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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed February 25, 2025 and September 17, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on July 24, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Restriction/Election requirement was issued in error, as the present application is a PCT National State International Application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a). The restriction/election requirement filed June 25, 2026 is withdrawn.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-12 is 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 "the projecting direction" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting “the projecting direction” in claim 1, line 9 as “the protruding direction”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US2012/0316394) in view of Hamazaki et al. (US2014/0094659).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses an endoscope (Fig. 1: endoscope 1 and oversheath 10 form an endoscope device) comprising: a lens provided on a distal end surface of an insertion portion (Fig. 3: cover glass 7); and a nozzle provided protrusively on the distal end surface and configured to inject a fluid to the lens (Fig. 3: cleaning nozzle 20 provided protrusively on the leading end surface 16, fluid ejected from nozzle 20 to clean cover glass 7 [0042]), wherein the nozzle has one or a plurality of injection ports (Figs 3-5: nozzle 20 comprises one ejection port 19), in a case where the nozzle has one injection port, the injection port extends in an intersecting direction intersecting with a protruding direction of the lens (Fig. 3: ejection port 19 is facing or extending in an intersecting direction intersecting with a protruding direction of the lens, meaning as the cover glass 7 extending axially or distally, ejection port 19 extends perpendicular of and towards the axial extension of the cover glass 7), and at least one edge close to a distal end of the nozzle among two edges of the injection port facing each other in the protruding direction has a convex shape in the projecting direction (Fig. 5: nozzle 20/ejection port 19 may be deformed such that of the two surfaces, upper surface 23 and bottom surface indicated near reference numeral 19, upper surface 23 has a convex shape in the projecting direction).
Yoshida fails to disclose wherein the lens is a convex lens provided protrusively on the distal end surface of the insertion portion. In the same field of endeavor, Hamazaki teaches a substantially similar endoscope (endoscope 1) comprising: a lens provided on a distal end surface of an insertion portion (Fig. 3: observation window 15 provided on the distal end surface of insertion section 6, distal end surface is indicated by flat surface 22 and inclined surface 23); and a nozzle provided protrusively on the distal end surface and configured to inject a fluid to the lens, wherein the nozzle has one or a plurality of injection ports (Fig. 3: nozzle 19 protruding from flat surface 22 and inclined surface 23 [0028], nozzle 19 appears to comprise one opening 24/injection port), in a case where the nozzle has one injection port, the injection port extends in an intersecting direction intersecting with a protruding direction of the lens (Fig. 2 & 5: opening 24 is pointed at the observation window 15, perpendicular to the direction the window 15 extends). Like Yoshida, Hamazaki teaches wherein the front/distal side of the lens appears to be flat, but Hamazaki further teaches the lens may be various forms of lenses including a form where the front face is convex (rear face may be concave, convex or flat, and front face may be convex or flat [0031]). In view of Hamazaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that convex lenses are commonly used in the endoscope art as an optical element for receiving incident light rays and the various lens shapes are alternatives to one another, including a front plano shape and a front convex shape which are interchangeable dependent on the required lens to perform the operation.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida, modified by Hamazaki, discloses the endoscope according to claim 1. Yoshida further disclose wherein in a case where the nozzle has one injection port, a dimension of the injection port between the one edge and one point of another edge is large at a central portion in the intersecting direction, as compared to other portion (Fig. 5: distance from bottom surface indicated by numeral 19 to the center of upper surface 23 is largest; Because upper surface 23 is flexible, rate of fluid ejected from nozzle 20 may change the shape of surface 23 [0048-0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida, modified by Hamazaki, discloses the endoscope according to claim 2, wherein an opening width of the injection port in the protruding direction increases toward the central portion (Fig. 5: opening width of the ejection port 19 increases in the protruding direction towards the central portion).
Regarding claim 7-12, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Hamazaki. Claim 1, which claims 7-12 are dependent on, recites an apparatus comprising two conditions: (1) in a case where the nozzle has one injection port or (2) in a case where the nozzle has a plurality of injection ports. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Hamazaki, following the case where the nozzle has one injection port, therefore the further limitations of claims 7-12 directed to the case where the nozzle has a plurality of injections ports are moot as these further limitations do not apply to the selected condition (1).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Hamazaki and Mulcahey et al. (US2017/0311789).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida, modified by Hamazaki, discloses the endoscope according to claim 2, but fails to further disclose wherein the another edge of the injection port has a convex shape in the protruding direction. In the same field of endeavor, Mulcahey teaches an endoscope (Fig. 3A-3C: endoscope 312 [0060]) comprising: a lens provided on a distal end surface of an insertion portion (Fig. 3C: lens 310 [0064]; nozzle 404 directed to the lens of the endoscope once cap 402 is mounted [0066]); and a nozzle provided protrusively on the distal end surface and configured to inject a fluid to the lens (Fig. 4A-5C: nozzle 404/504 [0068]), wherein the nozzle has one or a plurality of injection ports, in a case where the nozzle has one injection port (Fig. 4A-5C: nozzle 404/504 comprises one opening [0068])), the injection port extends in an intersecting direction intersecting with a protruding direction of the lens (nozzle extends in an intersecting direction intersecting a protruding direction of the lens, as seen in Fig. 4C and 5C, meaning that the nozzle 404 and 504 extends into the plane of the distal surface of the endoscope ). Mulcahey also teaches wherein the injection port comprises a substantially oval shape (Fig. 4A-D: nozzle 404), but may alternatively dimensioned, shaped or positioned with respect to the lens to accomplish the desired flow field and lens clearing effect (Fig. 5A-5D: nozzle 504 is round-shaped [0068]), further teaching wherein the cross-section of the injection port are application specific and may depend on various dimensional requirements and/or desired flow, purge, drain or deflection effects ([0069]) and may have other nozzle profiles such as slot, square, triangular and a combination of shapes ([0070]). In view of Mulcahey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the injection port opening may be any desired shape or dimension, including wherein the one edge and the another edge have a convex shape in the protruding direction, as the shape and dimension of the injection opening may be designed to accommodate various dimensional requirements and desired flow, purge, and drain rates.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida, modified by Hamazaki, discloses the endoscope according to claim 2, but fails to further disclose wherein the injection port has an inverted V- shape, and an opening width in the protruding direction is constant. In the same field of endeavor, Mulcahey teaches an endoscope (Fig. 3A-3C: endoscope 312 [0060]) comprising: a lens provided on a distal end surface of an insertion portion (Fig. 3C: lens 310 [0064]; nozzle 404 directed to the lens of the endoscope once cap 402 is mounted [0066]); and a nozzle provided protrusively on the distal end surface and configured to inject a fluid to the lens (Fig. 4A-5C: nozzle 404/504 [0068]), wherein the nozzle has one or a plurality of injection ports, in a case where the nozzle has one injection port (Fig. 4A-5C: nozzle 404/504 comprises one opening [0068])), the injection port extends in an intersecting direction intersecting with a protruding direction of the lens (nozzle extends in an intersecting direction intersecting a protruding direction of the lens, as seen in Fig. 4C and 5C, meaning that the nozzle 404 and 504 extends into the plane of the distal surface of the endoscope ). Mulcahey also teaches wherein the injection port comprises a substantially oval shape (Fig. 4A-D: nozzle 404), but may alternatively dimensioned, shaped or positioned with respect to the lens to accomplish the desired flow field and lens clearing effect (Fig. 5A-5D: nozzle 504 is round-shaped [0068]), further teaching wherein the cross-section of the injection port are application specific and may depend on various dimensional requirements and/or desired flow, purge, drain or deflection effects ([0069]) and may have other nozzle profiles such as slot, square, triangular and a combination of shapes ([0070]). In view of Mulcahey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the injection port opening may be any desired shape or dimension, including wherein injection port has an inverted V- shape, and an opening width in the protruding direction is constant, as the shape and dimension of the injection opening may be designed to accommodate various dimensional requirements and desired flow, purge, and drain rates.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida, modified by Hamazaki, discloses the endoscope according to claim 2, but fails to further disclose wherein the injection port has an arc shape, and an opening width in the protruding direction is constant. In the same field of endeavor, Mulcahey teaches an endoscope (Fig. 3A-3C: endoscope 312 [0060]) comprising: a lens provided on a distal end surface of an insertion portion (Fig. 3C: lens 310 [0064]; nozzle 404 directed to the lens of the endoscope once cap 402 is mounted [0066]); and a nozzle provided protrusively on the distal end surface and configured to inject a fluid to the lens (Fig. 4A-5C: nozzle 404/504 [0068]), wherein the nozzle has one or a plurality of injection ports, in a case where the nozzle has one injection port (Fig. 4A-5C: nozzle 404/504 comprises one opening [0068])), the injection port extends in an intersecting direction intersecting with a protruding direction of the lens (nozzle extends in an intersecting direction intersecting a protruding direction of the lens, as seen in Fig. 4C and 5C, meaning that the nozzle 404 and 504 extends into the plane of the distal surface of the endoscope ). Mulcahey also teaches wherein the injection port comprises a substantially oval shape (Fig. 4A-D: nozzle 404), but may alternatively dimensioned, shaped or positioned with respect to the lens to accomplish the desired flow field and lens clearing effect (Fig. 5A-5D: nozzle 504 is round-shaped [0068]), further teaching wherein the cross-section of the injection port are application specific and may depend on various dimensional requirements and/or desired flow, purge, drain or deflection effects ([0069]) and may have other nozzle profiles such as slot, square, triangular and a combination of shapes ([0070]). In view of Mulcahey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the injection port opening may be any desired shape or dimension, including wherein the injection port has an arc shape, and an opening width in the protruding direction is constant, as the shape and dimension of the injection opening may be designed to accommodate various dimensional requirements and desired flow, purge, and drain rates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okamoto et al. (US2025/0134353) cited in the PTO-892 appears to teach some of the limitations of applicant’s claimed invention, however the art does not meet the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Uchida et al. (US2022/0257104) cited in the PTO-892 appears to be relevant art as the prior art appears to teach an endoscope with a lens cleaning nozzle, the nozzle opening or openings are formed of various shapes, similar to that of applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI-TING SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5771. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
/LI-TING SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3795 /TIMOTHY J NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights