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 .
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 claims 1, 21, and 24 to require “such that removal of the end cap jointly removes the camera, the support, the arm, and the cavity from the distal end of the shaft, a distal end of the shaft includes an actuation wire and a tab, wherein the actuation wire extends form the actuation device to the tab, wherein the tab is movable based on movement of the actuation device, and wherein the tab includes a mating element, wherein the mating element is electrically connected to the actuation wire, a cavity, and a mating element configured to electrically and physically connect to the mating element of the tab, 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14, 21, 23-25, and 27-28 remain pending in the application
Claims 15-20, 22, and 26 are cancelled.
Claims 1-14, 21, 23-25, and 27-28 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “extends form the actuation device”. The examiner believes “extends from the actuation device” are the correct words to use here.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, and 11-14, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0290042 to Hosogoe in view of U.S. Publication No. 20070208220 to Carter.
Regarding claim 1, Hosogoe discloses a medical system, comprising:
a medical device (10, Fig. 1, [0037]), including:
a handle (20, Fig. 1, [0037]), including an actuation device (21, Fig. 1, [0037]); and
a shaft extending from the handle (30, Fig. 1, [0038]), wherein a distal end of the shaft (31, Fig. 19, [0084]) includes a tab (61, Fig. 19, [0086]), and wherein the tab is movable based on movement of the actuation device [0096]; and
an end cap (50, Fig. 1, [0038]), including:
a modular camera assembly, wherein the modular camera assembly includes a camera (40, 41, Fig. 1, [0046]), a support (83, Fig. 11, [0042]), an arm (87, Fig. 11, [0064]), and a cavity (81, Fig. 19, [0086]),
wherein the tab is coupleable to the modular camera assembly via the cavity (Fig. 19, [0086]), and wherein movement of the tab controls a position of the support and the camera (Fig. 19, [0086], [0096]), wherein the end cap is removably coupled to the distal end of the shaft (50, Fig. 1, [0039]).
Hosogoe fails to expressly teach such that removal of the end cap (30, Fig. 1c, [0027]) jointly removes the camera (44, Fig. 2, [0028]), the support (68, Fig. 3, [0033]), the arm (flat portion of 43 above 68, Fig. 4), and the cavity from the distal end of the shaft (Fig. 2).
However, Carter teaches of a medical system (11, Fig. 1a, [0025]) such that removal of the end cap (30, Fig. 1c, [0027]) jointly removes the camera (44, Fig. 2, [0028]), the support (68, Fig. 3, [0033]), the arm (flat portion of 43 above 68, Fig. 4), and the cavity from the distal end of the shaft (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 Hosogoe to utilize an end cap in the manner taught by Carter. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of receiving a medical instrument ([0031] of Carter).
Regarding claim 8, Hosogoe, in view of Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 1, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the handle (20, Fig. 1, [0037]) includes a control device (23, Fig. 1, [0037]), wherein the distal end of the shaft includes a flap (13, Fig. 1, [0038]), and wherein movement of the control device is configured to adjust a position of the flap between at least a first configuration and a second configuration ([0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Hosogoe, in view of Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 8, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein, when the end cap is coupled to the distal end of the shaft (50, Fig. 1, [0038]), the flap at least partially aligns with the modular camera assembly (13, Fig. 1, [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Hosogoe, in view of Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 1, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the end cap (50, Fig. 1, [0038]) further includes a body portion (52, Fig. 5, [0039]) and a cover portion (distal end of 52, Fig. 5, [0039]), and wherein the support is pivotably coupled to the body portion of the end cap (80, Fig. 19, [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Hosogoe, in view of Carter, teaches discloses the medical system of claim 11, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the body portion, the cover portion, and the modular camera assembly are separable and coupleable (Fig. 5- all parts can be assembled and disassembled).
Regarding claim 13, Hosogoe, in view of Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 1, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the handle includes a port (22, Fig. 1, [0037]), and wherein the port is in communication with a distal opening in the distal end of the shaft (35, Fig. 2, [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Hosogoe, in view of Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 13, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the end cap includes a proximal portion and a distal portion (50, Fig. 1, [0038]), wherein the proximal portion is substantially cylindrical (50, Fig. 1, [0038]), and wherein the distal portion is substantially semi-cylindrical (50, Fig. 1, [0038]).
Regarding claim 25, Hosogoe, in view of Carter, teaches discloses the medical system of claim 1, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the camera is coupled to the support (80, Fig. 19, [0086]), and wherein the support is pivotable with respect to a body of the end cap (80, Fig. 19, [0086]).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosogoe in view of Carter, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0315446 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter “Crawford”).
Regarding claim 2, Hosogoe in view of Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 1, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the actuation device is physically connected to the tab via an actuation wire (Hosogoe: 24, Fig. 8, [0055]- [0056]).
Hosogoe in view of Carter fails to expressly teach wherein the actuation device is electrically connected.
However, Crawford teaches of a medical system (Crawford: 10, Fig. 1, [0021]) wherein the actuation device is electrically connected (Crawford: [0036]).
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 Hosogoe in view of Carter, so that the actuation device is electrically connected, as taught by Crawford. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing power ([0036] of Crawford).
Regardng claim 3, Hosogoe in view of Carter and Crawford, teaches the medical system of claim 2, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the modular camera assembly includes one or more mating elements (Hosogoe: U-shaped groove of 81, Fig. 19, [0086]), wherein the tab includes one or more mating elements on a distal end of the tab (Hosogoe: rectangular cross section of 61, Fig. 19, [0053], [0086]), and wherein the one or more mating elements on the modular camera assembly and the one or more mating elements on the tab are configured to connect the handle to the camera (Hosogoe: [0091]).
Hosogoe, in view of Carter in view of Crawford, fails to expressly teach electrically connect the handle to the camera.
However, Crawford further teaches electrically connecting the handle (Crawford: 12, Fig. 1, [0021]) to the camera (Crawford: 22, Fig. 1, [0022], [0036]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Crawford, to electrically connect the handle to the camera, as taught by Crawford. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing power ([0036] of Crawford).
Regarding claim 4, Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Crawford, teaches the medical system of claim 3, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the arm (Hosogoe: 87, Fig. 11, [0064]) further includes one or more connection wires that connect the camera to the one or more mating elements on the modular camera assembly (Hosogoe: 24, Fig. 8, [0055]- [0056]).
Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Crawford, fails to expressly teach electrically connecting the camera.
However, Crawford further teaches electrically connecting the camera (Crawford: 22, Fig. 1, [0022], [0036]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Crawford, to electrically connect the handle to the camera, as taught by Crawford. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing power ([0036] of Crawford).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosogoe in view of Carterand further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0249894 to Kolberg et al. (hereinafter “Kolberg”).
Regarding claim 5, Hosogoe in view of Carter teaches the medical system of claim 1.
Hosogoe, in view of Carter, fails to expressly teach wherein the distal end of the shaft includes a peg, and wherein the end cap includes a slot configured to receive the peg.
However, Kolberg teaches of a medical system (Kolberg: Fig. 1, [0048]) wherein the distal end of the shaft (Kolberg: 11, Fig. 2, [0048]) includes a peg (Kolberg: 45, Fig. 2, [0048]), and wherein the end cap (Kolberg: 3, Fig. 2, [0048]) includes a slot (Kolberg: 22, Fig. 2, [0058]) configured to receive the peg (Kolberg: [0058]).
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 Hosogoe,in view of Carter, so that the distal end of the shaft includes a peg, and wherein the end cap includes a slot configured to receive the peg, as taught by Kolberg. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of for performing the pivoting operation of the Albarran lever ([0058] of Kolberg).
Regarding claim 6, Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Kolberg, teaches the medical system of claim 5.
Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Kolberg, fails to expressly teach wherein the slot includes a longitudinal portion and a partially circumferential portion extending from the longitudinal portion.
However, Kolberg further teaches wherein the slot (Kolberg: 22, Fig. 2, [0058]) includes a longitudinal portion (222, Fig. 2, [0058]) and a partially circumferential portion extending from the longitudinal portion (221, Fig. 2, [0058]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Kolberg, so that the slot includes a longitudinal portion and a partially circumferential portion extending from the longitudinal portion, as taught by Kolberg. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of for performing the pivoting operation of the Albarran lever ([0058] of Kolberg).
Regarding claim 7, Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Kolberg, teaches the medical system of claim 6.
Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Kolberg, fails to expressly teach wherein the modular camera assembly and a body portion of the end cap form a passage that connects to the cavity, and wherein the longitudinal portion of the slot is spaced away from the passage along an interior circumference of the end cap.
However, Kolberg further teaches wherein the modular camera assembly (Kolberg: Fig. 2, [0027]) and a body portion of the end cap (Kolberg: 3, Fig. 2, [0048]) form a passage that connects to the cavity (Kolberg: Fig. 2), and wherein the longitudinal portion of the slot is spaced away from the passage along an interior circumference of the end cap (Kolberg: 222, Fig. 2, [0058]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Carter and Kolberg, so that the modular camera assembly and a body portion of the end cap form a passage that connects to the cavity, and wherein the longitudinal portion of the slot is spaced away from the passage along an interior circumference of the end cap, as taught by Kolberg. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of for performing the pivoting operation of the Albarran lever ([0058] of Kolberg).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosogoe in view of Carter and further in view of US 20180078121 to Yasuda et al. (hereinafter “Yasuda”).
Regarding claim 10, Hosogoe, in view of Carter teaches the medical system of claim 1.
Hosogoe, in view of Carter fails to expressly teach wherein the modular camera assembly includes a spring assembly configured to bias the tab distally.
However, Yasuda teaches of a medical system (Yasuda: 10, Fig. 1, [0049]) wherein the modular camera assembly includes a spring assembly configured to bias the tab distally (Yasuda: 100, Fig. 17, [0125]- [0127]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Carterso that wherein the modular camera assembly includes a spring assembly configured to bias the tab distally, as taught by Yasuda. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of preventing damage to the components ([0127] of Yasuda).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0290042 to Hosogoe, in view of Carter and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2007/0249907 to Boulais et al. (hereinafter “Boulais”).
Regarding claim 15, Hosogoe in view of Carter teaches the medical system of claim 1.
Hosogoe in view of Carter fails to expressly teach wherein the end cap further includes one or more illumination devices positioned on the support.
However, Boulais teaches of a medical system (Boulais: Fig. 1) wherein the end cap further includes one or more illumination devices positioned on the support (Boulais: Fig. 1, [0042]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Carter so that the end cap further includes one or more illumination devices positioned on the support, as taught by Boulais. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of facilitating transillumination ([0042] of Boulais).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0290042 to Hosogoe in view of Carter and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0215699 to Ouyang.
Regarding claim 23, Hosogoe, in view of Carter teaches the medical system of claim 22, and Hosogoe further discloses wherein the modular camera assembly includes one or more mating elements cavity (u-shaped portion of 81, Fig. 19, [0086]), wherein the tab includes one or more mating elements on a distal end of the tab (61, Fig. 19, [0086]), and wherein the one or more mating elements on the modular camera assembly and the one or more mating elements on the tab are configured to connect the handle to the camera (Fig. 19).
Hosogoe, in view of Carter fails to expressly teach to electrically connect the handle to the camera.
However, Ouyang teaches of a medical system (Ouyang: 100, Fig. 1, [0057]) wherein the one or more mating elements on the modular camera assembly (Ouyang: 126, Fig. 4, [0062]) and the one or more mating elements on the tab (Ouyang: 130, Fig. 4, [0062]) are configured to electrically connect the handle to the camera (Ouyang: [0062]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Carter to utilize an electrical connection on the mating elements, as taught by Ouyang. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing an electrical interface ([0062] of Ouyang).
Claim(s)21, 23, 24, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0290042 to Hosogoe in view of U.S. Publication No. 2007/0083084 to Esashi et al. (hereinafter “Esahi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 20070208220 to Carter.
Regarding claim 21, Hosogoe discloses a medical system, comprising: a medical device (10, Fig. 1, [0049]), including: a handle (20, Fig. 1, [0037]), including an actuation device (21, Fig. 1, [0037]); and a shaft (30, Fig. 1, [0038]) extending from the handle (Fig. 1), wherein a distal end of the shaft (31, Fig. 19, [0084]) includes a tab (61, Fig. 19, [0086]), and wherein the tab is movable based on movement of the actuation device ([0096]); and an end cap (50, Fig. 1, [0038]), including: a modular camera assembly, wherein the tab is coupleable to the modular camera assembly via the cavity (Fig. 19, [0086]), and wherein movement of the tab controls a position of the support and the camera (Fig. 19, [0086], [0096]), wherein the camera is distal of the tab in all configurations of the camera (40, 41, Fig. 1, [0046]).
Hosogoe fails to expressly teach wherein a distal end of the shaft includes an actuation wire and a tab, wherein the actuation wire extends form the actuation device to the tab, wherein the tab is movable based on movement of the actuation device, and wherein the tab includes a mating element, wherein the mating element is electrically connected to the actuation wire, wherein the modular camera assembly includes a camera, a support, an arm, and a cavity, and an end cap including a mating element configured to electrically and physically connect to the mating element of the tab.
However, Esashi teaches of a medical system (1, Fig. 1, [0049]) wherein a distal end of the shaft includes an actuation wire (21g, Fig. 3, [0060]) and a tab (21e, Fig. 3b, [0060]-[0065]), wherein the actuation wire extends form the actuation device to the tab (10, Fig. 1, [0078]-[0084]), wherein the tab is movable based on movement of the actuation device ([0049]-[0084]), and wherein the tab includes a mating element ([0060], [0076]), wherein the mating element is electrically connected to the actuation wire ([0060], [0076]); and an end cap (23a, Fig. 1a, [0053]), including a mating element configured to electrically and physically connect to the mating element of the tab (Fig. 2, [0049]-[0084]).
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 Hosogoe, to utilize a SMA as a tab in the manner taught by Esashi, since Hosogoe already teaches employing an SMA instead of the elevating wire ([0110] of Hosogoe). It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of bending the tube ([0012] of Esashi).
Hosogoe, in view of Esashi, fails to expressly teach wherein the modular camera assembly includes a camera, a support, an arm, and a cavity.
However, Carter teaches of a medical system (11, Fig. 1a, [0025]) wherein the modular camera assembly includes a camera (44, Fig. 2, [0028]), a support (68, Fig. 3, [0033]), an arm (flat portion of 43 above 68, Fig. 4), and a cavity (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 Hosogoe, in view of Esashi, to utilize an end cap in the manner taught by Carter. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of receiving a medical instrument ([0031] of Carter).
Regarding claim 23, Hosogoe, in view of Esashi and Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 21.
Hosogoe, in view of Esashi and Carter, fails to expressly teach wherein the mating element of the tab is located on a distal end of the tab.
However, Esashi further teaches wherein the mating element of the tab is located on a distal end of the tab (21e, Fig. 2, [0049]-[0084]).
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 Hosogoe, to utilize a SMA as a tab in the manner taught by Esashi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of bending the tube ([0012] of Esashi).
Regarding claim 24, Hosogoe discloses of a medical system (Hosogoe: Fig. 1) comprising: a medical device (Hosogoe: 10, Fig. 1, [0037]), including: a handle (20, Fig. 1, [0037]), including a first actuation device (23, Fig. 1, [0120]) and a second actuation device (21, Fig. 1, [0055]), and a shaft extending from the handle(30, Fig. 1, [0038]), wherein a distal end of the shaft includes an actuation wire (24, Fig. 19, [0055]), and an elevator (80, Fig. 9, [0057]), wherein the actuation wire extends from the handle (24, Fig. 19, [0055]), wherein the elevator is movable based on movement of the second actuation device (80, Fig. 9, [0057]); and an end cap(50, Fig. 1, [0038]), and an end cap (Hosogoe: 50, Fig. 1, [0038]) and wherein movement of the elevator directs a treatment device (Hosogoe: [0039]).
Hosogoe fails to expressly teach wherein a distal end of the shaft includes an actuation wire, a tab, wherein the actuation wire extends from the handle to the tab, wherein the tab is movable based on movement of the first actuation device, and wherein the tab includes a matin element, wherein the mating element is electrically connected to the actuation wire; an end cap including :a modular camera assembly, wherein the modular camera assembly includes a camera, a support, an arm, a cavity, and a mating element configured to electrically and physically connect to the mating element of the tab, wherein the tab is coupleable to the modular camera assembly via the cavity, wherein movement of the tab controls a position of the support and the camera.
However, Esashi teaches of a medical system (1, Fig. 1, [0049]) wherein a distal end of the shaft includes an actuation wire (21g, Fig. 3, [0060]), a tab (21e, Fig. 3b, [0060]-[0065]), wherein the actuation wire extends from the handle to the tab (10, Fig. 1, [0078]-[0084]), wherein the tab is movable based on movement of the first actuation device ([0049]-[0084]), and wherein the tab includes a mating element ([0060], [0076]), wherein the mating element is electrically connected to the actuation wire ([0060], [0076]); an end cap (23a, Fig. 1a, [0053]) including: a mating element configured to electrically and physically connect to the mating element of the tab (Fig. 2, [0049]-[0084]), wherein the tab is coupleable to the modular camera assembly via the cavity (Fig. 2, [0049]-[0084]), wherein movement of the tab controls a position of the support and the camera (Fig. 2, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, , [0049]-[0084], [0090]-[0092]).
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 Hosogoe, to utilize a SMA as a tab in the manner taught by Esashi, since Hosogoe already teaches employing an SMA instead of the elevating wire ([0110] of Hosogoe). It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of bending the tube ([0012] of Esashi).
Hosogoe, in view of Esashi, fails to expressly teach a modular camera assembly, wherein the modular camera assembly includes a camera, a support, an arm, a cavity.
However, Carter teaches of a medical system (11, Fig. 1a, [0025]) wherein the modular camera assembly includes a camera (44, Fig. 2, [0028]), a support (68, Fig. 3, [0033]), an arm (flat portion of 43 above 68, Fig. 4), and a cavity (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 Hosogoe, in view of Esashi, to utilize an end cap in the manner taught by Carter. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of receiving a medical instrument ([0031] of Carter).
Regarding claim 27, Hosogoe, in view of Esashi and Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 21.
Hosogoe, in view of Esashi and Carter, fails to expressly teach wherein the end cap is removably coupled to the distal end of the shaft, such that removal of the end cap jointly removes the camera, the support, the arm, the cavity, and the mating element from the distal end of the shaft.
However, Carter further teaches wherein the end cap is removably coupled to the distal end of the shaft, such that removal of the end cap jointly removes the camera, the support, the arm, the cavity, and the mating element from the distal end of the shaft (30, Fig. 1, [0027]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Esashi and Carter, to utilize an end cap in the manner taught by Carter. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of receiving a medical instrument ([0031] of Carter).
Regarding claim 28, Hosogoe, in view of Esashi and Carter, teaches the medical system of claim 24.
Hosogoe, in view of Esashi and Carter, fails to expressly teach wherein the end cap is removably coupled to the distal end of the shaft, such that removal of the end cap jointly removes the camera, the support, the arm, the cavity, and the mating element from the distal end of the shaft.
However, Carter further teaches wherein the end cap is removably coupled to the distal end of the shaft, such that removal of the end cap jointly removes the camera, the support, the arm, the cavity, and the mating element from the distal end of the shaft (30, Fig. 1, [0027]).
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 Hosogoe, in view of Esashi and Carter, to utilize an end cap in the manner taught by Carter. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of receiving a medical instrument ([0031] of Carter).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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