24Notice 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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated January 5, 2026.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konomura (US PGPUB 2010/0160730 – “Konomura”) in view of Julian et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0052664 – “Julian”), Inoue (US PGPUB 2017/0112519 – “Inoue”), and Grant et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0099523 – “Grant”).
Regarding Claim 1, a first embodiment of Konomura discloses:
A driving apparatus (Konomura FIG. 1, driving apparatus within main-unit-side housing 13) for an endoscope handle (Konomura FIG. 1, operation portion 3) comprising:
a starting sliding block (Konomura FIG. 2, second engagement members 27a-27d), the starting sliding block being provided with a first coupling portion (Konomura FIG. 6, step portion 15B), and the first coupling portion being in coupling contact with a follow-up sliding block (Konomura FIG. 2, first engagement members 19a-19d) externally disposed so as to drive, by means of the follow-up sliding block, a bending control wire (Konomura FIG. 2, control wires 20a-20d) of an endoscope (Konomura FIG. 1, endoscope 1) to be tightened and released (Konomura paragraph [0079], “the wire 20a is pulled, the wire 20b is relaxed”);
a controller (Konomura FIG. 1, controller 5).
The first embodiment of Konomura does not explicitly disclose:
a motor module, the motor module being provided with a protruding motor shaft, the starting sliding block connected to the motor shaft and capable of being driven by the motor shaft to move along a straight line, and the controller communicatively connected to the motor module.
A second embodiment of Konomura teaches a motor module (Konomura FIG. 19, potentiometer 81 and motor M2), the motor module being provided with a protruding motor shaft (Konomura FIG. 19, motor shaft 79), and the starting sliding block (Konomura FIG. 19, second engagement members 57a-57d) connected to the motor shaft and capable of being driven by the motor shaft to move along a straight line (Konomura FIG. 16, guide grooves 56a-56d; Konomura paragraph [0125], “second engagement members 57a to 57d that are slidably held respectively in the guide grooves 56a to 56d”); and
the controller (Konomura FIG. 15, controller 51) communicatively connected to the motor module (see Konomura paragraph [0123], which described controller 51’s electronic control of the bending portion and drive portion that includes the motor module).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine second embodiment Konomura’s motors with the first embodiment of Konomura that discloses a driving apparatus for an endoscopic handle. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a driving apparatus for an endoscope handle that utilizes a motor, in order to provide more accurate control over movement of an endoscope through the use of an electronic controller.
The first and second embodiments of Konomura do not explicitly teach:
a force sensor configured to measure a tensile force borne by the bending control wire and generate a stress signal; and
a controller communicatively connected to the force sensor respectively and configured to adjust the output of the motor module according to the stress signal fed back by the force sensor.
Julian teaches:
a force sensor (Julian FIG. 1, actuators 1115 connected to connector 1120 by force transmission elements 1135; Julian paragraph [0105], “sensors incorporated into the connector may be used to measure or indicate the operational condition of the cables”) configured to measure a tensile force borne by the bending control wire and generate a stress signal (Julian paragraph [0105], “sensors incorporated into the connector may be used to measure or indicate the operational condition of the cables”; Julian paragraph [0034], “operational characteristic of the connector is the tension in a force transmission element”); and
a controller (Julian FIG. 1, system controller 1140) communicatively connected to the force sensor respectively and configured to adjust the output of the motor module according to the stress signal fed back by the force sensor (Julian paragraph [0102], “output or signal from a sensor may be integrated into the control system”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Julian’s force sensor and controller with the driving apparatus taught by Konomura. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a driving apparatus that utilizes sensors for electronic feedback control over endoscopic actuators/control lines, in order to provide electronic control of the control lines that is more accurate than manual control. That is, paragraph [0011] of Konomura discloses the need for a sensor to detect slackness in a control wire. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having skill in the art to utilize Julian’s line sensor to meet this need.
Konomura in view of Julian do not explicitly teach a force sensor that measures tensile force according to being subjected to deformation.
Inoue teaches a force sensor (Inoue FIG. 6, strain gauge 15, plate spring 10, handle 9) that measures tensile force according to being subjected to deformation (Inoue paragraph [0058], “simply by attaching a sensor formed of a strain gauge to the surface of the plate spring, it is possible to easily detect, with a compact configuration, the amount of displacement from the deformation of the plate spring”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Inoue’s deformation strain gauge with the apparatus taught by Konomura in view of Julian. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an apparatus having a strain gauge that is compact and easily detects strain displacement (see Inoue paragraph [0058])
Konomura in view of Julian and Inoue does not explicitly wherein the motor module comprises a motor body and a motor bracket, the force sensor and the motor body are directly disposed on the motor bracket.
Grant teaches wherein the motor module comprises a motor body (Grant FIG. 2, motor assembly 214) and a motor bracket (Grant FIG. 2, motor bracket assembly 232), the force sensor (Grant FIG. 2, force sensor 216) and the motor body are directly disposed on the motor bracket (Grant FIG. 2, showing the combination of motor assembly 214 and force sensor 216 directly disposed on motor bracket assembly 232).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Grant’s arrangement of the bracket assembly 232, force sensor 216, and motor assembly 214 with the driving apparatus taught by Konomura in view of Julian and Inoue. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these analogous prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a driving apparatus that generate an amplified signal that describes linear movement caused by the motor detect the movement of device (e.g., plunger assembly 224 shown in Grant FIG. 2; see Grant paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 2, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Konomura further teaches:
a housing (Konomura FIG. 1, main-unit-side housing 13, having a same functionality as main-unit-side housing 52 shown in Konomura FIG. 15), the motor module (Konomura FIG. 19, motor M2 connected to second engagement member 57a, which is shown in Konomura FIG. 16 as being inside of main-unit-side housing 52), wherein a portion of the starting sliding block is located inside the housing (Konomura FIG. 16, second engagement member 57a within main-unit-side housing 52).
Julian further teaches:
a housing (Julian FIG. 1, exterior of connector assembly 1120), the force sensor being both located inside the housing (Julian paragraph [0105], “sensors incorporated into the connector”).
Regarding Claim 4, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Konomura further teaches wherein the motor module comprises a motor body (Konomura FIG. 19, motor M2), the motor body is directly and fixedly disposed on the housing (Konomura FIG. 16, guide plate 56 securing second engagements members 57a-57d and motor M2 to main-unit-side housing 13/52).
Julian further teaches the force sensor is disposed on a connection portion of the motor body and the housing (Examiner interprets connector 1120 being within Konomura’s guide plate 56 when combined with Konomura as described above).
Regarding Claim 9, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The first embodiment of Konomura further discloses:
a driven apparatus (Konomura FIG. 1, insertion-portion-side housing 12) detachably mounted on the driving apparatus, the driven apparatus comprising:
the follow-up sliding block (Konomura FIG. 2, first engagement members 19a-19d), the follow-up sliding block being provided with a second coupling portion (Konomura FIG. 4, step portion 15A), wherein the second coupling portion is in coupling contact with the first coupling portion(Konomura FIG. 6, step portion 15B) when the driven apparatus is mounted on the driving apparatus (Konomura FIG. 11, showing step portions 15A and 15B in coupling contact when insertion-portion-side housing 12 is mounted on main-unit-side housing 13); and
the bending control wire (Konomura FIG. 2, control wires 20a-20d) connected to the follow-up sliding block so as to be tightened and released by the follow-up sliding block (Konomura paragraph [0079], “the wire 20a is pulled, the wire 20b is relaxed”).
Regarding Claim 10, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Konomura further teaches a guide rail (Konomura FIG. 2, guide grooves 16a-16d) disposed in parallel to a motion direction of the starting sliding block, the follow-up sliding block being disposed on the guide rail (Konomura FIG. 2, showing first engagement members 19a-19d being disposed along a respective guide groove from guide grooves 16a-16d).
Regarding Claim 11, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Konomura further teaches wherein the first coupling portion (Konomura FIG. 6, step portion 15B) protrudes towards the driven apparatus, the second coupling portion (Konomura FIG. 6, step portion 15A) protrudes towards the driving apparatus, and a projection of the first coupling portion and a projection of the second coupling portion on a plane perpendicular to the motion direction of the follow-up sliding block at least partially overlap when the driven apparatus is mounted on the driving apparatus (Konomura FIG. 6, showing perpendicular faces of step portion 15A and step portion 15B overlapping).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konomura (US PGPUB 2010/0160730 – “Konomura”) in view of Julian et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0052664 – “Julian”), Inoue (US PGPUB 2017/0112519 – “Inoue”), Grant et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0099523 – “Grant”), and Bagwell et a. (US PGPUB 2016/0331645 – “Bagwell”).
Regarding Claim 3, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant do not explicitly teach wherein the motor body is connected to the housing by means of the motor bracket.
Bagwell teaches wherein the motor body (Bagwell FIG. 2, motor 14) is connected to the housing (Bagwell FIG. 2, control box 1) by means of the motor bracket (Bagwell Fig. 2, motor mounts 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bagwell’s motor mounts, which secure a motor used to provide linear motion to a mechanical wire (see Bagwell paragraph [0174]), with the apparatus taught by Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a motorized apparatus having a fixed/secured motor, in order to precisely control movement of a cable being moved by the motor and avoiding contact between the motor and the container/body (see Bagwell paragraph [0195]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konomura (US PGPUB 2010/0160730 – “Konomura”) in view of Julian et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0052664 – “Julian”), Inoue (US PGPUB 2017/0112519 – “Inoue”), Grant et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0099523 – “Grant”), Nelson et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0035582 – “Nelson”), and Chang (US PGPUB 2020/0305635 – “Chang”).
Regarding Claim 5, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant do not explicitly teach a position sensor disposed on the motor and configured to acquire number information of revolutions of the motor, the position sensor being communicatively connected to the controller.
Nelson teaches a position sensor (Nelson FIG. 7, micro-control unit 402) disposed on the motor (Nelson FIG. 7, motor 400) configured to acquire number information of revolutions of the motor (Nelson paragraph [0046], “micro-control unit 402 can include a motor position sensor (not shown) that can be used to calculate the position of the material capture device 220 within compliant overtube 200 based on the rotation count of the motor 400”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nelson’s motor rotation counter with the driving apparatus taught by Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant, and to communicatively connect Nelson’s micro-control unit 402 with the controller 5 shown in Konomura Fig. 1. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a driving apparatus that precisely identifies a position of a component based on the number of rotations of a driving motor, and that has redundant multi-level control as provided by Nelson’s micro-control unit 402 and Konomura’s controller 5.
Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, Grant, and Nelson do not explicitly teach a stop switch communicatively connected to the controller and disposed on a motion path of the starting sliding block, the stop switch sending a stop signal to the controller when contacting the starting sliding block.
Chang teaches a stop switch (Chang FIG. 10, micro switch 67) communicatively connected to the controller (Chang FIG. 10, motor 65 and gear 66) and disposed on a motion path of the starting sliding block (Chang FIG. 10, limiting plate 68), the stop switch sending a stop signal to the controller when contacting the starting sliding block (Chang paragraph [0030], “limiting plate 68 touches the upper micro switch 67 to stop the rotation of the motor 65”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chang’s limiting micro-switch with the driving apparatus taught by Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, Grant, and Nelson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated 9to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of driving apparatus that has a safety switch to prevent damage to the driving apparatus caused by over-driving a sliding block.
Claims 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konomura (US PGPUB 2010/0160730 – “Konomura”) in view of Julian et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0052664 – “Julian”), Inoue (US PGPUB 2017/0112519 – “Inoue”), Grant et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0099523 – “Grant”), and Altshuler et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0121051 – “Altshuler”).
Regarding Claim 6, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant do not explicitly teach wherein the motor module comprises at least three motors, a number of the starting sliding block is as many as and in one-to-one correspondence with the motors.
Altshuler teaches wherein the motor module comprises at least three motors (Altshuler FIG. 1B, motors 70 in actuation unit 7), a number of the starting sliding block (Altshuler FIG. 5A, driving stages 108) is as many as and in one-to-one correspondence with the motors (Altshuler paragraph [0057], “a plurality of driving stages 108 connectable to an actuation unit 7 via connecting units 107”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Altshuler’s driving stages with the driving apparatus taught by Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a driving apparatus having each driving wire controlled by a separate motor/actuator (see Altshuler paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 7, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, Grant, and Altshuler teach the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Altshuler further teaches wherein the motor module comprises four motors in one-to-one correspondence with four bending control wires (Altshuler FIG. 3B, driving stages 108 connected to driving wires 115 via driving rods 104; Altshuler paragraph [0057], “a plurality of driving rods 104 coupled in a one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of driving wires 115”), the four bending control wires being tightened and released to respectively control bending motions of the endoscope in four directions of a "cross" (Examiner interprets a particular selection of four driving wires 115 shown in Altshuler FIG. 3B as defining a cross).
Regarding Claim 12, Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant teach the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant do not explicitly teach wherein in the presence of a plurality of follow-up sliding blocks, projections of connection lines of portions, connected to the bending control wires, of the respective adjacent follow-up sliding blocks on a plane perpendicular to the bending control wires constitute a regular polygon.
Altshuler teaches wherein in the presence of a plurality of follow-up sliding blocks (Altshuler FIG. 4A, driving rods 104), projections of connection lines of portions, connected to the bending control wires, of the respective adjacent follow-up sliding blocks on a plane perpendicular to the bending control wires constitute a regular polygon. (Altshuler paragraph [0076], “driving stages 108 move the driving rods 104 independently from each other. The driving rods 104, in turn, transfer the actuation force to move the driving wires 115 and to bend a corresponding bending section in the bendable body 3.”; Examiner interprets Altshuler as showing multiple uniformly spaced driving rods 104. Therefore, the connections of driving rods 104 to driving wires 105 constitute a regular (equal sided) polygon.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Altshuler’s equal sided arrangement of control wires with the endoscope handle taught by Konomura in view of Julian, Inoue, and Grant. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope having uniform levels of deflection of an insertion portion when different control wires are engaged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed on January 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grant et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0099523 – “Grant”). Specifically, Julian is no longer relied upon in the rejection of Claim 1 as teaching that the force sensor and the motor body are directly disposed on the motor bracket. Rather, as described above, Grant teaches wherein the motor module comprises a motor body (Grant FIG. 2, motor assembly 214) and a motor bracket (Grant FIG. 2, motor bracket assembly 232), the force sensor (Grant FIG. 2, force sensor 216) and the motor body are directly disposed on the motor bracket (Grant FIG. 2, showing the combination of motor assembly 214 and force sensor 216 directly disposed on motor bracket assembly 232).
Examiner notes that the claim language in Claim 1 does not state that the force sensor and the motor body each, separately and divisibly, are directly disposed on the motor bracket. The present specification and figures do not exclusively dictate such a configuration. That is, in FIG. 3, the motor module 11 and the force sensor 15 are separately and divisibly connected to the motor bracket 112. However, in FIG. 4, the force sensor 15 is connected to the motor module 11, which is separately connected to the motor bracket 112. Furthermore, in FIG. 5, there is no separate motor bracket. Rather, the motor module 11 includes only a motor body. As such, the present patent application does not state that the force sensor and the motor body each, separately and divisibly, are required to be directly disposed on the motor bracket, nor that it would be critical to arrange such components separately or that there would be any unexpected surprise in such as arrangement. As such, the present specification reveals that these various arrangements are mere design choices.
Furthermore, if it was Applicant’s intent to claim (but not actually claimed) a force sensor and a motor body each, separately and divisibly, being directly disposed on the motor bracket, Applicant is reminded that mere rearrangement of parts does not lead to patentability. MPEP2144.04(VI)(C). Although Grant FIG. 2, shows motor bracket assembly 232 attached to force sensor 216, which is attached to motor assembly 214, rearranging these components such that motor bracket assembly 232 is attached separately to force sensor 216 and motor assembly 214, such rearrangement would be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), which held that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. Furthermore, the present patent application teaches that such a rearrangement of these components are a matter of design choice, as described above and shown in FIGs. 3-5.
Finally, for purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner points to previously uncited Fernandez-Sein (US PGPUB 2006/0144982 – “Fernandez-Sein”). Fernandez-Sein FIG. 2, shows a force sensor (Fernandez-Sein FIG. 2, force plate 14) and a motor body (Fernandez-Sein FIG. 2, motors 19) each, separately and divisibly, being directly disposed on the motor bracket (Fernandez-Sein FIG. 2, L-shaped bracket 13). (See also Fernandez-Sain FIG. 6.)
On page 6 of Applicant’s January 5, 2026 response/amendment, Applicant states further that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest that the force applied to the bending control wire is transmitted in sequence through the follow-up sliding block, the starting sliding block, and the motor bracket. The only reason given by the January 5, 2026 response/amendment for this allegation is that Konomura fails to teach/suggest a motor bracket. As shown above, the feature of a motor bracket is now cited in Grant, rather than Konomura (due to the present amendments to claims presented in Applicant’s January 5, 2026 response/amendment).
As such, the rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
3/11/26