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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The cancellation of claims 1-20, and the addition of claims 22-41 in the response filed on 02/11/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 22-41 remain pending in the application
Claims 1-21 are cancelled.
Claims 22-41 are examined.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. The applicant has modified all claims to require limitations heretofore not presented for examination in this application. As such, the scope of the claims was substantially changed and new grounds for rejection are presented.
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(s) 22, 28-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0007587 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) and U.S. Publication No. 2006/0235458 to Belson.
Regarding claim 22, Kim discloses an endoscope comprising: an endoscope head (Fig. 1) and an elongated shaft with a shaft wall (10, Fig. 1, [0034]), the shaft wall defining an outer perimeter (Fig. 1) and a longitudinal groove with a groove opening along a length of the elongated shaft (110, Fig. 1, [0035]); a flexible tube at least partially contained in the longitudinal groove (surgical instrument in [0024]); and a sleeve (2, Fig. 1, [0032]-[0033]) that encloses the outer perimeter of the elongated shaft so as to enclose the flexible tube between the elongated shaft and the sleeve (Fig. 1), the elongated shaft being at least partially hollow (Fig. 1) so as to form an inner wall surface that surrounds at least one longitudinal passage inside the elongated shaft (12, Fig. 1, [0035]), the elongated shaft also forming an outer wall surface, the outer wall surface having a concave section that defines the longitudinal groove and the groove opening (100, Fig. 1, [0024]).
Kim fails to expressly teach the flexible tube having a tube wall defining a working channel for passing a fluid and/or instrument through the elongated shaft to the endoscope head, the tube wall being deformable from an undeformed state, when the flexible tube is empty, to a deformed state, when the fluid and/or the instrument is passed through the working channel, the tube wall configured to project radially outwardly through the groove opening when the tube wall is in the deformed state.
However, Belson teaches of an endoscope (Belson: 10, Fig. 1A, [0054])) including the flexible tube (Belson: 18, Fig. 1B, [0058]) having a tube wall defining a working channel for passing a fluid and/or instrument through the elongated shaft to the endoscope head (Belson: [0058]), the tube wall being deformable from an undeformed state (Belson: Fig. 1A), when the flexible tube is empty (Belson: Fig. 1A), to a deformed state (Belson: Fig. 1B), when the fluid and/or the instrument is passed through the working channel (Belson: Fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kim to utilize a flexible tube in the manner as taught by Belson. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of having a smaller overall cross section area than conventional instruments adapted for the same purpose or task ([0054] of Belson).
Regarding claim 28, Kim, in view of Belson, the endoscope according to claim 22, and Kim further discloses wherein the sleeve is in an unexpanded state when the flexible tube is empty (Kim: 2, Fig. 1, [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 29, Kim, in view of Belson, and Lauryssen, teaches the endoscope according to claim 28, and Kim further discloses wherein the sleeve has a cross- sectional shape that is circular when the sleeve is in the unexpanded state (Kim: 2, Fig. 1, [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 30, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 29.
Kim, in view of Belson, fails to expressly teach wherein the cross-sectional shape of the sleeve comprises a lobe when the tube wall bears against the sleeve.
However, Belson further teaches wherein the cross-sectional shape of the sleeve comprises a lobe when the tube wall bears against the sleeve (Belson: Fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kim, in view of Belson, to utilize a sleeve in the manner as taught by Belson. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of having a smaller overall cross section area than conventional instruments adapted for the same purpose or task ([0054] of Belson).
Regarding claim 31, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22, and Kim further discloses wherein the shaft wall forms an arcuate wall section bordering the longitudinal groove (Kim: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 31, and Kim further teaches wherein the arcuate wall section separates the at least one longitudinal passage from the longitudinal groove (Kim: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 32, and Kim further teaches wherein the inner wall surface of the shaft wall conforms to a circle having a diameter (Kim: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 33, and Kim further discloses wherein the arcuate wall section comprises a vertex, and the diameter of the circle passes through the vertex (Kim: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 35, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22, and Kim further teaches wherein the longitudinal groove extends parallel to the at least one longitudinal passage (Kim: 12, Fig. 1, [0035]).
Regarding claim 36, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22, and Kim further discloses wherein the endoscope head comprises an imaging device having a lens and one or more lamps (Kim: [0035]).
Regarding claim 37, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22, and Kim further discloses wherein the at least one longitudinal passage comprises a plurality of passages (Kim: 16, 12, 16, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 38, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22, and Kim further discloses wherein the at least one longitudinal passage is configured to carry at least one of: a data transmission line, a flushing fluid, or a Bowden cable (Kim: [0038]).
Regarding claim 39, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22, and Kim further discloses further comprising a working channel wall segment pivotally connected to the elongated shaft (Kim: 100, Fig. 1, [0024]), the working channel wall segment being disposed between the longitudinal groove and the sleeve when the working channel wall segment is in a closed position (Kim: 100, Fig. 1, [0024]).
Regarding claim 40, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 39, and Kim further discloses wherein the working channel wall segment is pivotally movable between the closed position, in which the working channel wall segment rests on the outer wall surface of the shaft wall and covers the groove opening, and an open position, in which the working channel wall segment is pivoted radially outwardly and away from the groove opening (Kim: 100, Fig. 1, [0024]).
Regarding claim 41, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22, further comprising a rolled circumferential wall layer between the elongated shaft and the sleeve (Kim: Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0007587 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) and U.S. Publication No. 2006/0235458 to Belson and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0130161 to Lauryssen et al. (hereinafter “Lauryssen”).
Regarding claim 23, Kim, in view of Belson, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22, and Kim further discloses and the longitudinal groove has a second cross-sectional profile (Kim: 110, Fig. 1, [0035])
Kim, in view of Belson, fails to expressly teach wherein: the flexible tube has a first cross-sectional profile, and the longitudinal groove has a second cross-sectional profile, and the first cross-sectional profile of the flexible tube is enclosed within the second cross- sectional profile of the longitudinal groove when the flexible tube is in the undeformed state.
However, Lauryssen teaches of an endoscope (Lauryssen: 12, Fig. 3, [0026]) wherein: the flexible tube has a first cross-sectional profile (Lauryssen: 20, Fig. 4, [0026]), and the longitudinal groove has a second cross-sectional profile (Lauryssen: 24, Fig. 4, [0028]) and the first cross-sectional profile of the flexible tube is enclosed within the second cross- sectional profile of the longitudinal groove when the flexible tube is in the undeformed state (Lauryssen: Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kim, in view of Belson, to utilize a flexible tube in the manner as taught by Lauryssen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of expanding the working channel (abstract of Lauryssen).
Regarding claim 24, Kim, in view of Belson and Lauryssen, teaches the endoscope according to claim 23, and Kim further discloses wherein the second cross-sectional profile of the longitudinal groove is U-shaped (Kim: 110, Fig. 1, [0035])
Regarding claim 25, Kim, in view of Belson and Lauryssen, teaches the endoscope according to claim 22.
Kim, in view of Belson and Lauryssen fails to expressly teach wherein, when the tube wall projects radially outwardly through the groove opening, the tube wall bears radially inwardly against the outer wall surface of the shaft wall, and bears radially outwardly against the sleeve.
Lauryssen further teaches wherein, when the tube wall projects radially outwardly through the groove opening (Lauryssen: 18, 20, Figs. 3-4), the tube wall bears radially inwardly against the outer wall surface of the shaft wall, and bears radially outwardly against the sleeve (Lauryssen: Figs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kim, in view of Belson, and Lauryssen, to utilize a tube wall in the manner as taught by Lauryssen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of expanding the working channel (abstract of Lauryssen).
Regarding claim 26, Kim, in view of Belson, and Lauryssen, teaches the endoscope according to claim 25.
Kim, in view of Belson, and Lauryssen, fails to expressly teach wherein the outer wall surface of the shaft wall remains fixed in position when the tube wall bears against the outer wall surface of the shaft wall.
Lauryssen further teaches wherein the outer wall surface of the shaft wall remains fixed in position when the tube wall bears against the outer wall surface of the shaft wall (Lauryssen: Figs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kim, in view of Belson, and Lauryssen, to utilize a tube wall in the manner as taught by Lauryssen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of expanding the working channel (abstract of Lauryssen).
Regarding claim 27, Kim, in view of Belson, and Lauryssen teaches the endoscope according to claim 26.
Kim, in view of Belson, and Lauryssen, fails to expressly teach wherein the sleeve expands radially outwardly when the tube wall bears against the sleeve.
However, Lauryssen further teaches wherein the sleeve (Lauryssen: 24, Fig. 4, [0028]) expands radially outwardly when the tube wall bears against the sleeve (Lauryssen: 20, 18, Fig. 4, [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kim, in view of Belson, and Lauryssen, to utilize a sleeve in the manner as taught by Lauryssen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of expanding the working channel (abstract of Lauryssen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights