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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Applicant' s arguments, filed 1/30/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Applicants have amended their claims, filed 1/30/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are the currently pending claims with claims 12-13 and 17-20 previously withdrawn and claim 6 was previously canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14-16 are currently under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5: “extending though the elongate shaft” should be corrected to “extending through the elongate shaft” to ensure proper grammar;
In claim 1: the term “adaptor” is used in multiple instances (lines 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 19), but the claim later recites “adapter” in the phrase “positioned entirely within the interior of the adapter" (lines 13-14), resulting in inconsistent nomenclature for the same element;
In claim 14, line 5: “extending though the elongate shaft” should be corrected to “extending through the elongate shaft” to ensure proper grammar; and
In claim 14: the term “adaptor” is used in multiple instances (lines 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 20, 22, and 25), but the claim later recites “adapter” in the phrase “the interior of the adapter" (line 27), resulting in inconsistent nomenclature for the same element.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kortenbach et al. (US 20020068935 A1), hereto referred as Kortenbach, and further in view of Pona (US 20200046326 A1), hereto referred as Pona, and further in view of Boston Scientific (Boston Scientific, ‘Captivator Single-Use EMR Device Directions for Use’, ENDO-326206-AB, www.bostonscientific.com/content/dam/bostonscientific/endo/portfolio-group/Captivator%20EMR/captivator-emr-cart-chart.pdf, (August 2015)), hereto referred as Boston Scientific.
Regarding claim 1, Kortenbach teaches a biopsy device comprising an endoscope comprising a handpiece and an elongate shaft extending distally from the handpiece to a distal tip region of the endoscope, the elongate shaft defining a working channel extending through the elongate shaft to the distal tip region of the endoscope (Kortenbach, FIG. 1; Abstract: “surgical tool attaches to the distal end of an endoscope”; ¶[0028] and ¶[0032]: structural and functional description of a device with pivoting jaws that engage tissue, with ¶[0028] describing “a conventional endoscope 3” having “a lumen 7 which constitutes a hollow working channel for receiving an instrument”; ¶[0037]: the jaws may be other effectors such as “scissors” or “dissectors”; thus, Kortenbach discloses an endoscope with an elongate shaft having a working channel defined through the shaft to the distal tip region); an adaptor adapted to be secured relative to the distal tip region of the endoscope, the adaptor including an annular wall surrounding an interior of the adaptor, the annular wall having an inner surface facing the interior of the adaptor and an outer surface (Kortenbach, FIG. 1; ¶[0033]: “upper ring portion 132 for coupling to the distal end 2 of an endoscope . . . The upper portion 132 may have an inner diameter which is substantially the same size as the outer diameter of the endoscope and cemented, press fit, or otherwise affixed to the distal end of the endoscope,” showing an adaptor with an annular ring that defines inner and outer surfaces and surrounds an interior at the distal end of the endoscope); a pair of jaws comprising a first jaw and a second jaw that are pivotably disposed by a first hinge pin and a second hinge pin (Kortenbach, ¶[0028]: “A pair of jaws 26, 28 are rotatably coupled to the clevis”, describing jaws that are pivotably attached to the clevis, which is interpreted to be the adaptor; FIG. 8 and ¶[0033]: “Jaws 126, 128 are rotatably coupled to pivot pins 124a, 124b of the clevis 124”, where the pivot pins (i.e., hinge pins) functionally protrude and are disposed on the interior surface of the clevis (FIG. 7a), and “the clevis means 124 includes an upper ring portion 132 for coupling to the distal end 2 of an endoscope”, showing that the clevis is part of the adaptor); and an actuator operably coupled with the pair of jaws and extending proximally therefrom, the actuator adapted to move the pair of jaws relative to the adaptor Kortenbach, FIG. 1, 8; ¶[0028]: “Movement of one of the pull wire or the coil relative to the other causes the jaws to open or close”; ¶[0034]: “The distal end of the pull wire moves distally relative to the distal end of the coil, causing the jaws to rotate about the pins 124a, 124b which constitute the rotation axis for both jaws”; describing an actuator (pull wire and coil) that is operably coupled to the jaws and extends proximally, as shown in the figure, allowing for their movement relative to the clevis (i.e., adaptor)).
Also regarding claim 1, Kortenbach does not fully teach that the first jaw and the second jaw are positioned entirely within the interior of the adaptor with the annular wall surrounding the pair of jaws when the pair of jaws are in an open configuration. Rather, Kortenbach discloses the adaptor ring, opposed jaws on clevis pins, and proximal actuation, and shows open and closed jaw positions (Kortenbach, ¶[0033], ¶[0034]; Figs. 7-9), but does not disclose that, in the open configuration, the jaws are positioned entirely within the adaptor with the annular wall surrounding them.
Pona teaches a distal head where movable cutting elements (jaws) pivot about inward pins and transition “from an upper retracted position . . . to a lower cutting position,” evidencing that the movable elements reside within the head when retracted/open, and further teaches inwardly directed pivot supports on the interior of the head (Pona, ¶[0063]: “The capture head has four inwardly directed pivot pins 130 geometrically spaced apart from one another”; ¶[0065]: “Each transverse cutting blade has a hole 161 so that it may pivot about pivot pin 130 that project from the capture head”; ¶[0069]: “blades 160 to rotate from an upper retracted position . . .”; Figs. 3, 4A-4G).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kortenbach in view of Pona to configure the open jaw position so that the jaws are positioned entirely within the interior of the adaptor with the annular wall surrounding the jaws. A skilled artisan could implement Pona’s enclosed-when-retracted/open layout on Kortenbach by a single, incremental packaging adjustment, specifically by further extending the annular wall distally (and, if needed, slightly widening that extension) so the wall encompasses the open jaw sweep, which is foreshadowed by Kortenbach’s drawings (Kortenbach, Figs. 7-9, showing the upper ring portion 132 projecting distally beyond the scope tip as compared to Fig. 1). Moreover, hinge location is configurable in Kortenbach, supporting modest centralization of the pins to preserve articulation clearance with the extended wall: “a second embodiment of the invention is disclosed which is substantially similar to the first embodiment but for the configuration of the clevis and the jaws (i.e., the proximal actuation mechanism is as shown in FIG. 1)” (Kortenbach, FIG. 1; ¶[0033]). These routine packaging adjustments retain Kortenbach’s pull-wire/coil actuation and jaw function (Kortenbach, ¶[0034]: “the distal end of the pull wire moves distally relative to the distal end of the coil . . . causing the jaws to rotate about the pins 124a, 124b”), and yield predictable benefits including shielding moving components, minimizing snagging or debris interference, and improving distal-tip safety and clearance.
Also regarding claim 1, the modified Kortenbach does not fully teach that the first hinge pin and the second hinge pin disposed on the inner surface of the adaptor and positioned entirely within the interior of the adaptor. As set forth above, the modified Kortenbach teaches a distal adaptor ring (clevis) mounted to the endoscope with opposed jaws on clevis pins and proximal pull-wire/coil actuation, and (via Pona’s enclosure geometry) an annular wall extended distally to surround the open configuration (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]: “Jaws 126, 128 are rotatably coupled to pivot pins 124a, 124b of the clevis 124”; Kortenbach, ¶[0034]: “the distal end of the pull wire moves distally relative to the distal end of the coil . . . causing the jaws to rotate about the pins 124a, 124b”; Pona, ¶[0063]: “The capture head has four inwardly directed pivot pins 130”; ¶[0065]: “Each transverse cutting blade has a hole 161 so that it may pivot about pivot pin 130”; Figs. 3, 4A-4G). While the modified Kortenbach shows the jaws pinned to the clevis, it does not expressly state that the pins are “positioned entirely within the interior of the adaptor.”
Pona teaches inwardly directed pivot supports on the inner surface of the head, which are fully within the head structure (Pona, ¶[0063], ¶[0065]; Figs. 3, 4A-4G).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Kortenbach in view of Pona to position the first and second hinge pins entirely within the interior of the adaptor. A skilled artisan could implement the inward, internalized pivot arrangement of Pona on the clevis/adaptor of Kortenbach by routine packaging adjustments (e.g., using inward-directed supports on the adaptor’s inner surface) in combination with the already-extended annular wall, while retaining Kortenbach’s pull-wire/coil actuation and jaw functionality. Moreover, Kortenbach confirms hinge/clevis geometry is configurable: “a second embodiment of the invention is disclosed which is substantially similar to the first embodiment but for the configuration of the clevis and the jaws (i.e., the proximal actuation mechanism is as shown in FIG. 1)” (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]), which supports modest centralization of the pins within the adaptor to maintain articulation clearance when the ring is extended. This combination provides predictable benefits including protection of the pivot hardware and reduced interference from tissue or debris by keeping the hinge structure within the adaptor interior.
Also regarding claim 1, the modified Kortenbach does not fully teach that the actuator extends proximally therefrom through the interior of the adaptor and through the working channel of the elongate shaft to an actuator handle. As set forth above, the modified Kortenbach provides a proximal pull-wire/coil actuator driving the opposed jaws at the distal ring (clevis), where the actuator is directly coupled to the jaws and extends proximally from the distal jaw assembly through the clevis structure (Kortenbach, ¶[0028], ¶[0034]). The clevis constitutes the adaptor and defines the region through which the actuator extends from the jaws toward the proximal portion of the device. As further modified in view of Pona, the annular wall is extended distally to enclose the jaws within the interior of the adaptor. Because the actuator is coupled to and extends from the jaws at that location, the actuator correspondingly extends from within the same enclosed interior region defined by the annular wall and traverses the interior of the adaptor as it extends proximally relative thereto. Thus, the modified Kortenbach in view of Pona provides that the actuator is routed through the interior region defined by the adaptor as it extends proximally relative thereto. However, the modified Kortenbach does not expressly describe routing that actuator through the working channel of the elongate shaft of the endoscope to an actuator handle.
Boston Scientific, however, expressly teaches such a routing. Boston Scientific describes an endoscopic device in which a pull-type actuator (referred to as a "trip wire") extends from a distal cap mounted at the distal tip of an endoscope, proximally through the working channel of the endoscope, to a proximal handle unit operated by the user via proximal tension applied through the working channel (Boston Scientific, Step Three: the biopsy cap is installed on the endoscope and the "trip wire" is fed through the working channel; Boston Scientific, Step Five, and Step Six: the trip wire is routed through the working channel of the endoscope and connected proximally to the handle unit; Boston Scientific, Step Seven: actuation of the handle operates the distal device via tension applied through the trip wire in the working channel). Boston Scientific thereby evidences that routing an actuation member through the working channel to control a distal device mounted at the scope tip via proximal tension is a known and practical architecture, demonstrating that such routing represents a predictable and workable alternative to external actuator pathways.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Kortenbach in view of Boston Scientific so that the actuator operably coupled to the jaws of Kortenbach extends proximally through the interior of the adaptor and through the working channel of the elongate shaft of the endoscope to an actuator handle, as recited in claim 1. Such a modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known actuator-routing pathway (external coil routed alongside the endoscope, as in Kortenbach) for another known actuator-routing pathway (pull-type actuator routed through the working channel to a proximal handle, as expressly taught by Boston Scientific) to yield the predictable result of proximal manipulation of a distal end effector mounted on the endoscope tip. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(B). The motivation to apply Boston Scientific's working-channel routing to Kortenbach's device includes the known advantages of a more integrated instrument profile, reduced external fouling along the shaft, use of a single ergonomic proximal handle, and leveraging the pre-existing lumen of the endoscope as a structural guide for the actuator.
While Kortenbach describes the use of a grasper or similar instrument inserted through the working channel to assist in positioning tissue relative to the jaws (Kortenbach, ¶[0032]: "a grasper . . . such as . . . biopsy forceps, snare, suction device or other instrument for . . . retaining tissue"; see also FIGS. 4–6), that disclosure pertains to a particular method of use and does not define a structural requirement of the jaw mechanism itself. Kortenbach’s disclosure of multiple alternative instruments further demonstrates that the manner of tissue presentation is variable and not tied to a single specific instrument configuration (Kortenbach, ¶[0032]). The jaws of Kortenbach remain fully operable to open and close in response to proximal actuation of the pull wire relative to the coil (Kortenbach, ¶[0028], ¶[0034]) independent of whether a separate instrument is concurrently present in the working channel. Modifying the routing of the actuator to pass through the working channel, as taught by Boston Scientific, does not alter the fundamental operation of the jaws, but merely changes the path by which actuating force is transmitted. The resulting device therefore remains operable for the claimed jaw-pivoting function.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kortenbach teaches that the actuator is adapted to be moved in a first axial direction to open the pair of jaws and to be moved in an opposing second axial direction to close the jaws (Kortenbach, ¶[0028] and Fig. 1: An actuation device… is coupled to the proximal end 14 of the coil and the proximal end 22 of the pull wire for reciprocally moving one of the pull wire and the coil relative to the other… Movement of one of the pull wire or the coil relative to the other causes the jaws to open or close” and ¶[0030]: “The actuation device 20 is substantially the same as used in many conventional endoscopic biopsy forceps…”, where the figure and paragraphs depict an axial motion of the pull wire and coil causes the jaws to open or close).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kortenbach teaches that the adaptor comprises a first pivot point along a first side of the adaptor and a second pivot point along a second side of the adaptor (Kortenbach, ¶[0033] and Fig. 8: "jaws 126, 128 are rotatably coupled to pivot pins 124 a, 124 b of the clevis 124"; where the clevis, which forms the adaptor in combination with the upper ring (¶[0028]), is depicting having two pivot points, one on each side (i.e. first and second)).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kortenbach teaches that the first pivot point and the second pivot point are disposed on the inner surface of the adaptor (Kortenbach, ¶[0033] and Fig. 8: "jaws 126, 128 are rotatably coupled to pivot pins 124 a, 124 b of the clevis 124", where the figure depicts the pivot points on the inner surface of the clevis (i.e. adaptor)).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kortenbach teaches that the actuator comprises a first actuator member secured relative to the first jaw and a second actuator member secured relative to the second jaw such that applying an axial force to the first actuator member and/or the second actuator member causes the first jaw and/or the second jaw to pivot relative to the adaptor (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]: "The distal jaw 126 is provided with a rotator arm 127 to which the distal end of the coil is coupled at pivot pin 127a. The proximal jaw 128 is provided with a rotator arm 129 to which the distal end of the pull wire 118 is coupled at hole 129a." and ¶[0034]: "proximal movement of the spool will move the pull wire proximally causing the jaw 128 to move toward the jaw 126"; describes two actuator members (the coil and pull wire), each connected to one of the jaws (rotator arms 127 and 129), where the members apply axial force, causing the jaws to pivot around their respective axes in relation to the clevis (i.e. adaptor)).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kortenbach teaches that the first jaw includes a first actuator arm and the second jaw includes a second actuator arm, with the first actuator member secured to the first actuator arm and the second actuator member secured to the second actuator arm (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]: "The distal jaw 126 is provided with a rotator arm 127 to which the distal end of the coil is coupled at pivot pin 127 a", "The proximal jaw 128 is provided with a rotator arm 129 to which the distal end of the pull wire 118 is coupled at hole 129 a."; explicitly describing a first actuator arm (rotator arm 127) and a second actuator arm (rotator arm 129), with the coil (first actuator member) and pull wire (second actuator member) secured to these respective arms).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kortenbach teaches that the adaptor includes a first alignment feature that accommodates the first actuator member extending therethrough and a second alignment feature that accommodates the second actuator member extending therethrough (Kortenbach, ¶[0033] and Fig. 7: "The clevis means 124 also includes a lower side throughbore 133 which is dimensioned to allow the distal end of the coil to move therethrough"; where the throughbore acts as the first alignment feature for the coil (first actuator member) and the coil itself acts as the second alignment feature for the pull wire (second actuator member) which is contained within it (Fig. 1, Parts 12 and 18), the wire reciprocates relative to the coil and is functionally dependent on the coil's alignment through the throughbore).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kortenbach does not fully teach a polymeric material coupler stretched over both a proximal end of the adaptor and the distal tip region of the endoscope, the coupler adapted to releasably secure the adaptor relative to the endoscope. While the modified Kortenbach discloses attachment of the upper ring portion 132 of the clevis to the distal end of the endoscope by being “cemented, press fit, or otherwise affixed to the distal end of the endoscope” (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]), Kortenbach does not expressly disclose a polymeric coupler stretched over both the proximal end of the adaptor and the distal tip region of the endoscope to releasably secure the adaptor.
Captivator, however, expressly teaches a distal cap mounted at the tip of an endoscope that includes a “soft proximal end” which stretches over the distal tip of the endoscope so as to releasably secure the cap to the scope (Captivator, Step Seven: installation of the cap over the distal tip of the endoscope; Captivator, Step Nine-Ten: describing the “soft proximal end” of the ligator cap that stretches over the distal tip of the endoscope so as to releasably secure the cap to the scope). Captivator therefore teaches a polymeric proximal coupling portion for releasably securing a distal cap to an endoscope, but does not expressly disclose that the polymeric portion is stretched over both a proximal end of the adaptor and the distal tip region of the endoscope.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Kortenbach in view of Captivator so as to replace or supplement Kortenbach’s cemented/press-fit attachment of the upper ring portion 132 with a polymeric proximal coupling portion of the type taught by Captivator. Captivator teaches a soft polymeric proximal end that secures a distal cap to an endoscope by elastic engagement with the outer surface of the endoscope (Captivator, Step Nine-Ten). In implementing such an elastically engaging polymeric coupling portion on Kortenbach’s adaptor, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, to releasably secure the adaptor to the endoscope, the polymeric portion must engage the mating interface between the adaptor and the endoscope rather than only one component in isolation. Accordingly, the polymeric proximal portion would be configured to overlie the junction between the proximal end of the adaptor and the distal tip region of the endoscope, such that it engages both components and thereby retains the adaptor on the scope. This configuration represents the predictable use of Captivator’s polymeric coupling mechanism applied to Kortenbach’s adaptor structure, where engagement with both mating components is necessary to achieve the intended releasable securement function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution in order to provide a releasable, tool-free attachment that facilitates installation, removal, and replacement of the distal tip attachment without damaging the endoscope. Such a substitution is a simple substitution of one known endoscope-cap attachment scheme (adhesive/press-fit) for another known polymeric coupling scheme relying on elastic engagement, yielding the predictable result of releasably securing the adaptor to the endoscope. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kortenbach does not fully teach that the actuator handle is operably coupled with the actuator by a fastener threadedly engaged with the actuator handle. Rather, the modified Kortenbach discloses a proximal actuation assembly in which the proximal end of the pull wire is coupled to a spool 46 having a cross member 48 and the proximal end of the coil is coupled to a shaft 38 (Kortenbach, ¶[0030]: “A spool 46 having a cross member 48 . . . [and] The proximal end 14 of the coil 12 is coupled to the shaft 38 and the proximal end 22 of the pull wire 18 is coupled to the cross member 48 of the spool”). It also indicates that the proximal actuation device is “substantially the same as used in many conventional endoscopic biopsy forceps” (Kortenbach, ¶[0030]), thereby suggesting that known coupling mechanisms used in such instruments, including threaded fasteners as evidenced by Bales, would have been applicable. However, the modified Kortenbach does not expressly teach that the coupling between handle and actuator is via a threaded engagement.
Bales teaches that an actuator (pull wire) is coupled to a handle-side structure using a threaded fastener. Specifically, Bales discloses that “the proximalmost end of the pull wires 60 are locked into the cross pin 110 by a set screw 114” (Bales, col. 5, ll. 1-39), where the cross pin is part of the handle assembly, thereby teaching a fastener threadedly engaged with the handle to secure the actuator.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kortenbach in view of Bales so as to couple the actuator to the actuator handle by a fastener threadedly engaged with the actuator handle. Kortenbach already teaches a proximal actuator coupled to a handle assembly for transmitting tensile forces to actuate distal jaws, but does not specify the particular coupling mechanism. Bales, however, teaches securing a pull wire to a handle-side structure using a set screw, which is a threaded fastener, thereby providing a specific and well-known mechanism for achieving such coupling. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the threaded fastener of Bales into Kortenbach’s actuator-handle interface in order to provide a secure and releasable mechanical connection capable of maintaining engagement under repeated tensile loading while also permitting adjustment and assembly. This modification merely substitutes one known coupling mechanism for another within the same type of endoscopic biopsy forceps environment, yielding the predictable result of a reliable and user-serviceable actuator-to-handle connection during operation.
Claims 3 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kortenbach et al. (US 20020068935 A1), hereto referred as Kortenbach, and further in view of Pona (US 20200046326 A1), hereto referred as Pona, and further in view of Simpson et al. (US 6149607 A), hereto referred as Simpson, and further in view of Boston Scientific (Boston Scientific, ‘Captivator Single-Use EMR Device Directions for Use’, ENDO-326206-AB, www.bostonscientific.com/content/dam/bostonscientific/endo/portfolio-group/Captivator%20EMR/captivator-emr-cart-chart.pdf, (August 2015)), hereto referred as Boston Scientific.
The modified Kortenbach teaches claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kortenbach does not explicitly teach that the pair of jaws are biased to a first position, and the actuator is adapted to move the pair of jaws against a biasing force. The modified Kortenbach provides a structural description of jaws that pivot to engage tissue when actuated by the pull wire and coil mechanism (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]). However, the modified Kortenbach lacks explicit detail regarding how a biasing force can reliably control the jaws' movement to an open or closed position. Simpson, who discloses an endoscopic biopsy device, teaches the use of a spring biasing mechanism to manage the jaws' default positioning (Simpson, Col. 7, Lines 44–55). In Simpson, the spring bias ensures that the jaws remain in an open or closed biased position unless an axial force is applied to them. This approach guarantees precise control, allowing the jaws to return to their default state after actuation. The structural and functional similarities between the devices would have made it straightforward to adapt Simpson’s spring mechanism into the modified Kortenbach’s configuration without requiring substantial modifications. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Kortenbach in view of Simpson to have the jaws biased to a first position, where the actuator moves the jaws against the biasing force. This would have the benefit of consistency in jaw positioning, improving surgical reliability and thus reducing the potential for clinical errors.
Regarding claim 14, Kortenbach teaches that a biopsy device comprises an endoscope comprising a handpiece and an elongate shaft extending distally from the handpiece to a distal tip region of the endoscope, the elongate shaft defining a working channel extending through the elongate shaft to the distal tip region of the endoscope (Kortenbach, FIG. 1; Abstract: “surgical tool attaches to the distal end of an endoscope”; ¶[0028] and ¶[0032]: structural and functional description of a device with pivoting jaws that engage tissue; ¶[0028] describes “a conventional endoscope 3” having “a lumen 7 which constitutes a hollow working channel for receiving an instrument”; ¶[0037]: the jaws may also be “scissors” or “dissectors”; thus, Kortenbach discloses an endoscope with an elongate shaft having a working channel defined through the shaft to the distal tip region); an adaptor adapted to be secured relative to an endoscope, the adaptor including an annular wall defining an inner surface forming a perimeter around an interior of the adaptor (Kortenbach, FIG. 1; ¶[0033]: “upper ring portion 132 for coupling to the distal end 2 of an endoscope . . . The upper portion 132 may have an inner diameter which is substantially the same size as the outer diameter of the endoscope and cemented, press fit, or otherwise affixed to the distal end of the endoscope,” showing an adaptor with an annular ring that defines inner and outer surfaces and surrounds an interior at the distal end of the endoscope); a first jaw pivotably secured to the adaptor at a first hinge pin and at a second hinge pin (Kortenbach, ¶[0028]: “A pair of jaws 26, 28 are rotatably coupled to the clevis”, describing jaws that are pivotably attached to the clevis, which is interpreted to be the adaptor; FIG. 8 and ¶[0033]: “Jaws 126, 128 are rotatably coupled to pivot pins 124a, 124b of the clevis 124”, where the pivot pins (i.e., hinge pins) functionally protrude and are disposed on the interior surface of the clevis (FIG. 7a), and “the clevis means 124 includes an upper ring portion 132 for coupling to the distal end 2 of an endoscope”, showing that the clevis is part of the adaptor); a second jaw pivotably secured to the adaptor at the first hinge pin and at the second hinge pin (Kortenbach, FIG. 8 and ¶[0033]: “Jaws 126, 128 are rotatably coupled to pivot pins 124a, 124b of the clevis 124”, where the pivot pins (i.e., hinge pins) functionally protrude the interior surface of the clevis and “the clevis means 124 includes an upper ring portion 132 for coupling to the distal end 2 of an endoscope”, where the second jaw is similarly pivotably secured to the clevis which is part of the adaptor) a first actuator member secured to the first jaw such that moving the first actuator member causes the first jaw to pivot relative to the adaptor (Kortenbach, ¶[0033] and Fig. 7-9: “The distal jaw 126 is provided with a rotator arm 127 to which the distal end of the coil is coupled at pivot pin 127a”, describing the first actuator member (coil) and its coupling to the first jaw, allowing for pivoting relative to the adaptor (clevis)) a second actuator member secured to the second jaw such that moving the second actuator member causes the second jaw to pivot relative to the adaptor (Kortenbach, ¶[0033] and Fig. 7-9: “The proximal jaw 128 is provided with a rotator arm 129 to which the distal end of the pull wire 118 is coupled at hole 129a”, describing the second actuator member (pull wire) and its coupling to the second jaw, allowing for pivoting relative to the adaptor (clevis)); and an actuator handle operably coupled with the first actuator member and the second actuator member such that manipulating the actuator handle causes the first jaw and the second jaw to pivot relative to the adaptor (Kortenbach, ¶[0030]: “A spool 46 having a cross member 48 . . . [and] The proximal end 14 of the coil 12 is coupled to the shaft 38 and the proximal end 22 of the pull wire 18 is coupled to the cross member 48 of the spool”; ¶[0033]: “The spool 46 of the actuator 20 . . . is moved distally . . . causing the jaws to open or close”, where the spool acts as the handle and the pull wire and coil act as the actuating members such that the members are operably coupled to the handle).
Also regarding claim 14, Kortenbach does not fully teach that the first jaw and the second jaw are positioned entirely within the interior of the adaptor such that the annular wall surrounds the first jaw and the second jaw when the first jaw and the second jaw are in an open configuration. Rather, Kortenbach discloses the adaptor ring, opposed jaws on clevis pins, and proximal actuation, and shows open and closed jaw positions (Kortenbach, ¶[0033], ¶[0034]; Figs. 7-9), but does not disclose that, in the open configuration, the jaws are positioned entirely within the adaptor with the annular wall surrounding them.
Pona teaches a distal head where movable cutting elements pivot about inward pins and transition “from an upper retracted position . . . to a lower cutting position,” evidencing that the movable elements reside within the head when retracted/open, and further teaches inwardly directed pivot supports on the interior of the head (Pona, ¶[0063]: “The capture head has four inwardly directed pivot pins 130 geometrically spaced apart from one another”; ¶[0065]: “Each transverse cutting blade has a hole 161 so that it may pivot about pivot pin 130 that project from the capture head”; ¶[0069]: “In operation a physician or other medical professional takes the biopsy harvesting instrument 7 and pushes down while twisting . . .”; Figs. 3, 4A-4G).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kortenbach in view of Pona to configure the open jaw position so that the jaws are positioned entirely within the interior of the adaptor with the annular wall surrounding the jaws. A skilled artisan could implement Pona’s enclosed-when-retracted/open layout on Kortenbach by a single, incremental packaging adjustment, specifically by further extending the annular wall distally (and, if needed, slightly widening that extension) so the wall encompasses the open jaw sweep, which is foreshadowed by Kortenbach’s drawings (Kortenbach, Figs. 7-9 versus Fig. 1). Moreover, hinge location is configurable in Kortenbach, supporting modest centralization of the pins to preserve articulation clearance with the extended wall: “a second embodiment of the invention is disclosed which is substantially similar to the first embodiment but for the configuration of the clevis and the jaws (i.e., the proximal actuation mechanism is as shown in FIG. 1)” (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]). These routine packaging adjustments retain Kortenbach’s pull-wire/coil actuation and jaw function (Kortenbach, ¶[0034]: “the distal end of the pull wire moves distally relative to the distal end of the coil . . . causing the jaws to rotate about the pins 124a, 124b”), and yield predictable benefits including shielding moving components, minimizing snagging or debris interference, and improving distal-tip safety and clearance.
Also regarding claim 14, the modified Kortenbach does not fully teach that the first hinge pin and the second hinge pin disposed on the inner surface of the adaptor and positioned entirely within the interior of the adaptor. As set forth above, Kortenbach in view of Pona teaches a distal adaptor ring (clevis) mounted to the endoscope with opposed jaws on clevis pins and proximal pull-wire/coil actuation, and, via Pona’s enclosure geometry, an annular wall extended distally to surround the open configuration (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]: “Jaws 126, 128 are rotatably coupled to pivot pins 124a, 124b of the clevis 124”; Kortenbach, ¶[0034]: “the distal end of the pull wire moves distally relative to the distal end of the coil . . . causing the jaws to rotate about the pins 124a, 124b”; Pona, ¶[0063]: “The capture head has four inwardly directed pivot pins 130”; ¶[0065]: “Each transverse cutting blade has a hole 161 so that it may pivot about pivot pin 130”; Figs. 3, 4A-4G). While Kortenbach shows the jaws pinned to the clevis, it does not expressly state that the pins are “positioned entirely within the interior of the adaptor.”
Pona teaches inwardly directed pivot supports on the inner surface of the head, which are fully within the head structure (Pona, ¶[0063], ¶[0065]; Figs. 3, 4A-4G).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Kortenbach in view of Pona to position the first and second hinge pins entirely within the interior of the adaptor. A skilled artisan could implement the inward, internalized pivot arrangement of Pona on the clevis/adaptor of Kortenbach by routine packaging adjustments (e.g., using inward-directed supports on the adaptor’s inner surface) in combination with the already-extended annular wall, while retaining Kortenbach’s pull-wire/coil actuation and jaw functionality. Moreover, Kortenbach confirms hinge/clevis geometry is configurable: “a second embodiment of the invention is disclosed which is substantially similar to the first embodiment but for the configuration of the clevis and the jaws (i.e., the proximal actuation mechanism is as shown in FIG. 1)” (Kortenbach, ¶[0033]), which supports modest centralization of the pins within the adaptor to maintain articulation clearance when the ring is extended. This combination provides predictable benefits including protection of the pivot hardware and reduced interference from tissue or debris by keeping the hinge structure within the adaptor interior.
Also regarding claim 14, the modified Kortenbach does not fully teach that the first jaw and the second jaw are adapted to be pivotable to a closed configuration in which the first jaw and the second jaw interact to cut tissue (Kortenbach, ¶[0032]: “Once the tissue is between the jaws of the bipolar apparatus 10, the jaws are closed . . .”; ¶[0037]: the jaws may also be “scissors” or “dissectors”; together showing that the jaws can interact to cut tissue; however, Simpson provides explicit cutting by jaws upon closure).
Kortenbach discloses jaws that pivot to engage tissue when actuated by the pull wire and coil (Kortenbach, ¶[0034]). However, it does not explicitly describe that the jaws sever or cut tissue, although it does state that the jaws could be scissors or dissectors (Kortenbach, ¶[0037]) and thus the device could cut tissue.
Simpson provides this missing detail, explicitly teaching jaws that sever tissue upon closure (Simpson, Col. 4, Lines 1-15). Combining Simpson’s explicit teaching of cutting functionality with Kortenbach’s description of pivoting jaws would have been an obvious improvement.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Kortenbach in view of Simpson to have the pivoting jaws cooperate to cut tissue. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding cutting functionality to Kortenbach’s jaws would allow them to cut the tissue, making it capable of collecting tissue samples. This would have the benefit of enhancing the utility of the device by enabling precise tissue severance with the jaws instead of a separate attachment.
Also regarding claim 14, Kortenbach does not fully teach that the first actuator member and the second actuator each extend proximally through the interior of the adapter and through the working channel of the elongate shaft to the actuator handle. As set forth above, the modified Kortenbach provides a proximal pull-wire/coil actuator driving the opposed jaws at the distal ring (clevis), where the actuator is directly coupled to the jaws and extends proximally from the distal jaw assembly through the clevis structure (Kortenbach, ¶[0028], ¶[0034]). The clevis constitutes the adaptor and defines the region through which the actuator extends from the jaws toward the proximal portion of the device. As further modified in view of Pona, the annular wall is extended distally to enclose the jaws within the interior of the adaptor. Because the actuator is coupled to and extends from the jaws at that location, the actuator correspondingly extends from within the same enclosed interior region defined by the annular wall and traverses the interior of the adaptor as it extends proximally relative thereto. Thus, the modified Kortenbach in view of Pona provides that the actuator is routed through the interior region defined by the adaptor as it extends proximally relative thereto. However, the modified Kortenbach does not expressly describe routing that actuator through the working channel of the elongate shaft of the endoscope to an actuator handle.
Captivator, however, expressly teaches such a routing. Captivator describes an endoscopic device in which a pull-type actuator (referred to as a "trip wire") extends from a distal cap mounted at the distal tip of an endoscope, proximally through the working channel of the endoscope, to a proximal handle unit operated by the user via proximal tension applied through the working channel (Captivator, Step Three: the biopsy cap is installed on the endoscope and the "trip wire" is fed through the working channel; Step Five and Step Six: the trip wire is routed through the working channel of the endoscope and connected proximally to the handle unit; Step Seven: actuation of the handle operates the distal device via tension applied through the trip wire in the working channel). Captivator thereby evidences that routing an actuation member through the working channel to control a distal device mounted at the scope tip via proximal tension is a known and practical architecture, demonstrating that such routing represents a predictable and workable alternative to external actuator pathways.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Kortenbach in view of Captivator so that the actuator operably coupled to the jaws of Kortenbach extends proximally through the interior of the adaptor and through the working channel of the elongate shaft of the endoscope to an actuator handle, as recited in claim 1. Such a modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known actuator-routing pathway (external coil routed alongside the endoscope, as in Kortenbach) for another known actuator-routing pathway (pull-type actuator routed through the working channel to a proximal handle, as expressly taught by Captivator) to yield the predictable result of proximal manipulation of a distal end effector mounted on the endoscope tip. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(B). The motivation to apply Captivator's working-channel routing to Kortenbach's device includes the known advantages of a more integrated instrument profile, reduced external fouling along the shaft, use of a single ergonomic proximal handle, and leveraging the pre-existing lumen of the endoscope as a structural guide for the actuator.
While Kortenbach describes the use of a grasper or similar instrument inserted through the working channel to assist in positioning tissue relative to the jaws (Kortenbach, ¶[0032]: "a grasper . . . such as . . . biopsy forceps, snare, suction device or other instrument for . . . retaining tissue"; see also FIGS. 4–6), that disclosure pertains to a particular method of use and does not define a structural requirement of the jaw mechanism itself. Kortenbach’s disclosure of multiple alternative instruments further demonstrates that the manner of tissue presentation is variable and not tied to a single specific instrument configuration (Kortenbach, ¶[0032]). The jaws of Kortenbach remain fully operable to open and close in response to proximal actuation of the pull wire relative to the coil (Kortenbach, ¶[0028], ¶[0034]) independent of whether a separate instrument is concurrently present in the working channel. Modifying the routing of the actuator to pass through the working channel, as taught by Captivator, does not alter the fundamental operation of the jaws, but merely changes the path by which actuating force is transmitted. The resulting device therefore remains operable for the claimed jaw-pivoting function.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Kortenbach teaches that the first actuator member and the second actuator member extend proximally to the actuator handle (Kortenbach, ¶[0030] and Fig 1: “The proximal end 14 of the coil 12 is coupled to the shaft 38 and the proximal end 22 of the pull wire 18 is coupled to the cross member 48 of the spool”, where the figure depicts the first actuator member (Part 12), the second actuator member (Part 18), and the actuator handle (Part 46) with the shaft (Part 38) operatively coupled with the handle (as connoted in ¶[0033])).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kortenbach partially teaches that the first actuator member and the second actuator member are coupled together, and only one of the first actuator member and the second actuator member extend proximally to the actuator handle. The modified Kortenbach describes both actuating members, pull wire and coil, as extending to the handle (Kortenbach, ¶[0030] and ¶[0033]) instead of just one member. Simpson describes a "Handle 12 (FIG. 1) [that] is operatively linked… by way of a first actuating element such as actuator shaft 16, axially movably disposed with respect to a second actuating element such as an outer sleeve 18" and that is operationally coupled to the outer sleeve to enable axial translation (Simpson, Col 4, Lines 1-15). Only the actuator shaft extends proximally to the handle, and the two actuating elements (sleeve and shaft) are coupled with one inside the other to work as one to open and close the jaws (Simpson, Col 4, Lines 1-15). Simpson provides a clear and explicit teaching of actuator coupling and proximal extension. By adapting Simpson’s coupling mechanism to Kortenbach’s pull wire and coil configuration, the design would reduce mechanical complexity, while maintaining functionality. The modification would have been straightforward, predictable and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Kortenbach in view of Simpson to couple the actuator members together and only have one extend all the way to the handle. This would have the benefit of simplification with less moving parts, improving reliability and manufacturability. This would also create a simpler mechanism for clinicians during endoscopic biopsy procedures making it more efficient and user-friendly.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. &103
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026, pages 7-12, regarding the previous 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14-16, have been fully considered but are either moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (that is, there are new grounds of rejection that were necessitated by the claim amendments) and/or the arguments were not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that the pull wire 18 of Kortenbach is “clearly routed outside of any working channel, such as working channel 7, of the endoscope 3 in Kortenbach,” and is instead routed through a flexible coil 12 attached externally to the endoscope by an upstanding ring 32.
Examiner’s Response: This argument is not persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 does not rely on Kortenbach alone for the newly amended limitation that the actuator extends through the working channel of the elongate shaft to an actuator handle. Rather, Captivator is cited as additional prior art expressly teaching a routing architecture in which a pull-type actuator extends from a distal cap mounted at the distal tip of an endoscope, proximally through the working channel of the endoscope, to a proximal handle unit operated by the user via proximal tension applied through the working channel (Captivator, Step Three; Step Five; Step Six; Step Seven). Captivator demonstrates that routing an actuation member through the working channel to control a distal device mounted at the scope tip via proximal tension applied through the working channel was a known and practical architecture, thereby evidencing that such routing represents a predictable and workable alternative to external actuator pathways. Accordingly, Applicant’s contention that Kortenbach itself does not route the pull wire through the working channel is not dispositive because the rejection relies on Captivator for that feature.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant contends that routing the actuator of Kortenbach through the working channel would change the principle of operation of Kortenbach.
Examiner’s Response: This contention is not persuasive. Kortenbach’s principle of operation is the proximal actuation of distal jaws to engage tissue. The proposed modification alters only the routing path of the actuator, not the fundamental mechanism by which proximal force is transmitted to pivot the jaws. The jaws remain coupled to the pull wire and coil (or equivalent actuator members), and relative axial movement of the actuator members continues to drive the jaws between open and closed configurations. The presence or absence of a separate through-channel instrument pertains to a method of use and does not define the principle of operation of the jaw mechanism relied upon here. Captivator demonstrates that proximal pull-type actuation of a distal endoscopic attachment can be implemented using a working-channel-routed actuator, confirming that such routing is compatible with the principle of proximally driven distal end effectors to which Kortenbach is directed. To the extent Applicant relies on any general statement in Kortenbach regarding availability of the working channel for other instruments as suggesting that the working channel must remain available, such disclosure reflects a design consideration rather than a limitation on the operability of the jaw mechanism itself. The claimed modification does not alter the manner in which force is transmitted to the jaws or how the jaws engage tissue.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that Kortenbach’s working channel is “reserved for receiving an instrument” and therefore would not be available for accommodating a pull wire designed to operate the jaws.
Examiner’s Response: This argument is not persuasive. This argument conflates a disclosed example use with a structural requirement. Kortenbach describes a distal jaw mechanism actuated proximally via a force-transmitting member. While Kortenbach further discloses the use of a grasper inserted through the working channel to assist in tissue manipulation, that disclosure pertains to a particular method of use and does not limit the structure or operability of the jaw mechanism itself. The claim does not require simultaneous use of multiple instruments within the working channel, nor does it require that the working channel remain available for a separate instrument during operation of the actuator. What is claimed, and what Captivator expressly teaches, is merely that the actuator extends through the working channel to the actuator handle. Captivator shows that working channels are routinely used to route pull-type actuators to proximal handles for controlling distal attachments, and such use is fully consistent with the structural disclosure of Kortenbach. A disclosure of a preferred configuration does not constitute a teaching away absent a clear discouragement of alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also MPEP 2145(D)(1). Applicant’s argument therefore reflects a preference in Kortenbach, not a teaching away.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant contends that the proposed modification would render Kortenbach inoperable for its intended purpose.
Examiner’s Response: This contention is not persuasive. The modification does not render Kortenbach inoperable. The jaw mechanism remains fully operable to open and close in response to proximal actuation (Kortenbach, ¶[0028], ¶[0034]). The intended purpose of Kortenbach—proximal actuation of distal jaws to engage tissue—is preserved by the modification. The use of a grasper to present tissue is one example of how tissue may be positioned, but it is not required for the mechanical operation of the jaws themselves. Modifying the routing of the actuator through the working channel does not alter the fundamental operation of the jaws, but merely changes the path by which the actuating force is transmitted. The modification therefore does not impair the ability of Kortenbach’s jaws to open, close, or engage tissue at the distal tip, and thus does not render the device inoperable.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant presents arguments directed to Pona, including that Pona is a handheld punch-type skin biopsy device, that Pona’s head geometry would block endoscope lumens, and that Pona is non-analogous art.
Examiner’s Response: The Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. These arguments have been previously addressed and are unpersuasive for the same reasons set forth in the previous Final Office Action (10/8/2025) and Advisory Action (12/11/2025). Pona is relied upon only for the layout teaching that pivoting cutting elements can be mounted on inwardly directed pivot supports located on an interior surface of a head and enclosed within a surrounding wall (Pona, ¶[0063], ¶[0065], ¶[0069]; Figs. 3, 4A–4G). The rejection does not import Pona’s push-tab actuation, punch-type sampling mode, annular cutter 180, spherical blade holder 140, or any solid cartridge configuration into Kortenbach, and therefore does not block the endoscope lumens or alter the shave-type biopsy function of Kortenbach. Applicant’s arguments attack a hypothetical wholesale substitution of Pona’s mechanism, rather than the narrow layout teaching actually relied upon.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant asserts that there is no disclosure or suggestion in Kortenbach or Pona of a polymeric material coupler stretched over both the proximal end of the adaptor and the distal tip region of the endoscope (claim 10).
Examiner’s Response: This argument is not persuasive. Captivator teaches a distal cap mounted to the tip of an endoscope having a soft polymeric proximal end that stretches over the distal tip region of the endoscope to releasably secure the cap to the scope (Captivator Step Seven; Step Ten). While Captivator does not expressly disclose the polymeric portion extending over both the proximal end of the adaptor and the distal tip region of the endoscope, Captivator teaches a polymeric coupling mechanism that secures a distal attachment to an endoscope via elastic engagement. In implementing such a polymeric proximal coupling portion on Kortenbach’s adaptor, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, to releasably secure the adaptor to the endoscope, the polymeric portion must engage the mating interface between the adaptor and the endoscope rather than only one component in isolation. Accordingly, the polymeric proximal portion would have been configured to overlie the junction between the proximal end of the adaptor and the distal tip region of the endoscope, such that it engages both components and thereby retains the adaptor on the scope. This represents the predictable application of Captivator’s known polymeric coupling mechanism to Kortenbach’s adaptor structure to achieve the intended releasable securement function. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kortenbach in view of Captivator to provide a polymeric material coupler extending over both the proximal end of the adaptor and the distal tip region of the endoscope, as recited.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant presents arguments regarding claim 14 and dependent claims.
Examiner’s Response: This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 14 are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are unpersuasive for the same reasons. Applicant does not present separate, substantive arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 2, 4–5, 7–11, 15–16, and 3, apart from their dependence from independent claims 1 and 14. For the reasons set forth above, claims 1 and 14 remain properly rejected, and the dependent claims likewise remain rejected.
Conclusion of Response to Arguments:
In summary, the newly added actuator-routing limitation is addressed by Captivator, which expressly teaches routing an actuator through the working channel of an endoscope to a proximal handle unit. The proposed modification does not change Kortenbach’s principle of operation of proximal actuation of distal jaws, and does not render Kortenbach inoperable for its intended purpose. Pona’s narrow teaching regarding inwardly directed pivot supports and enclosure of movable elements remains properly combinable with Kortenbach. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not demonstrate reversible error in the rejection, and claims 1–5, 7–11, and 14-16 remain rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to AARON MERRIAM whose telephone number is (703) 756-
5938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached on (571)272-4867. 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.
/AARON MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights