The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 12, 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (U.S. Publication 2006/0069311, hereinafter “Sullivan”) and in further views of Sinay et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0129050, hereinafter “Sinay”) and Gemer et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0290314, hereinafter “Gemer”).
As to Claim 11, Sullivan discloses a compact robotic endoscope set (10) in [0018] and Fig. 1 of a reusable portion (“reusable” in [0021]) and two different single-use portions (“disposable” in [0021]) a first of which has a cannula rotation and a second has a motor-driven angulation of a distal end of a cannula (34) in [0019] and Fig. 1, wherein:
the reusable portion (24) in [0018] and Fig. 1 is configured for being hand-held and has an elongated slot (internal space) that has an open side as shown in Fig. 1 extending along a cannula axis, a gear shaft (240) in [0032] and Fig. 5 extending into said slot and configured to be selectively rotated by the motor about a shaft axis, and an electrical contact in said slot;
the first single-use portion is configured to be coupled with said reusable portion by being snapped into said slot solely in a direction transverse to the cannula axis to thereby form a first assembled endoscope, and comprises a distal end with an imaging module “imaging electronics” in [0022];
the second single-use portion also is configured to be coupled with said reusable portion by being snapped into said slot solely in a direction transverse to the cannula axis to thereby form a second assembled endoscope, and comprises a distal end with an imaging module “imaging electronics” in [0022];
thereby enabling the same reusable portion to form the first endoscope in which the distal end of the first single-use portion robotically rotates as described in [0032] or the second endoscope in which the distal end of the single-use portion robotically angulates.
However Sullivan does not specifically disclose portions snapped into said slot. Sinay teaches in the analogous field of endoscopy wherein a disposable endoscope having various physical elements including a socket and gear set are provided with a “snap-like configuration” in [0049] and Fig. 3B and 4C-4E. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the endoscope of Sullivan having the gear shaft with snap-like configuration as taught by Sinay in order to fulfill the same function with predictable results of assembling the endoscope.
However Sullivan does not specifically disclose portions snapped into said slot. Sinay teaches in the analogous field of endoscopy wherein a disposable endoscope having various physical elements including a socket and gear set are provided with a “snap-like configuration” in [0049] and Fig. 3B and 4C-4E. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the endoscope of Sullivan having the gear shaft with snap-like configuration as taught by Sinay in order to fulfill the same function with predictable results of assembling the endoscope.
However Sullivan does not specifically disclose a motor and motor-driven cannula rotation. Gemer teaches in the analogous field of endoscopy wherein an endoscope having a rotation shaft is provided with a motor “motor” in [0073]-[0074] for rotation via a wire in [0104]-[0106] of a cannula in [0108]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the endoscope of Sullivan having the gear shaft with a motor as taught by Gemer in order to fulfill the same function with predictable results of facilitating desired manual control of articulation with electronic means.
As to Claim 12, Sullivan discloses the compact robotic endoscope set of a reusable portion and two different single-use portions of claim 11, in which the proximal end of the first single-use portion further comprises a manual control (204, 208) in [0031] and Fig. 1 coupled with said distal end of the first single-use portion to impart angulation “articulation” in [0031] thereof relative to the proximal end of the first single-use portion in a selected direction and to a selected degree relative to the cannula axis.
As to Claim 13, Sullivan discloses the compact robotic endoscope set of a reusable portion and two different single-use portions of claim 11, in which the proximal end of the second single-use portion further comprises a manual control (204, 208) in [0032] coupled with said distal end of the second single-use portion to impart rotation as described in [0032] thereof relative to the proximal end of the second single-use portion in a selected direction and to a selected degree about the cannula axis.
As to Claim 14, Sullivan discloses the compact robotic endoscope set of a reusable portion and two different single-use portions of claim 11, in which the reusable portion furthest comprises a display (176) in [0026] and Fig. 1 mounted thereof and having a proximal face configured to display images acquired with said imaging module and a distal face with a light source “LED’s” in [0022] and “light source” in [0029] and one or more forward-facing cameras (FFC) “imaging sensor” in [0022] configured to image an object distal therefrom and provided with autofocus on said object as the endoscope moves relative to the object.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest, a reusable portion with slot and single-use portion comprising a cannula of a compact robotic endoscope such that the single-use portion is provided with an imaging module, proximal port, driven element, single-use electrical contact in combination with the reusable portion being provided with an internal power source, internal motor, gear shaft, reusable electric contact, motor control buttons, image control buttons as cited in claim 1. Claims 2-10 are dependent from claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM B CHOU whose telephone number is (571) 270-3367. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 am - 6 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, Michael Carey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM CHOU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights