DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Medicine
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 4/14/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 13 is/are canceled without prejudice, claim(s) 1 & 16 is/are currently amended; all other claims are original or previously presented.
Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
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, 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, 10-12, 14-17, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi et al. (US 20220221707).
Regarding claim 1. (Each claim status is listed above in the Status of Claims section) Trivedi discloses a rigidizable insertion tool [Fig 2 & 14A-14B; 100] comprising:
a first segment having a pin extension [Fig 14A-14B; 102 on the left is the first segment and has a pin extension in the form of the extending part with two 122 on either side]; and
a second segment [Fig 14A-14B; an adjacent 102 is the second segment, hereinafter 102(2)] having a pin slot that is elongated along a length of the second segment [Fig 14 A-14B; ¶84; 110(2) has a pin slot with a large recessed area with two elongated slots (124) that are elongated along L2 that is a length of the segment];
wherein the first segment and the second segment are connected via a joint comprising the pin extension and the pin slot [Fig 13A-14B; ¶83; the pin extension & pin slot form a joint (120) connecting 102 & 102(2)], the pin extension being movable between a proximal end and a distal end of the pin slot with movements of the first segment relative to the second segment [Fig 14A-14B; ¶83-¶84; 122 is moveable within 124 between a distal and proximal end of 124];
wherein in a non-rigidized state of the joint, the first segment is configured to pitch relative to the second segment via a rotation of the pin extension within the pin slot [Fig 14B; ¶83-¶84; the figures show the joint between 110 & 110(2) in a non-rigidized state allowing for rotation of the pin extension in the pin slot]; and
wherein when a force is applied to push the first segment and the second segment together [Fig 14A; ¶83-¶84; a force pushes 102 & 102(2) together into a rigid/semi-rigid configuration], the pin extension is moved toward the proximal end of the pin slot [Fig 14A-14B; ¶83-¶84; 122 is moved toward a proximal end of 124 which elongated (see ¶84), and features of the first segment and the second segment are engaged to limit relative movement between the first segment and the second segment [Fig 14A; ¶83-¶84; in the configuration in the figure 102 & 102(2) are engaged to limit relative movement between the two of them]; but may not explicitly disclose and wherein at least 70% of a width of the pin slot is at least 0.3mm greater than an effective diameter of the pin extension. [It is noted that “width of the pin slot is interpreted as the length from the proximal end to the distal end].
However Trivedi teaches in Fig 14A-14B and ¶84 that the aspect ratio between the effective diameter of L1 of the pin extension (122), which can be round, is different than the length of the slot (124), which is elongated, therefore width of the pin slot can be long enough that least 70% of the width of pin slot can be greater than 0.3mm with the ends of the pin slot tapering or rounding down to below 0.3mm as comparted to the pin extension’s effective diameter.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the pin slot as disclosed by Trivedi has at least 70% of a width of the pin slot is at least 0.3mm greater than an effective diameter of the pin extension since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the tool of Trivedi would not operate differently with the claimed pin slot width since the pin slot being longer does not change the interactions between pin slot and the pin extension when placed into a rigidized state where the pin extension comes into contact with the proximal end of the slot and allows for more translational & rotational freedom of the two segments when not in the rigidized state. Therefore the tool would function appropriately having the claimed pin slot width.
Regarding claim 2. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the pin extension is attached to a first protrusion of the first segment and the pin slot is formed within a first recess of the second segment [Fig 14A-14B; ¶79; the joint (120) has similar structure to the joint in Fig 6-7, particularly the mirrored structure on either side of the segment (i.e. 132A & 132B in Fig 6); Fig 14A-14B show a protrusion on 102 that extends into a recess on 102(2) the protrusion has the pin extension and the recess has the pin slot formed on the side of the recess out to the outer surface of the segment; this structure is also mirrored on the opposite side of the segment as discussed previously].
Regarding claim 3. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 2, wherein the pin extension has two ends [Fig 14A-14B; ¶79; it is noted that the pin extension can have the end extending out of the pin slot and the second end is the part connected to the first protrusion; however like the mirrored structure discussed in claim 2, there are two pin extensions on either side of the first protrusion] and the pin slot comprises a first opening on a first wall of the first recess and a second opening on a second wall of the first recess for receiving the two ends of the pin extension [Fig 14A-14B; ¶79; 102(2) has two openings on the first and second wall of the recess]; wherein a width of the pin extension from end to end is greater than a distance between the distal end of the first opening and the proximal end of the second opening [Fig 14A-14B; 122 extends out of 124].
Regarding claim 4. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the pin extension is formed within a recess of the first segment and the pin slot is formed on a protrusion of the second segment [Fig 14A-14B; ¶79; 122 is extends into a recess of the first segment and the pin slot is formed on a protrusion of the second segment; the protrusion of the second segment corresponds and fits in the recess of the first segment].
Regarding claim 5. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the features comprise a first protrusion and a first recess that are configured to engage when the force is applied to push the first segment and the second segment together [Fig 14A-14B; ¶79; the pin extension (122) is extends into a recess of the first segment and the pin slot (124) is formed on a protrusion of the second segment; the protrusion of the second segment corresponds and fits in the recess of the first segment; the recess and protrusion engage when a force is applied to push the first and second segments together], and wherein when the first protrusion and the first recess are engaged, linear movement, pitch, yaw, and/or roll of the first segment relative to the second segment are limited by contacting walls of the first protrusion and the first recess [Fig 14A; ¶79 & ¶83-¶84; in the rigid position linear movement, pitch, yaw, and/or roll of the first segment relative to the second segment are limited by contacting walls of the first protrusion and the first recess].
Regarding claim 6. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 5, wherein the first segment and the second segment further comprise a second protrusion and a second recess configured to engage the second protrusion when the force is applied [14A-14B; ¶79; there is a second recess and second protrusion on the opposite side of the first and second segments as seen in Fig 14A-14B similar to those shown in Fig 6-7].
Regarding claim 7. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 6, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the second protrusion is tapered at a distal end and the second recess is tapered toward a proximal end such that the first segment is configured to yaw relative to the second segment with at least a portion of the second protrusion inside the second recess.
However Trivedi further teaches second protrusions and recesses [Fig 10-12; ¶78; 1010 are ends of the first and second segments that have complimentary posts (i.e. protrusions) and recesses] wherein the second protrusion is tapered at a distal end and the second recess is tapered toward a proximal end [¶78; 1010 have curved tapers that match each other] such that the first segment is configured to yaw relative to the second segment with at least a portion of the second protrusion inside the second recess [Fig 10-12; if a portion of second protrusion, not the entire protrusion, is inside of the second recess, the first and second segments can yaw relative to each other].
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 first and second segments as disclosed by Trivedi to have the second protrusion is tapered at a distal end and the second recess is tapered toward a proximal end such that the first segment is configured to yaw relative to the second segment with at least a portion of the second protrusion inside the second recess as taught by Trivedi for the purpose of allowing yaw movement when only a portions of the second protrusion is in the second recess but increasing rigidity when the second protrusion is fully in the second recess [Trivedi: Fig 10-12; ¶78].
Regarding claim 8. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the pin extension is tapered at one or both ends.
However Trivedi further teaches a pin like ridge [1012] in Fig 10-12 that is tapered at least one end to conform to the outer shape of the first and second segments.
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 pin extension as disclosed by Trivedi to have the pin extension be tapered at one or both ends as taught by Trivedi for the purpose of having the ends of the pin extension conform to the outer shape of the first and second segments which would reduce the pin extension getting caught or snagged on structure as the segments are passing by.
Regarding claim 9. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the pin extension is cylindrical with a circular or elliptical cross-section [Fig 14A-14B; ¶83-¶84; 122 is cylindrical with a circular or elliptical cross-section].
Regarding claim 10. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the first segment is configured to pitch relative to the second segment with an angular displacement of up to 150 degrees.
However it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the first segment as disclosed by Trivedi to pitch relative to the second segment with an angular displacement of up to 150 degrees since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the tool of Trivedi would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the angle is intended to be the rotational range the first segment can rotate relative to the second segment the tool would function appropriately having the claimed angular range. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Regarding claim 11. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the proximal end and the distal end of the pin slot is at least five times greater than an effective diameter of the pin extension.
However it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the pin slot as disclosed by Trivedi has a distance between the proximal end and the distal end of the pin slot is at least five times greater than an effective diameter of the pin extension since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. In the instant case, the tool of Trivedi would not operate differently with the claimed pin slot length range and since the pin slot length is intended to allow for more translational freedom tool would function appropriately having the claimed pin slot length range. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Regarding claim 12. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein, in the non-rigidized state, the pin extension is configured to pivot relative to a width of the pin slot within the pin slot, such that the first segment is configured to yaw relative to the second segment [Fig 14A-14B; ¶83-¶84; the pin slot is elongated (see ¶84) and the pin can rotate within the slot with one pin moving toward the distal end and the second pin toward the proximal end (i.e. the first segment is configured to yaw relative to the second segment)].
Regarding claim 14. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein, in the non-rigidized state, the pin extension is configured to rotate around an axis perpendicular to a width of the pin extension within the pin slot, such that the first segment is configured to roll about the axis relative to the second segment [Fig 14A-14B; ¶83-¶84; the pin slot is elongated (see ¶84) and the pin can rotate within the slot with one pin moving toward the distal end and the second pin toward the proximal end (i.e. the first segment is configured to roll about the axis relative to the second segment)].
Regarding claim 15. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the first segment is configured to roll relative to the second segment with an angular displacement of up to 15 degrees [Claim 15 is rejected for the similar reasons as claim 10 but for rolling not pitching].
Regarding claim 16. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the pin slot is tapered toward the distal end and limits a rotation of the pin extension when the pin extension is at the distal end of the pin slot [Fig 14A; 124 has a taper toward the distal end at the distal end that prevents 122 as shown from rotating when 122 is at the distal end].
Regarding claim 17. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of additional segments each having a pin extension and/or a pin slot [Fig 4 & 14A-14B; ¶47 & ¶83-¶84; the segments of Fig 4 and ¶47 and shown in detail by Fig 14A-14B and ¶83-¶84].
Regarding claim 19. Trivedi as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, further comprising a line assembly configured to apply the force, wherein the first segment and/or the second segment comprises a line guide through which the line assembly is inserted [Fig 6-7 & 14A-14B; ¶64, ¶68, ¶79; the segments of Fig 14A-14B have the same internal structure (152) of Fig 6-7 (see ¶79) which are for support members (see ¶68) which include a string (i.e. line) to apply the rigidizing force (see ¶64)].
Regarding claim 20. Trivedi discloses a method of forming the rigidizable insertion tool of claim 1, comprising: forming the first segment and the second segment with additive manufacturing according to a computer model that arranges the first segment and the second segment with a gap between the pin extension and the distal end, and between the pin extension and the proximal end of the pin slot, wherein the pin extension is formed within the pin slot during the additive manufacturing [¶81; the first and second segments of Fig 14A-14B are formed by an additive manufacturing that forms the first and second segment with a gap between the pin extension and the distal end, and between the pin extension and the proximal end of the pin slot, wherein the pin extension is formed within the pin slot during the additive manufacturing].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi et al. (US 20220221707) in view of Graham (US 20200114528), hereinafter Graham.
Regarding claim 18. Trivedi discloses the tool of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose further comprising: a spring coupled between the first segment and the second segment for asserting a counterforce for pushing the pin extension away from the proximal end of the pin slot in the non-rigidized state.
However Graham teaches a similar tool with first and second segments [Fig 9; 106A & 106B]; further comprising: a spring [160] coupled between the first segment and the second segment [Fig 9] for asserting a counterforce for pushing the pin extension away from the proximal end of the pin slot in the non-rigidized state [¶139-¶140; the spring (160) exerts a counterforce to push the segments apart which when applied to Trivedi would push the pin extension away from the proximal end of the pin slot thereby maintaining a non-rigidized state].
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that the dimensions would cause the device of Trivedi to perform differently.However if there is a clearance between the pin extension and pin slot of Trivedi then the pin can rotate, pitch, & yaw to at least a small degree as well as translate within the slot. Therefore the rejection with Trivedi is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 EST].
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights