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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated June 3, 2026.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Mitsui (US 3,915,157).
Regarding Claim 1, Mitsui discloses:
An endoscope comprising:
a distal end part (10) formed with an elevator housing portion (13);
an elevator (27) disposed in the elevator housing portion (shown in Fig. 3 with 27 located in 13); and
a treatment tool insertion path (22a) communicating with a treatment tool outlet that is open to the elevator housing portion (shown in Fig. 3 where 22a opens to 13),
wherein the treatment tool insertion path has a diameter-enlarged portion that enlarges continuously in diameter toward and up to the treatment tool outlet (see marked-up figure below with the flared distal end of 22a being the diameter-enlarged portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Mitsui further discloses wherein the treatment tool outlet also serves as a liquid supply port for supplying a liquid for cleaning or disinfection to the elevator (functional language; the outlet can receive a tool as shown in Fig. 3 such that liquid can also be supplied through the outlet).
Regarding Claim 8, Mitsui further discloses wherein the elevator has a liquid guide surface (27 includes many surfaces that can guide liquid) that guides the liquid supplied to the elevator in a direction in which a rotation shaft of the elevator is provided (the claim is functional in nature, if liquid is applied to the guide surface 27, because the surface has multiple arcuate portions, the surface will direct fluid toward the rotation shaft of the elevator at least in some orientations (while the fluid would be directed toward the rotation shaft as seen in Fig. 5, the Examiner also notes that the liquid can be directed along the surface via gravity in at least some spatial orientations such that the fluid will flow toward the shaft)).
Regarding Claim 9, Mitsui further discloses wherein the liquid guide surface is provided at a position facing the treatment tool outlet in a case in which the elevator is in an elevated state (shown in Fig. 5).
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Komi (US 5,343,853).
Regarding Claim 1, Komi discloses:
An endoscope comprising:
a distal end part (10) formed with an elevator housing portion (distal housing shown in Fig. 1 including elevator 16 and 14);
an elevator (16) disposed in the elevator housing portion (shown in Fig. 1); and
a treatment tool insertion path (channel 13) communicating with a treatment tool outlet (distal end of unnumbered funnel) that is open to the elevator housing portion (shown in Fig. 1 showing 13 leading to the elevator housing portion, which includes 14),
wherein the treatment tool insertion path has a diameter-enlarged portion that enlarges continuously in diameter toward and up to the treatment tool outlet (see the distal portion of 13 that includes an unnumbered funnel that extends to the distal end of 13).
Regarding Claim 4, Komi further discloses a wire insertion path (the path of wire 18; see Fig. 3) into which an operation wire (18) is inserted, wherein the elevator is rotatably disposed in the elevator housing portion, and the operation wire is connected to the elevator (see Fig. 1 showing 18 connected to 16).
Regarding Claim 5, Komi further discloses wherein the elevator housing portion is provided with an opening portion that has a component in a direction orthogonal to an opening direction of the treatment tool outlet and that is open in a first direction (see Fig. 2, for example, Komi includes this opening in the Z direction in the same way as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1), and in a cross section of the diameter-enlarged portion along a plane determined by the opening direction of the treatment tool outlet and the first direction, an extension line of a bottom portion of the diameter-enlarged portion on a second direction side opposite to the first direction is located on the second direction side with respect to a rotation shaft of the elevator (see Fig. 1 and marked up drawing below with the extension line opposite the opening).
PNG
media_image2.png
244
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Komi further discloses wherein the treatment tool outlet also serves as a liquid supply port for supplying a liquid for cleaning or disinfection to the elevator (functional language; the outlet can receive a tool as shown in Fig. 1 such that liquid can also be supplied through the outlet).
Regarding Claim 8, Komi further discloses wherein the elevator has a liquid guide surface (19) that guides the liquid supplied to the elevator in a direction in which a rotation shaft of the elevator is provided (the claim is functional in nature, if liquid is applied to the guide surface 19, because the surface has multiple arcuate portions, 19A-19D, 19A or 19C will direct fluid toward the rotation shaft of the elevator at least in some orientations (while the fluid would be directed toward the rotation shaft as seen in Fig. 6, the Examiner also notes that the liquid can be directed along the surface via gravity in at least some spatial orientations such that the fluid will flow toward the shaft)).
Regarding Claim 9, Komi further discloses wherein the liquid guide surface is provided at a position facing the treatment tool outlet in a case in which the elevator is in an elevated state (shown in Fig. 6).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komi (US 5,343,853) in view of Matsuno (US 5,562,600).
Komi discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 2, Komi does not explicitly disclose a wire insertion path into which an operation wire is inserted, wherein the wire insertion path and the elevator are disposed on sides opposite to each other across a partition wall, the partition wall is provided with a through-hole penetrating a space between a side where the wire insertion path is disposed and a side where the elevator is disposed, and a power transmitting member that is inserted into the through-hole and that has one end connected to the elevator and the other end connected to the operation wire is provided. Matsuno teaches such a configuration with a control wire (22) on the opposite side of wall (15) relative to elevator (5). The wire connects to the elevator by means of driving shaft 13 (See Figs. 3-6) that extends through the wall 15 (see Fig. 3, for example). This configuration isolates the control wire from the tool guide member to remove the possibility of the tool getting caught on the control wire. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komi’s device to include Matsuno’s wire and control lever configuration. Such a modification prevents the tool from getting caught on the control wire.
Regarding Claim 3, Komi as modified further discloses wherein the power transmitting member includes a rotation shaft (Matsuno – 13) to which the elevator is connected on one end side, and an elevating lever (Matsuno – 21) that is provided on the other end side of the rotation shaft and to which the operation wire is connected (see Fig. 6, for example of Matsuno).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Komi fails to disclose the exact configuration set forth in claim 6. As shown below, Komi’s extension line would not intersect any guide surface of the elevator.
PNG
media_image3.png
244
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The top extension line would intersect, but this would not read on the claim language which requires the bottom portion defined by a second direction side opposite to the first direction. The first direction is the opening at the top of the figure above. The second direction side opposite the first is the bottom in the figure above. This is not a situation where “top” and “bottom” are interchangeable because the claim defines the bottom as being opposite the first direction. Rearranging Komi’s device to read on the claim is not considered obvious as the reference has reasons for the disclosed configuration and changing it would likely result in a device that would not operate as intended. For example, moving the elevator down to intersect with the extension line would require a completely difference opening portion 14. The same can be said of moving the path 13 and its funnel up. Furthermore, the only reason to do this would be to read on the claim, which would be impermissible hindsight reasoning. For at least these reasons, the claim overcomes the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Komi fails to disclose the newly amended portion of the claim. Instead, Komi’s funnel is locally formed at a transition portion between channel 13 to hole 14. Applicant continues by stated that when the treatment tool insertion path is viewed as a whole, the continuous enlargement toward and up to the outlet is not met.
The Examiner disagrees. The claim requires a treatment tool insertion path communicating with a treatment tool outlet that is open to the elevator housing portion. This outlet is shown in Applicant’s Drawings as 58. The outlet is not the opening whereby the tool exits the device completely. To look at the insertion path as a whole is unnecessary and implies that the claim requires the path to include portions within the elevator housing portion. It does not. Komi’s funnel is the same as Applicant’s 58. That which is distal to the end of the funnel is defined as the elevator housing portion. This can be said of Komi and Applicant’s own disclosure. It must be noted that “portion” is one of the broadest manners of defining a structural limitation. This gives the Examiner significant latitude in how the prior art is applied.
Here, Komi’s funnel is a diameter-enlarged portion that enlarges continuously in diameter. That is beyond dispute. The treatment tool outlet is the distal end of this funnel such that the diameter-enlarged portion enlarges continuously toward and up to the outlet. The outlet is open to the elevator housing portion as it leads to where the elevator is housed. Opening 14 can and is considered part of the elevator housing portion. Finally, the treatment tool insertion path is not claimed as Applicant describes, and the claim only requires that which was just previously discussed. There is no need to look at the path as a whole because that in no way limits the tool outlet or the diameter-enlarged portion and is not part of the claim.
In arguing that the entire tool path should be considered, Applicant’s standard set forth on page 7 would be just as devastating to Applicant as to Komi. Any tool inserted into Applicant’s device would continue beyond 58 such that the path would include portions where the diameter of the diameter-enlarged portion does not enlarge continuously. There is a gap between 58 and the elevator. Should this gap be considered part of the tool path when looking at the path in its entirety? Surely not, or the diameter-enlarged portion would not continuously enlarge. Rather, there would be an abrupt increase that remains constant up to the elevator. The tool path as claimed and disclosed is in communication with the tool outlet, but the path does not end at the tool outlet.
The problem seems to be that Applicant is narrowing construing “elevator housing portion” such that the treatment tool outlet must open directly to the elevator. This is not how the claim is written, and if it were, Applicant’s disclosure would not support it. Applicant’s gap between 58 and 30 is the equivalent of Komi’s 14. Neither the gap nor the opening 14 changes the claimed outlet or the enlarged-diameter portion.
Applicant’s discussion as to the reasons for Komi’s 14 and Applicant’s alleged improvements is not deemed relevant to patentability.
The Examiner has included additional rejections of claim 1 to help show the breadth of the claim. Flaring the distal end of a tool path is common. This flared portion as shown in Mitsui reads on the claimed diameter-enlarged portion.
The claims remain rejected as set forth above, and the application is not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
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 TIMOTHY JAY NEAL whose telephone number is (313)446-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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.
/TIMOTHY J NEAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights