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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-16 drawn to an endoscope package system, and of the species thereof of Group 2, represented by Figs 5-8 in the reply filed on 1/13/26 is acknowledged. Applicant’s indication that claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 10-16 read on the elected species is also acknowledged.
Claims 3, 5, 7-9 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventio or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/26.
An Office action on the merits of claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 10-16 follows.
Figure 1-2 and 24-25 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. The specification description with regard to these figures is made in such a way that it appears that the applicant considers what is illustrated therein not to be the invention of the applicant. Therefore, the “prior art” label is required for the noted figures. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yabe et al. (5,526,928).
Initially the examiner notes that claim 1 appears to be generic to at least elected Figs. 5 to 8 as well as to the embodiment of Figs. 17-18 in the subject application drawings. Therefore, looking at the aforementioned Figs 17-18 and Yabe Fig. 9, it is apparent that the Fig. 9 embodiment of Yabe meets all of the elements of claim 1. That is to say the claimed package system reads on the package 23 shown in Yabe Fig 9. The claimed flexible insertion portion can be the portion of the endoscope within sheath portion 10 that lies in recess 45 of package 23.
Therefore, in Yabe, the first winding direction can be the direction of the first straight section of the endoscope from the distal portion thereof advancing towards the proximal portion of the endoscope (the direction of the section at the end of the lead line from numeral 10 in Yabe Fig 9 going from left to right). Or, the first winding direction can be the aforementioned direction plus the direction defined by the first curve of the endoscope at the end of first straight section. Or, the first winding direction can be the direction defined by this first curve only. Or, the first winding direction can be the direction defined by the extent of the endoscope from its distal end (far left of first straight section) to midway along the second straight section of the endoscope (including the first straight section, the first curve and advancing from the first curve from right to left along the second straight section of the endoscope to midway along the second straight section).
Thus, the second winding direction can be the direction defined by the endoscope from midway along the second straight section thereof and advancing towards the second curve to just before the second curve (at this end of the second straight section). Or, the second winding direction can be this direction plus the direction defined by the second curve of the endoscope. Or, the second winding direction can be the direction defined by this second curve only. Or, the second winding direction can be the direction defined by the direction of the endoscope from midway along the second straight section thereof through midway along the third straight section thereof (including the second curve) or through all of the third straight section thereof (again including the second curve) as shown in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 2 the claimed holding body that is a sheath can be the noted sheath portion 10. The claimed holding body that is a tray can be base member 26.
Regarding claim 10, the shapes of the flexible insertion portion that include the first and second winding directions pointed out above include shapes that have loops (shapes that include the first and second curves respectively).
Regarding claim 11, the first and second winding directions of Yabe identified above include directions that are clockwise and counterclockwise (such as the curves alone or each with its straight sections).
Regarding claim 12 the examiner notes that the winding directions identified above include loops that have the same lengths.
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.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al.
Yabe may not disclose the features of these claims but they all appear from the subject application disclosure and from the prior art to be conventional. That is to say, each of dependent claims 13-16 recites features of the endoscope itself that appear from the subject application disclosure or from the prior art of record to be conventional, although Yabe may not specifically disclose these features for the Yabe endoscope.
Regarding claim 13 see specification [0015] through [0041] of the subject application. Same regarding claim 14. Moreover regarding claim 14, the examiner notes that per the subject application specification, the first and second lengths of the wires being equal results from the endoscope being packaged such that it has at least two winding directions being different from each other and then sterilized, as disclosed in the instant application. Therefore, the examiner finds that a prior art endoscope as claimed (having two wires to facilitate bending of the endoscope flexible insertion portion of the endoscope) packaged in the prior art package of Yabe would also have the features of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15 see Suzuki (2023/0255451) of record at [0003], indicating that a single use endoscope is conventional. Regarding claim 16, see Ashizuka (2023/0115558) also of record and its angle knob 19 on which the claimed bending operation knob reads.
It would have been obvious to utilize a prior art endoscope having the claimed features in the apparatus of Yabe, in order to conveniently package and sterilize such an endoscope.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe in vie of Matsuno et al. (2016/0073862). Yabe does not disclose a holding body being a clip having at least two grooves and the flexible insertion portion being held in the clip as claimed. Matsuno is cited to show the use of clips having at least two grooves as holding bodies to hold flexible insertion portions of endoscopes on a tray. See holding device 5 in Figs 1-4. Additionally, from Fig 15 of Yabe, one having ordinary skill in the relevant art would know that features other than recess 45 of the Fig. 9 embodiment can be used to hold parts of an endoscope within a package. It would have been obvious in view of Matsuno to provide the package of Yabe with the missing feature, in order to more conveniently or economically hold the flexible insertion portion of Yabe in the Yabe package.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736