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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20, drawn to an endoscope, classified in A61B1/0057.
II. Claim 21, drawn to a method for assembling an endoscope, classified in A61B1/0011.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the process as claimed can be used to make a materially different product such as an endoscope without snap-fit shell fasteners and with housing shells made out of at least 40% polycarbonate.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Invention II would require a search in at least A61B1/0011, along with a unique text search. Invention I would not be searched as above and would instead require a search in at least A61B1/0057, along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Group I, Figures 10-16
Group II, Figures 17-19
Group III, Figures 20-22
The species are independent or distinct because each species recited mutually exclusive characteristics such as the ribs and the slot in Groups I and II and the lid in Group II. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-3, 10-12, and 17-20 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources and employing different search queries) and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Marcello Copat on 2/17/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, drawn to an endoscope, claims 1-20 and Group III, Figs. 20-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 4-9, 13-16, and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected Invention II and non-elected Groups I and II.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “42” (Fig. 3), “67” (Fig. 6B), and “161” (Figs. 20-21).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Incorrect numbering of elements. In paragraph 0091 of the specification, “control unit 42” should read “control unit 16.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3-4, “a steering wire actuator and a second channel” should read “a steering wire actuator, and a second channel”
Claim 1, lines 13-14, 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 5, “the the first housing shell” should read “the first housing shell”
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 19, line 1, “a monitor and a control unit” should read “a monitor, and a control unit”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 15, and 21 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. Additionally, in claim 3 from which claim 9 depends, the channels are defined to each have a centerline extending in parallel with intersecting axes. It is unclear how the channels can be arranged in parallel displaced planes as well as on intersecting axes.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the respective channel" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the respective channel” is being interpreted as “the first channel and the second channel, respectively.”
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the handle housing shell" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the handle housing shell” is being interpreted as “a first housing shell.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In regards to claim 18, the claim reads “wherein the housing shells are attached to each other without an adhesive material.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the housing shells … attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners formed in one-piece with the housing shells.” As claim 1 recites a housing shell attachment mechanism without an adhesive material and claim 18 does not provide any additional structural limitations, claim 18 is improperly dependent as it fails to further limit claim 1 from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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, 10-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0237891 A1 to Sato et al. (“Sato”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0212553 A1 to Appling et al. (“Appling”) and U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0282072 A1 to Katballe et al. (“Katballe”).
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 housing (the operation portion 3 includes an operation portion main body 7; Fig. 1, paragraph 0029) 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 fastener (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 fastener 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), the steering wires 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 fastener through 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 fastener, 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 steering wire and the second steering wire extending proximally of the wire pipe fastener along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, the first axis and the second axis crossing each other at a position (C) between the wire pipe fastener 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).
However, Sato does not explicitly disclose a handle comprising a housing comprising housing shells, the housing shells comprising at least 70% polypropylene material and attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners formed in one-piece with the housing shells.
Appling teaches a handle comprising a housing comprising housing shells (the housing 12 is comprised of a first shell 32 and a second shell 34 that are generally mirror images of one another, with minor variances, and coupled with one another along a plane to collectively define a hollow compartment; Fig. 2, paragraph 0045), the housing shells attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners formed in one-piece with the housing shells (additional fasteners may be provided for securing the shells 30, 32 to one another at other locations. It should be appreciated that various other attachment mechanisms could be employed, e.g. snap-mating features; Fig. 2, paragraph 0045). Appling teaches that such handle design is easy to manufacture (paragraph 0005).
Appling is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a handle comprising a steering assembly. 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 Appling by constructing the handle as two housing shells attached to each other with snap-fit shell fasteners. Doing so helps create an endoscope handle that is easy to manufacture, as recognized by Appling.
Additionally, Katballe teaches a housing comprising at least 70% polypropylene material (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). Katballe teaches that polypropylene is a medical grade mouldable polymer which has been approved for surgical procedures (paragraph 0105).
Katalle 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 at the time the invention was made to modify the endoscope of Sato, as modified by Appling, to incorporate the teachings of Katballe by constructing the handle housing out of polypropylene. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Sato, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Sato further discloses wherein the wire pipes extend proximally from the wire pipe fastener and proximally of 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).
Regarding claim 11, Sato, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato, as modified by Appling and Katalle, 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 fastener 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 fastener 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 fastener and the position C” (paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 12, Sato, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the endoscope according to claims 1 and 11. However, Sato, as modified by Appling and Katalle, 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 fastener 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 fastener 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 fastener 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 fastener and the position C” (paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 17, Sato, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Katalle further teaches wherein at least 20% of the polypropylene material is bio-propylene (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). The chemical structure of polypropylene is the same regardless of which source materials were used to manufacture it; therefore, the polypropylene presented in the applicant’s disclosure is equivalent to the polypropylene disclosed by Katalle.
Regarding claim 18, Sato, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Appling further teaches wherein the housing shells are attached to each other without an adhesive material (shells 32 and 34 are attached together with attachment mechanism 46 and additional fasteners 47 —which could be attached to each other without an adhesive material (see MPEP § 2113); Fig. 2, paragraph 0045);
Regarding claim 19, Sato, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato, as modified by Appling and Katalle, does not explicitly disclose an endoscopic system comprising a monitor and a control unit.
Appling discloses a system comprising an endoscope (endoscope; Fig. 2, paragraph 0045), a monitor and a control unit (an umbilical cable 18 extends from the housing 12 for being coupled with processing device 20 for receiving data obtained by devices at the distal tip 16. The processing device 20 may include various types of electronics configured to display image data or perform various other analytical functions; Fig. 1, paragraph 0046).
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 control unit in the endoscope of Sato, as taught by Appling, to increase the functionality of the endoscope of Sato by enabling am operator to view images captured at the distal tip of the endoscope during a medical procedure.
Regarding claim 20, Sato, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the system according to claims 1 and 19. Katalle further teaches wherein at least 20% of the polypropylene material of the housing shells is bio-propylene (the endoscope guide (100) is constructed from polypropylene; Fig. 1, paragraph 0112). The chemical structure of polypropylene is the same regardless of which source materials were used to manufacture it; therefore, the polypropylene presented in the applicant’s disclosure is equivalent to the polypropylene disclosed by Katalle.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Appling and Katballe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0374124 A1 to Fuchs et al. (“Fuchs”).
Regarding claim 2, Sato, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato, as modified by Appling and Katalle, 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, as modified by Appling and Katalle, 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, as previously modified by Appling and Katalle, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. However, Sato, as modified by Appling and Katalle, 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 comprised in one-piece with the wire pipe fastener, the wire pipe fastener extending from the support platform.
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 comprised in one-piece with the wire pipe fastener, the wire pipe fastener extending from the support platform (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 platforms 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, as modified by Appling and Katalle, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0315444 A1 to Ramanujam et al. teaches an probe with a handle made out of polypropylene as described in the descriptive text. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2023/0108741 A1 to Kawakami et al. teaches an endoscope with steering wires which cross each other inside the handle housing as described in Fig. 12 and 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