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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claim 1 in the response filed on 01/21/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application
Claims 1-10 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 claim 1 to require “a proximal portion having a proximal end, and a distal portion having a distal end that forms a distalmost end of laryngoscope… the central through channel extending through the tubular body from the proximal end to the distalmost end and being: sized and shaped to receive the endotracheal tube therein…proximal end and its distalmost end thereby providing a fully closed circular channel in cross-section… wherein the central through channel has a distal opening at a distal end face of the head”, 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) 1, 2, 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB2477084A to Amy in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0366445 to Rutgers in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0366436 to Iuel.
Regarding claim 1, Amy discloses a laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation, comprising: - a tubular body having a general J shape (6, Fig. 1, Page 7), a proximal portion having a proximal end (20, Fig. 1, page 7), and a distal portion having a distal end that forms a distalmost end of laryngoscope (distal end of 60, Fig. 1, page 7), a central through channel configured to guide an endotracheal tube (30, 32, Fig. 2, page 7), the central through channel extending through the tubular body from the proximal end to the distalmost end and being: sized and shaped to receive the endotracheal tube therein (page 7- In use, the grooves 32 and 30 in the body 2 and blade body 6 are used to guide a tube, such as an ET tube, being inserted into the airway of the patient into which the blade 5 extends, during oral intubation), positioned within the tubular body and surrounded by the tubular body between its proximal end and its distalmost end (30, 32, Fig. 3, page 7), and a head (60, Fig. 4, Page 7) forming the distal end of the tubular body and a deformable section that connects the head to the proximal portion (page 7), wherein the deformable section is elastically deformable to vary an orientation of the head with respect to the proximal portion in any plane passing through a longitudinal axis of the head (page 7), wherein the central through channel has a distal opening at a distal end face of the head and a base connected to the proximal end of the proximal portion opposite to the head (4, Fig. 2, Page 7).
Amy fails to expressly teach fully surrounded by the tubular body between its proximal end and its distalmost end thereby providing a fully closed circular channel in cross-section wherein the base comprises a plurality of actuators connected to the head through a transmission system which extends along and within the tubular body adjacent to the central through channel, said plurality of actuators being configured to control an inclination angle of said head via the transmission system and the deformable section of the tubular body.
However, Rutgers teaches of a laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation (Rutgers: Fig. 2) comprising: a tubular body having a general J shape (Rutgers: 30, Fig. 2, [0055]), a proximal portion having a proximal end (Rutgers: Fig. 2), and a distal portion having a distal end that forms a distalmost end of laryngoscope (Rutgers: distal end of 29, Fig. 2, [0067]), a central through channel configured to guide an endotracheal tube (Rutgers: 20, Fig. 2, [0065]), the central through channel extending through the tubular body from the proximal end to the distalmost end (Rutgers: Fig. 2) and being: sized and shaped to receive the endotracheal tube therein (Rutgers: 20, Fig. 2, [0065]), positioned within the tubular body and fully surrounded by the tubular body between its proximal end and its distalmost end thereby providing a fully closed circular channel in cross-section (Rutgers: Fig. 2), and a head forming the distal end of the tubular body (Rutgers: distal end of 29, Fig. 2, [0067]) wherein the central through channel has a distal opening at a distal end face of the head and a base connected to the proximal end of the proximal portion opposite to the head (Rutgers: 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 Amy to have a central channel fully surrounded by a tubular body in the manner as taught by Rutgers. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of positioning the endotracheal tube within the patient ([0065] of Rutgers).
Amy, in view of Rutgers, fails to expressly teach wherein the base comprises a plurality of actuators connected to the head through a transmission system which extends along and within the tubular body adjacent to the central through channel, said plurality of actuators being configured to control an inclination angle of said head via the transmission system and the deformable section of the tubular body.
However, Iuel teaches of an analogous device (Iuel: Fig. 1) wherein the base (Iuel: 2, Fig. 3, [0038]) comprises a plurality of actuators connected to the head (Iuel: 8, 14, Fig. 3, [0040]) through a transmission system (Iuel: 15, Fig. 3, [0040]) which extends along and within the tubular body adjacent to the central through channel (Iuel: Fig. 3), said plurality of actuators being configured to control an inclination angle of said head (Iuel: 4, Fig. 2, [0040]) via the transmission system and the deformable section (Iuel: 3, Fig. 2, [0040]-[0043]) of the tubular body ([0040]-[0043]).
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 Amy, in view of Rutgers, to utilize the actuators and transmission system in the manner taught by Iuel. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of deflecting the tip ([0040] of Iuel).
Regarding claim 2, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 1.
Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, fails to expressly teach wherein said transmission system comprises a plurality of Bowden cables, each of which extends from the head to a respective actuator along said tubular body.
