Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/845,618

COVER FOR RIGID ENDOSCOPE AND ENDOSCOPE UNIT

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Sep 10, 2024
Examiner
LONDON, STEPHEN FLOYD
Art Unit
3795
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Trytec Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
140 granted / 205 resolved
-1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
242
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 205 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Disposition of Claims Claims 1-10 are pending and rejected. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a pair of capturing portions for capturing the rigid endoscope” in Claim 2, as described in Para. [0014] of Applicant’s specification. “retaining portions which retain the tubular member” in Claim 5, as described in Para. [0017] of Applicant’s specification. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 1-10 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. Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “a rigid endoscope” on Line 2. It is unclear whether this “rigid endoscope” is the same as the “rigid endoscope” previously recited on Line 1 or a separate, different rigid endoscope. For the purpose of examination, “a rigid endoscope” is being interpreted as “the rigid endoscope”. Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “a tubular member which is fitted into each groove [of the one or more grooves]” on Line 7. It is unclear whether there is a singular tubular member that has portions fitted into each groove of the one or move grooves, or whether there is one or more tubular members which each fit into each groove. For the purpose of examination, “a tubular member which is fitted into each groove [of the one or more grooves]” is being interpreted as “one or more tubular members which each fit into each groove of the one or more grooves”. Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein retaining portions which retain the tubular member… housed inside the groove…” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this “groove” is the same as the “each groove of the one or more grooves” previously recited on Line 7, of Claim 1, or a separate, different groove. For the purpose of examination, “wherein retaining portions which retain the tubular member… housed inside the groove…” is being interpreted as “wherein retaining portions retain each tubular member of the one or more tubular members which are respectively housed inside each of the corresponding grooves of the one or more grooves”. Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitations “the two grooves” and “the two tubular members… fitted into the grooves” on Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the two grooves” and “the two tubular members… fitted into the grooves” are being interpreted as “two grooves of the one or move grooves” and “two tubular members of the one or more tubular members”, respectively. Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “a cleaning fluid” on Line 3 & Line 4. It is unclear whether this “cleaning fluid” is the same as the “cleaning fluid” previously recited on Lines 7-8 of Claim 1 or a separate, different cleaning fluid. For the purpose of examination, “a cleaning fluid” is being interpreted as “the cleaning fluid”. Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation “a tubular member which is fitted into each groove [of the one or more grooves]” on Lines 7-8. It is unclear whether there is a singular tubular member that has portions fitted into each groove of the one or move grooves, or whether there is one or more tubular members which each fit into each groove. For the purpose of examination, “a tubular member which is fitted into each groove [of the one or more grooves]” is being interpreted as “one or more tubular members which each fit into each groove of the one or more grooves”. Regarding Claims 2-4 & 7-9, Claims 2-4 & 7-9 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi et al. (hereinafter "Takagi") (JP 3186191 U). Regarding Claim 1, Takagi, as best understood, discloses a cover (Fig. 12A, 108; [00101]) for a rigid endoscope (Fig. 12B, 21’; [0073]), the cover being for covering a portion in a circumferential direction of an outer circumferential surface of a rigid endoscope (see Fig. 12B) in which an observation window portion is provided at a tip (Fig. 12B, 22’; [00101]) thereof, the cover comprising: a cover member (Fig. 12A, 118; [00101]) which covers the portion in the circumferential direction of the outer circumferential surface of the rigid endoscope (see Fig. 12B) and has one or more grooves (Fig. 12C, 17a and 17b; [00101]) formed so as to extend parallel to each other along a longitudinal direction of the rigid endoscope (see Fig. 12C); and a tubular member (Fig. 12C, 1 and 2; [00103]) which is fitted into each groove of the cover member (Fig. 12C, 1 is disposed in 17a and 2 is disposed in 17b; [00103]) and in which a cleaning fluid (Fig. 12C, 1 delivers a cleaning liquid and 2 delivers a cleaning gas; [0037]) to be supplied to the observation window portion of the rigid endoscope flows from a base end side of the rigid endoscope ([00103]), wherein a discharge portion (Fig. 12C, 18a and 18b; [00101]) which changes a direction of the cleaning fluid sent from the tubular member and discharges the cleaning fluid toward the observation window portion is formed at a tip of the cover member ([0102]), and a plurality of discharge ports are formed in the discharge portion (Fig. 12C, a first 19a, a second 19a and 19b; [0101]), and a branch portion (Fig. 12C, 18a branches into a first 18a and a second 18a; [00102]) which splits the cleaning fluid sent from the tubular member to discharge the cleaning fluid from each discharge port toward the observation window portion is provided ([00102]). Regarding Claim 2, Takagi discloses the cover for a rigid endoscope according to Claim 1. Takagi further discloses wherein a pair of capturing portions for capturing the rigid endoscope are formed in the cover member (Fig. 12B, 108 is substantially C-shaped and thus each edge of the C capture 21’ therebetween; [0047]), and the cover member is configured to be bent such that the pair of capturing portions become open to allow attachment or detachment to or from the rigid endoscope ([0047]). Regarding Claim 3, Takagi discloses the cover for a rigid endoscope according to Claim 1. Takagi further discloses wherein the discharge ports are formed in the discharge portion such that the cleaning fluid is discharged from the respective discharge ports in directions different from each other toward the observation window portion (see Fig. 12C). Regarding Claim 4, Takagi discloses the cover for a rigid endoscope according to Claim 1. Takagi further discloses wherein the tubular member is flexible ([0098]). Regarding Claim 5, Takagi discloses the cover for a rigid endoscope according to Claim 1. Takagi further discloses wherein retaining portions which retain the tubular member, which is housed inside the groove, in the cover member, are provided in a vicinity of the tip and a vicinity of a base end of the cover member ([0044] & [0045]). Regarding Claim 6, Takagi discloses the cover for a rigid endoscope according to Claim 1. Takagi further discloses wherein the two grooves are formed (Fig. 12C, 17a and 17b; [00101]) the two tubular members are provided so as to be fitted into the grooves (Fig. 12C, 1 is disposed in 17a and 2 is disposed in 17b; [00103]), respectively, one of the tubular members is configured such that a gas flows therethrough as a cleaning fluid (Fig. 12C, 2 delivers a cleaning gas; [0037]), and the other of the tubular members is configured such that a cleaning solution flows therethrough as a cleaning fluid (Fig. 12C, 1 delivers a cleaning liquid; [0037]). Regarding Claim 7, Takagi discloses the cover for a rigid endoscope according to Claim 6. Takagi further discloses wherein a first flow path through which the gas sent from the tubular member passes (Fig. 12C, a first flow path comprising 17a, the first 18a, the second 18a, the first 19a and the second 19a; [00102]) and a second flow path through which the cleaning solution sent from the tubular member passes are formed inside the discharge portion (Fig. 12C, a second flow path comprising 17b, 18b and 19b; [00102]), the first flow path and the second flow path do not communicate with each other (see Fig. 12C), and the gas and the cleaning solution passing through the first flow path and the second flow path are discharged from the different discharge ports, respectively ([0037]). Regarding Claim 8, Takagi discloses the cover for a rigid endoscope according to Claim 7. Takagi further discloses wherein the branch portion is provided in at least one of the first flow path and the second flow path ([00102]). Regarding Claim 9, Takagi discloses the cover for a rigid endoscope according to Claim 8. Takagi further discloses wherein the branch portion is provided only in the first flow path, and the cleaning solution sent from the tubular member to the second flow path is discharged from the discharge port without branching ([00102]). Regarding Claim 10, Takagi, as best understood, discloses an endoscope unit (Fig. 12B, a cleaning unit comprising 21’ and 108; [00101]) comprising: a rigid endoscope (Fig. 12B, 21’; [0073]) in which an observation window portion is provided at a tip thereof (Fig. 12B, 22’; [00101]); and a cover (Fig. 12A, 108; [00101]) which covers a portion in a circumferential direction of an outer circumferential surface of the rigid endoscope (see Fig. 12B), wherein the cover has a flexible cover member (Fig. 12A, 118; [00101]) which covers the portion in the circumferential direction of the outer circumferential surface of the rigid endoscope (see Fig. 12B) and has one or more grooves (Fig. 12C, 17a and 17b; [00101]) formed so as to extend parallel to each other along a longitudinal direction of the rigid endoscope (see Fig. 12C), and a tubular member (Fig. 12C, 1 and 2; [00103]) which is fitted into each groove of the cover member (Fig. 12C, 1 is disposed in 17a and 2 is disposed in 17b; [00103]) and in which a cleaning fluid (Fig. 12C, 1 delivers a cleaning liquid and 2 delivers a cleaning gas; [0037]) to be supplied to the observation window portion of the rigid endoscope flows from a base end side of the rigid endoscope ([00103]), a discharge portion (Fig. 12C, 18a and 18b; [00101]) which changes a direction of the cleaning fluid sent from the tubular member and discharges the cleaning fluid toward the observation window portion is formed at a tip of the cover member ([0102]), and a plurality of discharge ports are formed in the discharge portion (Fig. 12C, a first 19a, a second 19a and 19b; [0101]), and a branch portion (Fig. 12C, 18a branches into a first 18a and a second 18a; [00102]) which splits the cleaning fluid sent from the tubular member to discharge the cleaning fluid from each discharge port toward the observation window portion is provided ([00102]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0354353; US 2022/0125283; US 2021/0212797; US 2020/0015663; US 2016/0095510; US 2015/0374212; US 2012/0016191; US 2008/0200765; US 2007/0142709; U.S. 5,944,654; U.S. 5,575,756 and U.S. 5,386,817. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm 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 (571)270-7235. 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. /STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795 /MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 10, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599288
ENDOSCOPIC CAMERA ARRANGEMENT AND METHOD FOR CAMERA ALIGNMENT ERROR CORRECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599289
ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599293
ASSIST DEVICE, ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM, ASSIST METHOD AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582303
MEDICAL SCOPE WITH CAPACITIVE SENSOR UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582293
INSERTION INSTRUMENT AND ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 205 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month