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 Status
In the present application, claims 1-5 are currently pending. Claim 5 has been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 4 have language which is confusing and alludes to having one or more Markush groupings. Therefore it is suggested to amend the language with language similar to, but not limited to, the following to clarify Applicant’s invention as described in paragraph [0040] of Applicant’s specification:
Claim 3: The endoscope hood according to claim 1, wherein the annular member comprises thermoplastic elastomers and thermosetting elastomers, wherein the thermoplastic elastomers are [[is]] selected from a group consisting of from styrene-based, olefin-based, PVC-based, EVA-based, urethane-based, and acryl-based[[,]]; and wherein the thermosetting elastomers are selected from a group consisting of vulcanized rubber and resin-based
Claim 4: The endoscope hood according to claim 1, wherein the annular member comprises.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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 1 recites the term “substantially” in line 5, which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore it is unclear as what to degree the amount of cylindrical shape needs to be to describe the exterior portion. It is suggested to omit the term “substantially.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-5 are also rejected because of their dependency on the rejected base claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "annular portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “annular member.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "annular portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “annular member.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the 30% deformation compressive bending strength" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend claim 5 to depend from claim 2 and clarify whether "the 30% deformation compressive bending strength" is in reference to the annular member and/or the main body portion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "annular portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “annular member.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saab (US5443781) in view of Aitken et al. (US2018/0037690).
Regarding Claim 1, Saab discloses an endoscope hood (Fig. 8) comprising:
a main body portion (Fig. 8 tubing 110); and
a second distal end portion (see annotated Fig. 8),
wherein the main body portion includes:
an exterior portion having a substantially cylindrical shape (Fig. 8 tubing 110),
a disk portion (Fig. 7 disc 90 /Fig. 8 portion of sheath 102) circumferentially in contact with an inner surface (Fig. 8 inner sidewall 112) of the exterior portion (Fig. 8 tubing 110), and
a first distal end portion (see annotated Fig. 8) connected to an insertion-side end portion (see annotated Fig. 8) of the exterior portion (Fig. 8 tubing 110), and
the second distal end portion (see annotated Fig. 8) is connected to an insertion-side end portion (see annotated Fig. 8) of the first distal end portion (see annotated Fig. 8) and includes an annular member (Fig. 8 tip of tubing 110 is annularly shaped, therefore it is an annular member).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saab is silent as to explicitly disclose the main body portion is made of hydrogel.
Aitken teaches providing conventional hydrogels to cured surfaces in various medical devices , where low friction is desirable (Aitken – paragraphs [0028-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Saab with the teachings of Aitken to have the main body be made of hydrogel for the benefit of providing the main body with a surface that has low friction, easy to mold/cure, and has sufficient mechanical strength, as taught by Aitken (Aiken - paragraphs [0028-0031, 0067, 0099]).
Regarding Claim 3, Saab in view of Aitken teach the endoscope hood according to claim 1, wherein the annular portion (Saab - Fig. 8 tip of tubing 110 is annularly shaped, therefore it is an annular member) is selected from thermoplastic elastomers selected from styrene-based, olefin-based, PVC-based, EVA-based, urethane-based, and acryl-based, and thermosetting elastomers selected from vulcanized rubber and resin-based elastomers (Saab – col. 9 lines 20-44).
Regarding Claim 4, Saab in view of Aitken teach the endoscope hood according to claim 1, wherein the annular portion (Saab - Fig. 8 tip of tubing 110 is annularly shaped, therefore it is an annular member) is selected from thermosetting polymers having elasticity (Saab – col. 9 lines 20-44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 are 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, any intervening claims, and overcome the cited 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E MONAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MEGAN ELIZABETH MONAHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