However, Iuel further teaches (Iuel: Fig. 1) wherein said transmission system comprises a plurality of Bowden cables (Iuel: 15, Fig. 3, [0039]), each of which extends from the head to a respective actuator along said tubular body (Iuel: [0039]).
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 Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, to utilize the Bowden cables in the manner taught by Iuel. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of deflecting the tip ([0040] of Iuel).
Regarding claim 3, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 2.
Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, fails to expressly teach wherein said transmission system comprises four Bowden cables which, in a cross-section, are arranged at vertices of a square whose center coincides with a center of gravity of the tubular body.
However, Rutgers further teaches of a laryngoscope (Rutgers: 10, Fig. 1, [0062]) wherein said transmission system comprises four Bowden cables which, in a cross-section, are arranged at the vertices of a square whose center coincides with a center of gravity of the tubular body (Rutgers: [0080]).
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 McGrath to utilize Bowden cables, as taught by Rutgers. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of steering the device (Rutgers: [0080]).
Regarding claim 6, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 1, and Amy further discloses comprising a vision device arranged in the head and connected to the base by means of a cable extending inside a channel formed within said tubular body (Amy: page 4).
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amy in view of Rutgers and Iuel and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0327757 to Rozenfeld et al. (hereinafter “Rozenfeld”).
Regarding claim 4, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 1.
Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, fails to expressly teach wherein said plurality of actuators are electric actuators controlled by an electronic control unit housed in said base and connected by means of an interface unit to a movement control device located outside said base.
However, Rozenfeld teaches of an analogous device (Fig. 1A) wherein said plurality of actuators are electric actuators controlled by an electronic control unit housed in said base and connected by means of an interface unit to a movement control device located outside said base ([0140]).
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 Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, to utilize the electric actuators in the manner taught by Rozenfeld. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of controlling movement ([0104] of Rozenfeld).
Regarding claim 5, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, and Rozenfeld, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 4.
Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, and Rozenfeld, fails to expressly teach wherein said movement control device is connected to said electronic control unit through a wireless communication network.
However, Rozenfeld further teaches wherein said movement control device is connected to said electronic control unit through a wireless communication network ([0104], [0142]).
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 Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel and Rozenfeld, to utilize the electric actuators in the manner taught by Rozenfeld. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of controlling movement ([0104] of Rozenfeld).
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amy in view of Rutgers and Iuel and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0059223 to McGrath et al. (hereinafter “McGrath”).
Regarding claim 7, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 6.
Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, fails to expressly teach wherein an optical signal provided by said vision device is transmitted to a display located outside said base.
However, McGrath teaches of a laryngoscope (McGrath: Fig. 1) wherein an optical signal provided by said vision device is transmitted to a display located outside said base (McGrath: 110, Fig. 11, [0077]).
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 Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, to utilize a display in the manner taught by McGrath. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying images ([0077] of McGrath).
Regarding claim 8, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, and McGrath, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 7.
Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, and McGrath, fails to expressly teach wherein said display is connected to the base via a wireless communication network.
However, McGrath further teaches wherein said display is connected to the base via a wireless communication network (McGrath: [0081]).
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 Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel and McGrath, to utilize a display in the manner taught by McGrath. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying images ([0077] of McGrath).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amy in view of Rutgers and Iuel and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0023151 to Karlsson et al. (hereinafter “Karlsson”).
Regarding claim 9, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 1.
Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, fails to expressly teach wherein the head carries a lifting element of an epiglottis, movable between a lowered position and a raised position and connected by transmission cables to an actuator housed in said base.
However, Karlsson teaches of a laryngoscope (Karlsson: 1, Fig. 1, [0146]) wherein the head carries a lifting element of an epiglottis, movable between a lowered position and a raised position and connected by transmission cables to an actuator housed in said base (Karlsson: [0029])
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 Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, to utilize a lifting element, as taught by Karlsson. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of lifting the epiglottis (Karlsson: [0029]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amy in view of Rutgers and Iuel and further in view of U n further view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0085545 to Maslow.
Regarding claim 10, Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, teaches the laryngoscope according to claim 1.
Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, fails to expressly teach comprising a plurality of fluid channels extending inside the tubular body from a front surface of the head at one end of the proximal portion.
However, Maslow teaches of a laryngoscope (Maslow: 10, Fig. 1, [0046]) comprising a plurality of fluid channels extending inside the tubular body from a front surface of the head at one end of the proximal portion (Maslow: [0055]-[0056]).
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 Amy, in view of Rutgers and Iuel, to utilize a plurality of fluid channels, as taught by Maslow. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of introducing fluid to the patient's airway (Maslow: [0055]).
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