Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/060,759

ULTRASONIC ENDOSCOPE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 23, 2025
Priority
Feb 28, 2024 — JP 2024-028457
Examiner
HOFFA, ANGELA MARIE
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
373 granted / 552 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
582
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
65.1%
+25.1% vs TC avg
§102
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 552 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 1-20 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, the limitation “wherein the backing material layer comprising at least one kind of a polyurea resin, an epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure, or an epoxy resin having a polyetheramine structure” is not a closed grouping of alternatives and is therefore indefinite. The language of “the backing material layer selected from the group consisting of polyurea resin, an epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure, and an epoxy resin having a polyetheramine structure” would resolve the issue. See MPEP 2117(I). Similarly, Claim 4 presents an open-ended Markush grouping for the material of the heat radiation filler. Similar language suggested for claim 1 above would also resolve the issue. Claims 2-3, 5-20 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest an ultrasonic endoscope with backing material layer selected from the group consisting of polyurea resin, an epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure, and an epoxy resin having a polyetheramine structure as required by claim 1, in combination with intervening limitations. The advantage of the claimed invention includes utilization of hybrid networks that combine the structural strength of epoxy resin with dampening softness of polyurethanes and/or polyureas. The acoustic impedance and internal loss tangents can be precisely tuned through the polymer architecture, which is particularly advantageous for small ultrasound transducers, as in endoscopes. Exemplary prior art US 20220361845 to Kinomoto teaches a very similar structural arrangement as the claimed invention, including a tubular member comprising a metal, ultrasonic oscillator that is provided along an outer peripheral surface of the tubular member, and a backing material layer that is provided between the ultrasonic oscillator and the tubular member (see Figure 3 compared to the instant Figure 3). However, Kinomoto does not teach the backing layer comprising the claimed materials. Kinomoto is silent with respect to the material of the backing layer. US 20250352177 to Furukawa teaches ultrasound transducer backing materials of the claimed materials (see Abstract), but is not available as prior art. Further, Furukawa is not being used in an endoscopic configuration surrounding a metal tubular member. US 20210113187 to Morita is a representative selection of the conventional backing layer which is epoxy resin with particles added (probably tungsten particles) (par. 0037-0039). While materials such as polyurethane are also mentioned, these are not the same as epoxy resin having a polyurethane structure as claimed (which is a hybrid structure). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210275136, 20230293148, 11653895, 12232908 to Stigall teaches an endoscopic ultrasound catheter with epoxy backing layer (par. 0098), US 20240130711, 20240225598, 12357271 to Morita teach epoxy backing layer and many other materials (par. 0037-0039), US 11202620 to Morimoto, US 20150173711 to Hiraoka, US 20090088646 to Nagano, US 20060241481 to Itoi teach a similar structural arrangement of an endoscopic ultrasonic imaging device but does not teach the backing layer material claimed, US 8354773 to Oliver teaches mixing composite materials to form a cured resin backing layer in an ultrasound transducer but does not teach the materials claimed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MARIE HOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00 pm. 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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. ANGELA M. HOFFA Primary Examiner Art Unit 3799 /Angela M Hoffa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678238
REAL-TIME INSTRUMENT POSITION IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678359
INTELLIGENT ANIMAL OPERATION TABLE
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12642597
Technique For Determining A Need For A Re-Registration Of A Patient Tracker
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12636120
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR DETERMINING AN OBJECT POSE
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12622767
TISSUE MARKERS
7y 8m to grant Granted May 12, 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
68%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+27.4%)
4y 1m (~2y 8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 552 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