Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/003,476

DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING FLUIDS IN ENDOSCOPE SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 27, 2024
Priority
Mar 24, 2020 — provisional 62/994,008 +6 more
Examiner
HENDERSON, RYAN N
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Boston Scientific Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
532 granted / 832 resolved
+3.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
869
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.1%
-2.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 832 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species B, Sub-Species C, readable on claims 1-4, 6-8 and 12 in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged. 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. Claim 3 and 6 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 3 recites the limitation “wherein each seal in the first subset of the set of seals creates a seal with one or more portions of the valve interface mechanism” in Lines 1-2, wherein it’s unclear how the first subset of the set of seals creates a seal with the valve interface mechanism since the first subset of the set of seals merely provides a seal between the valve well and shaft of the primary control valve as shown in elected Sub-Species C, Figs. 15A-15C. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein each seal in the first subset of the set of seals creates a seal with the valve well and each seal in a second subset of the set of seals creates a separate seal with one or more portions of the valve interface mechanism” in Lines 1-2, wherein it’s not clear what seal is being referred to as creating a seal with the valve interface mechanism, since none of the seals appear to come into contact with the valve interface mechanism of Sub-Species C, Figs. 15A-15C. 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. 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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saiga (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0350444). In regard to claim 1, Saiga discloses a medical device (2, Fig. 1), comprising: a valve set (91,93) including a primary control valve (91,93) and an air input valve (932), the primary control valve configured to control flow between a water input channel (67), a water output channel (63), and a balloon channel (67) of a valve well (7), the air input valve configured to control flow through an air input channel (66) of the valve well (Fig. 5), wherein the primary control valve comprises the air input valve (932) and a valve (912) configured to control fluid between the water input channel and the water output channel (Fig. 5); and a valve interface mechanism (95,97) including a set of one or more biasing members (97) and a user interface mechanism (95), the user interface mechanism operable between a first state, a second state, a third state (Figs. 42, 44, 46), the first state comprising the valve set configured to place the air input channel in fluid communication with an air output channel (Fig. 42, Par. 158-159), the second state comprising the valve set configured to place the water input channel in fluid communication with the water output channel via the valve (Fig. 44, Par. 167,168), and the third state comprising the valve set configured to place the water input channel in fluid communication with the balloon channel (Fig. 46, Par. 172,173). In regard to claim 2, Saiga teaches the primary control valve comprising a set of radial seals, wherein a first subset of the set of radial seals comprise the air input valve (Fig. 5, via valve (932)). In regard to claim 3, Saiga teaches wherein each seal in the first subset of the set of seals creates a seal with one or more portions of the valve interface mechanism (via engagement between spring (97) and air input valve (91), Fig. 44). In regard to claim 4, Saiga teaches the primary control valve comprising a set of seals (912, 932), wherein a first subset of the set of seals is configured to control flow through the air input channel of the valve well and the valve extends distal of the first subset of the set of seals (Fig. 5). In regard to claim 6, Saiga teaches wherein each seal in the first subset (9122) of the set of seals creates a seal with the valve well and each seal in a second subset (91) of the set of seals creates a separate seal with one or more portions of the valve interface mechanism (via the biasing member (97) engaging the second subset (91), Fig. 5). In regard to claim 7, Saiga teaches the primary control valve comprising a radial seal (Par. 923) with a first side and a second side, wherein the first side of the seal is configured to control a flow of air in the valve well and the second side of the seal is configured to control a flow of water in the valve well (Fig. 44). In regard to claim 8, Saiga teaches wherein the valve interface mechanism comprises a hat with a top side and a bottom side and the set of one or more biasing members comprises first and second biasing members disposed on the top side of the hat (the hat can be considered to have a top half and a bottom half, where first and second biasing members (96,97) are partially disposed on the top half of the hat, Fig. 5). 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. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiga (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0350444) in view of Morimoto (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0088975). In regard to claim 12, Saiga does not expressly teach wherein the valve of the primary control valve is a duckbill seal, the duckbill seal is configured to control flow through the water output channel. Morimoto teaches a valve assembly (33, Fig. 16) for an endoscope (10). The valve assembly (33, Fig. 16) teaches a check valve (157) at a bottom end of the valve assembly, wherein when a fluid pressure within the chamber (135) reaches a threshold limit, the check valve opens and releases fluid into channel (141). It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve (9125) of Saiga to be a check valve (157) of Morimoto thereby retaining the fluid within the fluid chamber between seals (9124,9125) until a predetermined fluid pressure is achieved thereby releasing the fluid into the water output channel. 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 August 22, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12740688
ENDOSCOPE AND TREATMENT TOOL ELEVATING MECHANISM
3y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12708251
ENDOSCOPE ATTACHMENT MECHANISMS AND METHODS OF USE
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12702283
MEDICAL INSERTION EQUIPMENT SYSTEM, CAPSULE, AND MEDICAL INSERTION EQUIPMENT DISINFECTION METHOD
3y 4m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12690753
VIDEO ENDOSCOPE WITH FLEXIBLE TIP
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12678038
Pannable Endoscope
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+18.3%)
4y 0m (~2y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 832 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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