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 August 10, 2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
Claims 3 and 10-20 were previously withdrawn based on a restriction requirement.
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurice (US 2020/0187756) in view of Akiba (US 6,334,844).
Regarding Claim 1, Maurice discloses:
An endoscope for use on a patient comprising:
a handle body (110);
a valve housing (250) supported by the handle body, the valve housing providing a liquid inlet (256), a liquid outlet (258), a gas inlet (252) and a gas outlet (254);
a valve spool (240) having a first portion (upper portion of 240 including path 244) and a second portion (lower portion of 240 including W1), the first portion at least partially defining a gas passageway (244), the second portion at least partially defining a liquid passageway (W1), the valve spool being movable relative to the valve housing selectively to an off position (Fig. 2A; see Paragraph 0056)) and an irrigate position (Fig. 2C; see Paragraph 0062), the valve spool in combination with the valve housing providing a bifluidic valve selectively configurable to a vented configuration (Fig. 2A) and an insufflating configuration (Fig. 2B);
the liquid passageway connecting the liquid inlet in fluid communication with the liquid outlet when the valve spool is in the irrigate position (see Fig. 2C showing W1), the gas passageway connecting the gas inlet in fluid communication with the gas outlet when the bifluidic valve is in the insufflating configuration (see Fig. 2B showing A2); and
a flexible tubular probe (170) with a proximal end attached to the handle body (see Fig. 1 showing 170 attached to 110) and a distal end (172) being insertable into the patient, the flexible tubular probe connecting the liquid outlet and the gas outlet in fluid communication with the distal end (see Paragraph 0041).
Maurice does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas passageway and the liquid passageway pass through the valve spool. Maurice’s gas passageway already flows through the valve spool. Akiba teaches fluid supply paths for gas and liquid passing through a valve spool (see Fig. 6, elements 18E and 19E). 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 Maurice’s spool to have Akiba’s dual passageway. Such a modification is the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield a predictable result. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Akiba’s channels perform the same function as Maurice’s, that of allowing fluid to flow from an inlet to an outlet.
Regarding Claim 2, Maurice further discloses wherein the first portion is larger in diameter than the second portion (see Fig. 3 showing the lower portion of 240 having a smaller diameter than the upper portion).
Regarding Claim 4, Maurice further discloses a pushbutton head (head of 240 near number 242) on the valve spool, wherein the valve spool and the pushbutton head define a vent (242), the bifluidic valve being in the insufflating configuration when the vent is covered while the valve spool is in the off position (see Fig. 2B), the bifluidic valve being in the vented configuration when the vent is open, the vent connecting the gas passageway in fluid communication with atmosphere when the bifluidic valve is in the vented configuration (see Fig. 2A showing the flow through the vent), the vent being covered and inhibiting fluid flow through the vent to atmosphere when the bifluidic valve is in the insufflating configuration (see Fig. 2C).
Regarding Claim 5, Maurice further discloses wherein the valve spool in the irrigate position obstructs fluid communication between the gas inlet and the gas outlet (see Fig. 2C showing the spool 240 blocking the inlet/outlet 252/254 blocked).
Regarding Claim 6, Maurice further discloses wherein the valve spool in the off position obstructs fluid communication between the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet (see Fig. 2A showing the spool 240 blocking 256/258).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurice (US 2020/0187756) and Akiba (US 6,334,844), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinoshita (US 4,361,138).
Maurice and Akiba disclose the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, they do not explicitly disclose a spring urging the valve spool to the off position. The Examiner notes that such springs are common in the art for biasing the valve stem in off position. Kinoshita discloses one example of such a spring (14 in the prior art or 27 in Kinoshita’s device) to urge the valve stem upward. 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 Maurice’s device to include Kinoshita’s spring. Such a modification incorporates an old and well-known component to bias the stem in the up direction.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurice (US 2020/0187756) and Akiba (US 6,334,844), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2016/0143516) and Hill (US 5,244,459).
Maurice and Akiba disclose the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 9, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the valve spool is comprised of a metal and the valve housing is comprised of a polymer. Xu teaches making a valve stem out of stainless steel, which is less susceptible to liquid corrosion so as to prolong the life of equipment (see Paragraph 0061). Hill teaches making a valve housing (28) out of plastic as a lightweight and inexpensive material (Col 4 Lines 1-4). 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 Maurice’s device to have Xu’s metal valve stem and Hill’s plastic valve housing. Such a modification helps reduce corrosion and prolong equipment life and uses lightweight and inexpensive materials. Furthermore, metal and plastics are well-known in the art and selecting from known materials to achieve known desirable results is considered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Akiba’s configuration would destroy the functionality of Maurice, and, therefore, would not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner disagrees. Maurice already discloses gas flow paths through the valve spool as seen in Figs. 2A-2C. See Figs. 2A/2B in particular where the gas flow paths A1/A2 go through radial passageways 244 and 248. These passageways are going through the valve spool. The liquid path goes around the stem as shown in Fig. 2C. Modifying the liquid path as shown in Akiba to have that path go through the stem would not change the gas paths, which already go through the stem. The prior art shows that a valve spool it is known to have both liquid and gas paths running through the spool. Maurice’s device will still work as intended by have the liquid go through the spool because it does not change the gas path shown in Figs. 2A and 2B. The only change is to Fig. 2C where W1 would go through spool 240. The combination does not destroy the function of the primary reference.
The Examiner also points to Akiba as possibly reading on amended claim 1. The rejection of Maurice in view of Akiba is considered proper as discussed above, but the claim is not allowable. Applicant has failed to point out a feature that makes a contribution over the prior art.
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