopic treatment tool”.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dejima in view of Ueda and Kuriyama et al (US 8428710 B2),
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 1, 3-7, and 9-13 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.
In Claim 1, the Applicant is required to clarify to what the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., either the oversheath alone or the combination of the oversheath and endoscopic treatment tool. The Applicant sets forth the combination of the oversheath and the endoscopic treatment tool when describing “a tapered part that is externally fitted to a tapered part of the endoscopic treatment tool”, which is inconsistent with the preamble, that sets forth the subcombination of the oversheath alone. Applicant is required to make the language of the claims consistent with the intent of the claims. It should also be noted that in considering the claims on the merits, the Examiner will consider the claims as drawn to the combination.
In Claim 3, the Applicant is required to clarify to what the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., either the oversheath alone or the combination of the oversheath and endoscope. The Applicant sets forth the combination of the oversheath and the endoscope when describing “the outer sheath is attached to the endoscope via the attachment/detachment member”, which is inconsistent with the preamble, that sets forth the subcombination of the oversheath alone. Applicant is required to make the language of the claims consistent with the intent of the claims. It should also be noted that in considering the claims on the merits, the Examiner will consider the claims as drawn to the combination.
In Claim 4, the Applicant is required to clarify to what the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., either the oversheath alone or the combination of the oversheath, the endoscopic treatment tool, and the endoscope. The Applicant sets forth the combination of the oversheath, the endoscopic treatment tool, and the endoscope when describing “a second engaging that engages with a part of the endoscope... an interval that matches a treatment tool introduction part having a socket on which the forceps valve is mounted”, which is inconsistent with the preamble, that sets forth the subcombination of the oversheath alone. Applicant is required to make the language of the claims consistent with the intent of the claims. It should also be noted that in considering the claims on the merits, the Examiner will consider the claims as drawn to the combination.
In Claim 7, the Applicant is required to clarify to what the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., either the oversheath alone or the combination of the oversheath and endoscopic treatment tool. The Applicant sets forth the combination of the oversheath and the endoscopic treatment tool when describing “is fitted to the flexible sheath of the endoscopic treatment tool or the tapered part of the endoscopic tool”, which is inconsistent with the preamble, that sets forth the subcombination of the oversheath alone. Applicant is required to make the language of the claims consistent with the intent of the claims. It should also be noted that in considering the claims on the merits, the Examiner will consider the claims as drawn to the combination.
In Claim 12, the Applicant is required to clarify to what the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., either the oversheath alone or the combination of the oversheath and the endoscope. The Applicant sets forth the combination of the oversheath and the endoscope when describing “the second inner diameter part located on a distal end part side of the endoscope with respect to the first inner diameter part and having a smaller inner diameter than the first inner diameter part”, which is inconsistent with the preamble of claim 12 and claim 1, which claim 12 is dependent on, that sets forth the subcombination of the oversheath alone. Applicant is required to make the language of the claims consistent with the intent of the claims. It should also be noted that in considering the claims on the merits, the Examiner will consider the claims as drawn to the combination.
Claims 5, 9-11, and 13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejima et al (US 20220087513 A1), herein referenced to as “Dejima” in view of Ueda (WO 2020071378 A1), herein referenced to Ueda, (see attached machine translation of Ueda), and Kuriyama et al (US 8428710 B2), herein referenced to Kuriyama.
Claim 1
Dejima discloses: An oversheath 22 (see Figs. 1-3, [0041]) into which a flexible sheath 23 (see Figs. 1-3 and 7, [0044]) of an endoscopic treatment tool 21 (see Figs. 1-3 and 7, [0041]) is inserted (see Fig. 7) and that is inserted into a forceps channel 8 (see Fig. 2, [0041]) of an endoscope 2 (see Fig. 2, [0040]) in cooperation with the endoscopic treatment tool 21, the oversheath 22 comprising: a first tubular part 31 (see Fig. 3, [0049]) including an outer peripheral side sliding part 31A (see Figs. 5-6, [0050]) that slides on an inner peripheral surface (see Figs. 8 and 13-15, 31 inside 16, [0071]) of a forceps port 16 (see Figs. 8 and 13-15, [0041]) as an introduction port 31A into the forceps channel 8; and a second tubular part 32 (see Figs. 1-3, [0049], has a tubular shape, hence a second tubular part) provided at a base end part portion of 31 that transitions towards 32 of the first tubular part 31 and including an inner peripheral side sliding part 31B (see Figs. 1-3, [0050]) that allows the endoscopic treatment tool 21 to move forward and backward (see [0050], 21 is slidable) with respect to the forceps channel 8; an outer sheath 22 (See Fig. 3, [0041], 31 + 32, is an integral oversheath) in which the first tubular part 31 and the second tubular part 32 are provided integrally with each other.
Dejima does not explicitly disclose: and an inner sheath in which a fitting part has a tapered part that is externally fitted to a tapered part of the endoscopic treatment tool, and a third tubular part that slides on the inner peripheral side sliding part and covers at least a part of the flexible sheath are provided integrally with each other
However, Ueda in a similar field of invention teaches an oversheath 103 (see Fig. 3) into which a flexible sheath 111 (see Fig. 3, 111 is a flexible sheath as it is a lancet, hence a hollow needle, [0026]) of an endoscopic tool 101 (see Fig. 3) is inserted with an outer sheath 114 (see Fig. 3) with a first tubular part distal portion of 114 (see Fig. 3) and second tubular part proximal portion of 114 (see Fig. 3). Ueda further teaches: and an inner sheath 103 + 102 (see Fig. 3, [0024]) in which a fitting part 103 (see Figs. 3-4, [0024], 113 is fitted to 101) that is externally fitted to the endoscopic treatment tool 101, and a third tubular part 102 and covers at least a part of the flexible sheath 111 (see Figs. 1-3, 112 covers 111) are provided integrally with each other (102 is integral with 103, see Figs. 1-3, [0031]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dejima to incorporate the teachings of Ueda and teach an oversheath with an inner sheath in which a fitting part that is externally fitted to the endoscopic treatment tool, and a third tubular part and covers at least a part of the flexible sheath are provided integrally with each other. Motivation for such can be found in Ueda as this allows the user to only one hand to operate the endoscopic tool by linking and locking fitted portions together (see [0027]).
The language, " that slides on the inner peripheral side sliding part," constitutes functional claim language, indicating that the claimed device need only be capable of being used in such a manner. The claim, however, is an apparatus claim, and is to be limited by structural limitations. The Office submits that the combination device of Dejima and Ueda meets the structural limitations of the claim, and is capable of the third tubular part 102 of Ueda as modified into Dejima that can fit within an entry portion of endoscope 3 (see Fig. 8 of Ueda) to be able to slide on the inner peripheral side sliding part 31B of Dejima. This is because an elongate element in Dejima such as 23 can be inserted into the entry portion 9 of the endoscope and is also slidable with 31B.
Furthermore, wherein in product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
The combination of Dejima and Ueda does not explicitly teach: the fitting part has a tapered part that is externally fitted to a tapered part of the endoscopic treatment tool.
However, Kuriyama in a similar field of invention teaches an oversheath 1 (see Figs. 1A-2B) with an outer sheath 8 (see Figs. 2A-2C), an inner sheath 10 (see Figs. 2A-2C) with a fitting part portion of 10 that inserts into 8 (see Figs. 2A-2C) with an endoscopic treatment tool 7 + 9 (see Figs. 2A-2C). Kuriyama further teaches: the fitting part portion of 10 that inserts into 8 has a tapered part (see annotated Fig. 2C below) that is externally fitted (7a extends through 10 and 8, and hence extends through the tapered portion of 10, hence the portion of 10 that inserts into 8 and its tapered portion is externally fitted to 7a, see also col. 5, lines 17-26, 10 is externally fitted to 7 as it is operatively connected and surrounds the portion that is accommodated in 5) to a tapered part 7a (see Figs. 2A-2C, col. 4, lines 53-59) of the endoscopic treatment tool 7 + 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fitting part of Dejima and Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Kuriyama and teach an oversheath with the fitting part has a tapered part that is externally fitted to a tapered part of the endoscopic treatment tool. Motivation for such can be found in Kuriyama as this allows for advancement and retraction of a needle at the distal end of the device with varying amounts of friction depending on the state of the device (see col. 3, lines 20-33 and col. 5, lines 17-26).
Claim 3
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Ueda further teaches: an attachment/detachment member 121 + 122 (see Figs. 1-7 and 9, [0033]) provided integrally with the outer sheath 114 and engaging with an outer peripheral shape 32 (see Figs. 1-7 and 9, [0037]) of the forceps valve 30 (see Figs. 1-7 and 9, [0033]) mounted on the forceps channel 23 + 24 (see Figs. 1-7, and 9, [0033]), wherein, in a case in which the attachment/detachment member 121 + 122 engages with the forceps valve 30, the outer sheath 114 is attached to the endoscope 2 via the attachment/detachment member 121 + 122 (see [0033]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dejima to incorporate the teachings of Ueda and teach an oversheath with an attachment/detachment member provided integrally with the outer sheath and engaging with a forceps valve mounted on the forceps channel, wherein, in a case in which the attachment/detachment member engages with the forceps valve, the outer sheath is attached to the endoscope via the attachment/detachment member. Motivation for such can be found in Ueda as this allows the user to only one hand to operate the endoscopic tool by linking and locking fitted portions together (see [0027] and [0034]-[0035]).
Claim 4
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 3, see 103 rejection above. Ueda further teaches: wherein the attachment/detachment member 121 + 122 includes: a first engaging part 121 (see Figs. 5 and 9, that engages with the outer peripheral shape 32 of the forceps valve 30 (see Fig. 9, [0037], 121 engages 30 at 32), ; and a second engaging part 122 (see Fig. 9, meets the definition of a clamping piece, see 112(f) interpretation above) that engages with a part 33 (see Fig. 9, [0034]) of the endoscope 2, wherein the second engaging part 122 is formed at an interval that matches at treatment tool introduction part 11 (see Fig. 8, [0037]) having a socket 23 (see Fig. 8, [0039]) on which the forceps valve 30 is mounted (see Fig. 8).
Claim 5
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 3, see 103 rejection above. Ueda further teaches: wherein the attachment/detachment member 121 + 122 is disposed in a direction in which an attachment direction to the forceps valve 30 is orthogonal (see Fig. 9, 121 extends and attaches orthogonal to the axial direction of 114) 122 to an axial direction the axial direction of 114 of the outer sheath 114 or in a direction inclined from the direction orthogonal to the axial direction (see Fig. 9, 122 extends attaches 90 degrees from the orthogonal to the axial direction of 114).
Claim 6
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Ueda further teaches: wherein the endoscopic treatment tool is movable forward and backward and rotatable with respect to the oversheath within a range in which the third tubular part and the inner peripheral side sliding part slide.
The language, " wherein the endoscopic treatment tool is movable forward and backward and rotatable with respect to the oversheath within a range in which the third tubular part and the inner peripheral side sliding part slide," constitutes functional claim language, indicating that the claimed device need only be capable of being used in such a manner. The claim, however, is an apparatus claim, and is to be limited by structural limitations. The Office submits that the combination device of Dejima and Ueda meets the structural limitations of the claim, and is capable of the endoscopic tool is movable forward and backward, can rotate with respect to the oversheath, within a range in which the third tubular part and inner peripheral side sliding part slide as the endoscopic treatment tool is rotatable at any point and can slide while the third tubular part and the inner peripheral side sliding part slide. Specifically, while the third tubular part and the inner peripheral side sliding part are sliding, the endoscopic tool is not locked either.
Claim 7
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Ueda further teaches: wherein the fitting part 103 is fitted to the flexible sheath 111 (see Figs. 1-11, 103 is fitted to 111 by allowing 111 to pass through) of the endoscopic treatment tool 101 or the tapered part of the endoscopic treatment tool (will not be examined here due to being an optional claim limitation).
Claim 9
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Dejima further discloses: wherein the outer sheath 22 includes a seal member 33 (see Fig. 5, [0049]) fills a gap (see [0052], fills a gap) at a base end part the proximal end of 32 (see Fig. 5) of the second tubular part 32.
The combination of Dejima and Ueda further teaches: between the outer sheath and the inner sheath (as combined, the outer sheath 22 of Dejima has the inner sheath 102 + 103, particularly 102 inserted into 22, and 33 which fills a gap, would fill the gap between 102 and 22, due to being an annular elastic member to form airtightness).
Claim 10
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Dejima does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first tubular part has a double-tube structure in which a length in an axial direction is expandable and contractible.
However, Kuriyama in a similar field of invention teaches an oversheath 1 (see Figs. 1A-2B) with a first tubular part 3 (see Figs. 1A-2B). Kuriyama further teaches: wherein the first tubular part 3 has a double-tube structure 5 + 6 (see Figs. 2A-2B, col. 4, lines 53-59) in which a length in axial direction is expandable and contractible (see Figs. 2A-2B, the length by which 6 + 12 extends out of 5 is expandable and contractible, see col. 5, lines 42-53).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dejima to incorporate the teachings of Kuriyama and teach an oversheath with the first tubular part has a double-tube structure in which a length in an axial direction is expandable and contractible. Motivation for such can be found in Kuriyama as this can reduce sliding friction of a tube while the tubes are bent (see col. 2, lines 30-37).
Claim 11
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Dejima further discloses: wherein a length L11 (see Fig. 3, [0058]) of the first tubular part 31 is shorter than a length L12 (see Fig. 3, [0058]) of the flexible sheath 23.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejima in view of Ueda and Kuriyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ouchi et al (US 6203533 B1), herein referenced to as “Ouchi”.
Claim 12
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Dejima does not explicitly disclose: wherein the forceps channel includes a first inner diameter part located on a forceps port side, and a second inner diameter part located on a distal end part side of the endoscope with respect to the first inner diameter part and having a smaller inner diameter than the first inner diameter part, and an outer diameter of the first tubular part is smaller than the first inner diameter part and is larger than the second inner diameter part.
However, Ouchi in a similar field of invention teaches an oversheath 140’ (see Fig. 61) with a first tubular part 140’ (see Fig. 61) and an endoscope 1 (see Fig. 61) with a forceps channel 2 (see Fig. 61) and a forceps port 2b (see Fig. 61). Ouchi further teaches: wherein the forceps channel 2 includes a first inner diameter part the wider diameter of 2b (see Fig. 61, col. 21, lines 45-49) located on a forceps port side on the side of 2b (see Fig. 61), and a second inner diameter part the narrower diameter within 2 (see Fig. 61) located on a distal end part side the narrower diameter within 2 is distal compared to 2b (see Fig. 61) of the endoscope 1 with respect to the first inner diameter part the wider diameter of 2b and having a smaller inner diameter the narrower diameter within 2 (see Fig. 61) than the first inner diameter part the wider diameter of 2b (see Fig. 61), and an outer diameter the outer diameter of 140’ of the first tubular part 140’ is smaller than the first inner diameter part the wider diameter of 2b (see Fig. 61, 140’ can fit into 140’ but not into 2) and is larger than the second inner diameter part the narrower diameter within 2 (see Fig. 61).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dejima to incorporate the teachings of Ouchi and teach an oversheath and endoscope with the forceps channel includes a first inner diameter part located on a forceps port side, and a second inner diameter part located on a distal end part side of the endoscope with respect to the first inner diameter part and having a smaller inner diameter than the first inner diameter part, and an outer diameter of the first tubular part is smaller than the first inner diameter part and is larger than the second inner diameter part. Motivation for such can be found in Ouchi as this can control the length that the endoscopic instrument extends out form the distal end of the endoscope (see col. 21, lines 50-60).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejima in view of Ueda and Kuriyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lenker et al (US 5683451 A), herein referenced to as “Lenker”.
Claim 13
The combination of Dejima, Ueda, and Kuriyama teaches: The oversheath according to claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Dejima does not explicitly disclose: wherein a first resistance force in a case of allowing the first tubular part to move forward and backward with respect to the forceps channel is larger than a second resistance force in a case of allowing the endoscopic treatment tool to move forward and backward with respect to the second tubular part.
However, Lenker in a similar field of invention teaches an oversheath 180 + 170 (see Fig. 31) with a first tubular part 172 (see Fig. 31) and a second tubular part 174 (see Fig. 31) and an endoscopic treatment tool 30 (see Fig. 31). Lenker further teaches: wherein a first resistance force in a case of allowing the first tubular part to move forward and backward with respect to the forceps channel is larger than a second resistance force in a case of allowing the endoscopic treatment tool to move forward and backward with respect to the second tubular part (see col. 4, lines 3-21 and col. 12, lines 11-26, the force to move 180/170 is greater (the introduction sheath) than that of 30 (the delivery catheter).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dejima to incorporate the teachings of Lenker and teach an oversheath with a first resistance force in a case of allowing the first tubular part to move forward and backward with respect to the forceps channel is larger than a second resistance force in a case of allowing the endoscopic treatment tool to move forward and backward with respect to the second tubular part. Motivation for such can be found in Lenker as facilitates withdrawing an implant or tool while providing a seal (see col. 4, lines 3-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakagawa et al (US 20090105534 A1) teaches an oversheath clamped to an endoscope with a C-shaped clamp
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 RAIHAN R KHANDKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
RAIHAN R. KHANDKER
Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/RAIHAN R KHANDKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights