DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Species A, readable on claims 1, 3, 4 and 26 in the reply filed on 8/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
As a note, claims 16 and 17 have been withdrawn as being directed towards non-elected Species K and L.
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, 4 and 26 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 1 recites the limitation “and is substantially vertical relative to a length of the endoscope” in Line 4, wherein it’s unclear what’s meant by the rail being “substantially vertical” considering the rail is a horizontal slot within the shovel and defining the rail as being substantially vertical raises indefiniteness issue regarding the scope of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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, 3, 4 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)91) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0023987).
In regard to claim 1, Okada discloses a shovel (53 Fig. 10) configured to be attached to an endoscope (1) having a distal edge (31), wherein the shovel is configured to protrude from a lower part of the distal edge (Fig. 13), and wherein the shovel further comprising a shovel rail (53) that runs along a width of the shovel and is substantially vertical relative to a length of the endoscope (the frame (53) is being considered a rail, Figs. 10,13), wherein a vehicle is engaged with the shovel rail (a vehicle is capable of engaging or contacting the shovel rail (53)), and the shovel rail is configured to allow the vehicle to move along the shovel rail, thus allowing the vehicle to move along a width of the shovel (a vehicle is capable of moving along a width of the rail within the central opening defined by the rail, Figs. 10,13).
In regard to claim 3, Okada teaches having a substantially concave structure (via C-shaped cross-section of the frame (53) defines a concave structure).
In regard to claim 4, Okada teaches further comprising a connector (54) configured to connect the shovel to the distal edge of the endoscope (rotating shaft (54) connects the shovel to the endoscope, Figs. 10,13).
In regard to claim 26, Okada discloses an endoscope (1) comprising the shovel of claim 1 (53, see rejection of Claim 1), attached to a distal edge of the endoscope (Figs. 10,13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN N HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-5pm (PST).
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights