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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, readable on claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A shaft for an Albarran, at the distal end of which an Albarran lever can be arranged and at the proximal end of which a main body with a drive body can be arranged, the Albarran lever being movable via at least one pull wire by a toggle on the drive body and the at least one pull wire being mounted in at least one pull wire guide and an optical unit being mounted inside the tubular shaft, wherein the shaft and the at least one pull wire guide are formed in one piece” in Lines 1-7. However, the claim lacks a traditional transitional phrase, such as “comprising”, “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of” and therefore the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear. The examiner suggests Applicant amend the claim to recite –A shaft for an Albarran, the shaft comprising:-- Appropriate correction is unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at the distal end of which an Albarran lever can be arranged and at the proximal end of which a main body with a drive body can be arranged” in Lines 1-3, wherein due to the wording of the claim it’s unclear if the following limitations are meant to be aspects of the shaft or aspects of the Albarran. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the distal end" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the proximal end" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tubular shaft" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “at the distal end of which an Albarran lever can be arranged” in Lines 1-2, wherein the recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite since it’s not clear if the Albarran lever is a required feature, an intended use feature or merely an optional feature of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a main body with a drive body can be arranged” in Lines 2-3, wherein the recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite since it’s not clear if a main body with a drive body is a required feature, an intended use feature or merely an optional feature of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "in this case" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the tube segment is configured concentrically” in Line 2, wherein the claim fails to define what the tube segment is concentric with respect to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same radius of curvature" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the tube segment can be welded to the profiled tube” in Line 2, wherein due to the wording of the claim it’s unclear if the following limitations are meant to be aspects of the shaft or aspects of the Albarran. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the at least one tube segment” in Line 2-3, wherein it’s unclear if this is the same or different tube segment than was previously defined in Claim 6 since the tube segment was previously defined as “a tube segment” and not as “at least one tube segment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the at least one tube segment comprises an at least substantially concentric tongue” in Lines 2-3, wherein the tongue is being defined as a concentric tongue however there’s no frame of reference as to what the tongue is concentric about or with respect to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the diameter of which" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the diameter of the profiled tube" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0120395).
In regard to claim 1, Qi discloses a shaft (2) for an Albarran (endoscope sheath of Fig. 1), at the distal end of which an Albarran lever (12) can be arranged and at the proximal end of which a main body (5) with a drive body (4) can be arranged, the Albarran lever being movable via at least one pull wire by a toggle (42) on the drive body and the at least one pull wire (43) being mounted in at least one pull wire guide (25) and an optical unit being mounted inside the tubular shaft (via endoscope being mounted in the endoscope cavity (21)), wherein the shaft and the at least one pull wire guide are formed in one piece (Fig. 7 illustrates a cross-section of the shaft which shows the pull wire guide (25) integrally formed as part of the shaft).
In regard to claim 2, Qi teaches wherein the shaft is configured as a profiled tube (2, the tube is profiled to have a plurality of channels (21, 23, 25)), the at least one pull wire guide being a protrusion (via inwardly projecting protrusions defining channels (25), Fig. 7) parallel to a longitudinal axis of the profiled tube, and the protrusion in this case constituting a cross-sectional widening of the profiled tube (the inwardly projecting protrusions define a width of the cross-sectional shape of the profiled tube).
In regard to claim 3, Qi teaches wherein the profiled tube comprises two pull wire guides (25, 25) configured as protrusions, which are oriented parallel to one another and to the longitudinal axis of the profiled tube, for receiving two pull wires (Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 4, Qi teaches wherein a size, or a radius of curvature, or a shape of the at least one protrusion corresponds to a size, or a radius of curvature, or a shape of the at least one pull wire (the size of the protrusions corresponds to a size of the pull wire as illustrated in Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 5, Qi teaches wherein the at least one protrusion encloses the pull wire partially (Fig. 7 shows the protrusion defines channel (25) which encloses the pull wire).
In regard to claim 6, Qi teaches wherein a tube segment (1) is respectively arranged at a distal end and/or at a proximal end of the profiled tube ((2), Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 7, Qi teaches wherein the tube segment is configured concentrically and has the same radius of curvature as the profiled tube (Figs. 1, 2, 9).
In regard to claim 8, Qi teaches wherein the tube segment can be welded to the profiled tube (the tube segment (1) is capable of being welded to the profiled tube (2), Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 9, Qi teaches wherein the proximal and/or the distal end of the profiled tube or of the at least one tube segment comprises an at least substantially concentric tongue (11), the diameter of which is less than the diameter of the profiled tube and of the tube segment (the arc-shaped window (11) has a diameter less than both profiled tube and tube segment, Figs. 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN N HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-5pm (PST).
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.
/RYAN N HENDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 December 13, 2025