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 statement filed August 5, 2026 has been entered and the references cited therein have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: At para. 0080, the actuation mechanism should be numbered 110; at paras. 0081 and 0082, reference number 112 is applied to both the attachment mechanism and the endoscope component; at para. 0090, reference number 124 is applied to both the securing mechanism and the clip; at para. 0094, reference number 136 is applied to both the engaging member and the guide.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 11, there is no connecting line between reference number 210 and the skives. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-18 and 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.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are replete with references to “the endoscope.” However, an endoscope has not been affirmatively recited as the preamble of claims 1 and 20 simply states “configured to be attachable to an endoscope.” This is not an affirmative recitation of an endoscope. As claims 2-18 depend from claim 1, they are likewise rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinfatt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080306474).
In regard to claim 33, Steinfatt et al. teach a coolant component of a coolant delivery device (see Figs. 1 and 2), the coolant component comprising: a coolant component body configured to removably connect to a coolant source (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. 0025-0027), cartridge with a valve removeably connected to a dosing device with a lever), the coolant source containing a coolant (see Fig. 1 and paras. 0025-0027); and a level pivotably connected to the coolant component body for controlling the flow of the coolant (see Figs. 1 and 2 and para. 0027, lever 6), the lever being selectively pivotable between: an unactuated position (see Figs. 1 and 2 and para. 0027, claims 1 and 2); and an actuated position in which the lever is pivoted towards the coolant component body (see Figs. 1 and 2 and para. 0027, claims 1 and 2), in response to the level being in the actuated position, the coolant is dispensed from the coolant source through an outlet of the coolant component body (see Figs. 1 and 2 and para. 0027, claims 1 and 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinfatt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20010306474) in view of Chu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0172436).
The applied reference of Chu et al. has a common inventor (Bruno Chabot) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The effective filing date of Chu et al. is May 13, 2020. The effective filing date of the instant application is April 12, 2024.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
In regard to claims 1 and 20, Steinfatt et al. teach a coolant delivery device (see Fig. 1, dosing device with lever) configured to be attachable to an endoscope, the coolant delivery device comprising: a coolant component having: a coolant component body configured to removeably connect to a coolant source (see Fig. 1, dosing device with lever and cartridge and valve; paras. 0025-0027), the coolant source containing a coolant (see Fig. 1, para. 0027, claim 1), the coolant component body defining a fluid path from the coolant source to an outlet of the coolant component body (see Fig. 2 and para. 0027) and an actuation mechanism operatively coupled to the coolant component body and configured to control flow of the coolant from the coolant source (see Figs. 1 and 2 and para. 0027, lever 6). Steinfatt et al. do not specifically disclose the features of an endoscope and an attachment mechanism. However, Chu et al. teach an endoscope with several attachment options for an additional channel or plurality of channels, including for delivery of coolant (see Figs. 1 and 2 and para. 0163). Chu et al. also teach a wing clip 130 that can be used as an attachment mechanism (see Figs. 17A, 17B and 18 and paras. 0160-0179). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to connect the coolant component taught by Steinfatt et al. to an endoscope, using the attachment mechanism disclosed by Chu et al., to create a portable, handheld system to be used in conjunction with an endoscope to guide the coolant delivery device of Steinfatt et al. With further respect to claim 20 and in regard to claims 2, 3, 7 and 8, as shown in Fig 17A of Chu et al., the U-shaped body 132 of wing clip 130 is equivalent to a sleeve portion defining a channel for selectively receiving a portion of the endoscope through open ends of the sleeve portion. Para. 0160 describes that the wing clip 130 is longitudinally split to define a channel opening through which the portion of the endoscope is received and removed and the wing clip 130 has wings extending laterally from the portion of the wing clip defining a channel for the coolant component. In regard to claims 13-17, see Fig. 2 of Steinfatt et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9-12 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should note the following examples of device for attaching additional channels or devices to an endoscope: Chang et al., PCT Publication No. WO 2013/040175; Krimsky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0038672; Manandhar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0333606; Olig et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0196735; and Hunt, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0135846.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights