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 .
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.
Claim 28 is 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 28 recites the limitation "the bending angle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 16, 17, 19, 20, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donella et al. (US 2017/0225340).
Regarding claim 16, Donella et al. disclose a shaft (3/9; Figure 1) of or for a medical hand instrument (the shaft could at least be grasped and manipulated in some way by hand), the shaft comprising: a distal shaft section (9) with a first end face (at “49” - Figure 4) having a first angle of incidence (defined by plane 150) relative to a longitudinal axis of the shaft; and a proximal shaft section (3) with a second end face having a second angle of incidence relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (end face defining plane 150 - Figure 21), the first and second end faces facing one another (Figure 21), at least one of the first angle of incidence and the second angle of incidence being non- perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (5) of the shaft (Figure 21), the proximal and distal shaft sections being rotatable relative to each other around the longitudinal axis (Figures 1 and 2; ¶[0038]), the shaft having different shaft shapes depending on relative rotational positions of the proximal and distal shaft sections (Figures 1 and 2), the proximal shaft section comprising a pinion (61 or 63), the distal shaft section comprising an adjusting bush, and the pinion being connected to the adjusting bush by a flexible transmission element in a rotationally transmitting manner (as claimed, 13 can be the adjusting bush with 65/69 being the transmission element or 69 can be the adjusting bush with 65 being the transmission element; ¶[0075]).
Regarding claim 17, the first angle of incidence and the second angle of incidence are equal (evident from Figure 21), and wherein the shaft has either a straight shape or a bent shape depending on the relative rotational positions of the proximal and distal shaft sections (evident from Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 19, the adjusting bush has a driving pin (square section at 69 in Figure 12) which is positively connected to a distal shaft tip (13 or 13/75 in this interpretation) and transmits a rotation of the adjusting bush to the distal shaft tip (¶[0079]).
Regarding claim 20, the proximal shaft section comprises an eccentric locking bush (137/143 - Figure 22).
Regarding claim 27, a bending angle between the proximal shaft section and the distal shaft section is twice as large as the first angle of incidence and twice as large as the second angle of incidence (evident from ¶[0043], [0063] and [0107]; alternatively, the bending angle is not defined - some bending angle using some object(s) can be created between the shaft sections as claimed).
Regarding claim 29, the adjusting bush (69 in this interpretation) is made of a sliding bearing material (the adjusting bush is made of some material capable of sliding contact with 13 - ¶[0079]) .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 24-26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donella et al. (US 2017/0225340) in view of Rogers et al. (US 2010/0168510).
Regarding claims 24-26, Donella et al. fail to disclose the material that the transmission element is made from.
Rogers et al. disclose that a tubular member for a similar surgical device can be made from silicone and/or have a metal braid in order to provide sufficient flexibility for maneuvering within a surgical site (¶[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the transmission element from the above materials of Rogers et al. in order to provide it with sufficient flexibility for maneuvering within a surgical site. The transmission element, containing a metal braid, and covering sliding cable 97, can be regarded as a metal gaiter. The transmission element being tubular and made from silicone can be regarded as a silicone hose.
Regarding claims 29 and 30 (in an alternative interpretation of claim 29), Donella et al. fail to disclose that the adjusting bush (69) has a PTFE coating.
Rogers et al. teach providing an internal PTFE coating on a tube of a similar surgical instrument in order to reduce friction (¶[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the adjusting bush of Donella et al. (which is tubular) with the internal PTFE coating of Rogers et al. in order to reduce sliding friction between it and cable 97.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am – 6:00 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston at (571) 272-7134. 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/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.
/THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights