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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated January 22, 2026.
Claims 1-9 and 16-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 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.
More specifically, independent Claim 1 includes on lines 4-5 the limitation of “wherein the first pulley is rotatable no more than a first rotational distance relative to a rotational stop idler”, and dependent Claim 4 further includes the feature in lines 5-6 the limitation of “wherein the second pulley is rotatable no more than a third rotational distance relative to a second rotational stop idler”. Neither “rotational stop idler” is positively claimed. As such, the claims are indefinite, since it is unclear if the rotational stop idler is a component of the claimed medical device, and/or would be required in order for infringement to occur.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 16-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on independent Claim 1.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “a rotational stop idler” to be a component of the medical device, as depicted by rotational stop idlers 762 in FIG. 8 of the present patent application.
Independent Claim 21 is also 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.
Specifically, Claim 21 claims in lines 6-7 the feature of “wherein rotation of the first pulley is limited relative to the housing to an angular distance that is greater than 360 degrees by a feature other than the articulating wire.” It is indefinite what “a feature other than the articulating wire” means, since it could be a user, a device that is not part of the claimed medical device, etc.
Dependent Claims 22-24 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on independent Claim 21.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “wherein rotation of the first pulley is limited relative to the housing to an angular distance that is greater than 360 degrees by a feature other than the articulating wire” as a non-limiting feature having no patentable weight.
Examiner notes that these rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are necessitated in order to fully respond to Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of Claims 1-9 and 16-24 of the January 23, 2026 response from Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. More specifically, Claims 1-3 and 19-20 claim further limitations to “a rotational stop idler”, while Claims 5, 6-7, and 16-17 claim further limitations to “a second rotational stop idler”. Since neither “a rotational stop idler” nor “a second rotational stop idler” are ever positively claimed, then any attempt to further limit these features fails. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner notes that these rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are necessitated in order to fully respond to Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of Claims 1-9 and 16-24 of the January 23, 2026 response from Applicant.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 4-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshinaga et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0113064 – “Yoshinaga”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshinaga discloses:
A medical device (Yoshinaga FIG. 10, endoscope 1 introduced in Yoshinaga FIG. 1), comprising:
a first pulley (Yoshinaga FIG. 10, pulley 15A) associated with a first articulation wire (Yoshinaga FIG. 10, wire 10Aa) of the medical device for deflection of a distal end of the medical device in a first plane upon rotation of the first pulley (Yoshinaga FIG. 10, up/down (UD) angle operation knob 2aA; Yoshinaga paragraph [0083], “The first bending operation mechanism portion includes a first group first wire 10Aa…a UD angle operation knob 2aA…a first group first pulley 15A serving as a first rotation member”);
wherein the first pulley is rotatable no more than a first rotational distance relative to a rotational stop idler (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, shaft member 13A having a first protrusion 13Ae, wherein rotary shaft member 13A controls UD movement of insertion portion of endoscope 1, wherein first protrusion 13Ae engages with first engagement portion 15Af; see Yoshinaga paragraph [0105]); and
wherein the rotational stop idler is rotatable no more than a second rotational distance relative to a housing (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, frame 2b and frame portion 2b1) of the medical device (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, protrusion 15Ad on pulley 15A and stopper portion 2d on housing portion 2b, such that drive unit 13A rotates relative to housing frame portion 2b1 as first protrusion 13Ae rotates within first engagement portion 15Af plus a rotational distance of protrusion 15Ad relative to stopper portion 2d); and
wherein the first pulley is rotatable relative to the housing no more than the sum of the first rotational distance and the second rotational distance (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, showing pulley 15A rotating relative to housing 2b and 2b1 for a rotational distance that is a sum of the first rotational distance of first protrusion 13Ae and second protrusion 15Ad).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshinaga further discloses wherein the rotational stop idler (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, shaft member 13A) has a first side contacting the first pulley (Yoshinaga FIG. 12, showing lower surface of flange 13Ab of shaft member 13A contacting pulley 15A) and a second side contacting the housing (Yoshinaga FIG. 12, showing upper surface of flange 13Ab of shaft member 13A contacting housing frame portion 2b1).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshinaga further discloses:
a second pulley (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, pulley 16A) associated with a second articulation wire (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, wire 10Ab) of the medical device for deflection of the distal end of the medical device in a second plane upon rotation of the second pulley (Yoshinaga paragraph [0091], “second pulley 16A…in which the up-down (UD) operation and the right-left (RL) operation are performed by two pulley”);
wherein the second pulley is rotatable no more than a third rotational distance relative to a second rotational stop idler (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, third protrusion 13Af protruding from rotary shaft member 13A, wherein the third protrusion 13Af engages with inner circular portion 16Ae; see Yoshinaga paragraph [0099]);
wherein the second rotational stop idler is rotatable no more than a fourth rotational distance relative to the housing of the medical device (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, fourth protrusion 13Af rotating through inner circular portion 16Ae; and
wherein the second pulley is rotatable relative to the housing no more than the sum of the third rotational distance and the fourth rotational distance (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, showing pulley 16A rotating relative to housing 2b and 2b1 for a rotational distance that is a sum of the third rotational distance of the third protrusion 13Af and the fourth protrusion 16Ad).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Yoshinaga further discloses wherein the second plane is orthogonal to the first plane (Yoshinaga paragraph [0091], “the first group first pulley 15A, the first group second pulley 16A, the second group first pulley 15B, and the second group second pulley 16B are arranged along the rotation axis AX, and the number of pulleys is larger than that of the existing configuration in which the up-down (UD) operation and the right-left (RL) operation are performed by two pulleys”).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Yoshinaga further discloses wherein the second rotational stop idler (Yoshinaga FIG. 13, third protrusion 13Af protruding from rotary shaft member 13A) has a first side contacting the second pulley (Yoshinaga FIG. 12, flange portion 13Bb of shaft member 13B contacting lower side of pulley 16A) and a second side contacting the housing (Yoshinaga FIG. 12, showing upper surface of flange 13Ab of shaft member 13A contacting housing frame portion 2b1).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshinaga further discloses wherein the medical device is an endoscope (Yoshinaga FIG. 10, endoscope 1 introduced in Yoshinaga FIG. 1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hino et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0143238 – “Hino”).
Regarding Claim 21, Hino discloses:
A medical device (Hino FIG. 1, endoscope with insertion portion 102), comprising:
a housing (Hino FIG. 1, main control portion 104);
a first pulley (Hino FIG. 2, pulley 114) rotatably mounted relative to the housing (Hino paragraph [0034], “Inside the main control portion 104, there is rotatively provided a pulley 114”);
an articulation wire (Hino FIG. 1, manipulating wires 116a/116b) coupled to the pulley for deflecting a distal end of the medical device upon rotation of the pulley (Hino paragraph [0036], “manipulating wires 116a, 116b extended out from the pulley 114…thereby the bending portion 108 being curved”);
wherein rotation of the first pulley is limited relative to the housing to an angular distance that is greater than 360 degrees by a feature other than the articulation wire (Hino FIG. 2, showing wire pulley 114 with a groove 128 that spirals such that the pulley 114 can rotate more than 360 degrees).
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.
Claims 3, 7, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0113064 – “Yoshinaga”) in view of Wang (US PGPUB 2015/0133248 – “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Yoshinaga does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first side includes a first groove and the second side includes a second groove;
wherein a boss on the first pulley is slidably received within the first groove of the rotational stop idler; and
wherein a boss on the housing is slidably received within the second groove of the rotational stop idler.
Wang teaches:
wherein the first side includes a first groove (Wang FIG. 2, first concave groove 8 on idler pulley body 1) and the second side includes a second groove (Wang FIG. 2, second concave groove 8 on opposite side (not shown) of idler pulley body 1);
wherein a boss (Wang FIG. 2, first boss 10 shown on gear 6) on the first pulley is slidably received within the first groove of the rotational stop idler (Wang FIG. 2, wherein the first boss slides into the first concave groove 8; see Wang paragraph [0008]); and
wherein a boss on the housing (Wang FIG. 2, second labeled boss 10) is slidably received within the second groove of the rotational stop idler (see Hino paragraph [0008]).
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 Wang’s bosses and grooves with the medical device disclosed by Yoshinaga. 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 an interlocked pulley system to control precise handling of control wires for insertion portion directional control. Furthermore, 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 a pulley system with bosses and connecting grooves that prevent inner wheels and gears from rotating about the pulley body (see Wang paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Yoshinaga does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first side of the second rotational stop idler includes a first groove and the second side includes a second groove;
wherein a boss on the second pulley is slidably received within the first groove of the second rotational stop idler; and
wherein a boss on the housing is slidably received within the second groove of the second rotational stop idler.
Wang teaches:
wherein the first side of the second rotational stop idler includes a first groove (Wang FIG. 2, first concave groove 8 on idler pulley body 1) and the second side includes a second groove (Wang FIG. 2, second concave groove 8 on opposite side (not shown) of idler pulley body 1);
wherein a boss (Wang FIG. 2, first boss 10 shown on gear 6) on the second pulley is slidably received within the first groove of the second rotational stop idler (Wang FIG. 2, wherein the first boss slides into the first concave groove 8; see Wang paragraph [0008]); and
wherein a boss on the housing (Wang FIG. 2, second labeled boss 10) is slidably received within the second groove of the second rotational stop idler (see Hino paragraph [0008]).
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 Wang’s bosses and grooves with the medical device disclosed by Yoshinaga. 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 an interlocked pulley system to control precise handling of control wires for insertion portion directional control. Examiner also notes that mere duplication of parts, without a new and unexpected result being produced, has no patentable significance. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 17, Yoshinaga in view of Wang teach the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Wang further teaches wherein the first groove and the second groove of the rotational stop idler each terminate at a stop member that prevents rotation of the boss beyond a predetermined angular distance (Wang FIG. 2, showing grooves 8 only through a portion of the surface of idler pulley body 1, such that rotation of bosses 10 is limited to the width of the grooves 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Yoshinaga in view of Wang teach the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Wang further teaches wherein Wang FIG. 2 shown assembled as pulley body 1 in Wang FIG. 1, such that when boss 10 is inserted into groove 8, the only angular rotation is the play between the boss 10 and the groove 8; i.e., the angular length of the first groove minus the angular length of the boss).
Regarding Claim 19, Yoshinaga in view of Wang teach the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Yoshinaga in view of Wang further teach wherein when the boss on the first pulley (Wang FIG. 2, first boss 10 on gear 6) contacts the stop member of the first groove (Wang FIG. 2, edge of concave groove 8), further rotation of the first pulley causes the rotational stop idler to rotate relative to the housing (Wang FIG. 2, such that when the boss 10 is inserted into the concave groove 8, additional rotational force on the idler pulley body 10 will rotate relative to the frame 2b and frame portion 2b1 when combined with the medical device shown in Yoshinaga FIG. 13).
Regarding Claim 20, Yoshinaga in view of Wang teach the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Wang further teaches wherein when the boss on the housing (Wang FIG. 2, boss 10 engaged with housing outer wheel 30 when elements in Wang FIG. 2 are assembled together) contacts the stop member of the second groove(Wang FIG. 2, edge of concave groove 8), further rotation of the rotational stop idler relative to the housing is prevented (Wang FIG. 2, such that when the boss 10 is inserted into the concave groove 8, movement of pulley body 1 is locked up).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0113064 – “Yoshinaga”) in view of Seddiqui et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0149127 – “Seddiqui”).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Yoshinaga discloses an endoscope (Yoshinaga FIG. 1, endoscope 1).
However, Yoshinaga does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the housing is part of a single-use shaft assembly; and
wherein the single-use shaft assembly is selectively attachable and detachable to a reusable hand-piece assembly having a control knob and shaft for rotating the first pulley.
Seddiqui teaches:
wherein the housing is part of a single-use shaft assembly (Seddiqui FIG. 1, disposable catheter body 14); and
wherein the single-use shaft assembly is selectively attachable and detachable to a reusable hand-piece assembly having a control knob and shaft for rotating the first pulley (Seddiqui FIG. 1, reusable control handle 18 with control knobs 36 for manipulating steering wires 34 shown in Seddiqui FUG. 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 substitute Seddiqui’s semi-disposable endoscope for Yoshinaga’s endoscope. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of an endoscope having expensive reusable component (control handle) with less expensive insertion portions (catheter body) for economic reasons.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0113064 – “Yoshinaga”) in view of Yeung et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0163929 – “Yeung”).
Regarding Claim 16, Yoshinaga discloses the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Yoshinaga does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotational stop idler includes a continuous bearing surface on the first side and the second side to provide a stable base for rotation within the housing.
Yeung teaches wherein the rotational stop idler (Yeung FIG. 1, main idler 80a) includes a continuous bearing surface on the first side (Yeung FIG. 1, upper flange bearing 86) and the second side (Yeung FIG. 1, lower flange bearing 86) to provide a stable base for rotation within the housing.
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 Yeung’s flange bearings with the rotational stop idler disclosed by Yoshinaga. 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 a shaft member that is afforded free rotation (see Yeung paragraph [0178]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0143238 – “Hino”) in view of Wang (US PGPUB 2015/0133248 – “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 22, Hino discloses the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Hino does not explicitly disclose wherein the first pulley is rotatable relative to the housing until a boss extending from the first pulley contacts a first stop.
Wang teaches wherein the first pulley (Wang FIG. 2, gear 5) is rotatable relative to the housing (Wang FIG. 2 outer wheel 2) until a boss (Wang FIG. 2, boss 10) extending from the first pulley contacts a first stop (Wang FIG. 2, edge of concave groove 8).
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 Wang’s groove/boss pair with the medical device disclosed by Hino. 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 a flexible insertion portion that does not freely rotate.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0143238 – “Hino”) in view of Tulley (US PGPUB 2011/0118550 – “Tulley”).
Regarding Claim 23, Hino discloses the features of Claim 21, as described above.
Hino does not explicitly disclose:
a second pulley associated with a second articulation wire of the medical device for deflection of the distal end of the medical device in a second plane upon rotation of the second pulley, wherein the second pulley rotatable relative to the housing;
wherein rotation of the second pulley is limited relative to the housing to an angular distance that is greater than 360 degrees by a feature other than the articulation wire.
Tulley teaches:
a second pulley (Tulley FIG. 7, pulley 709B) associated with a second articulation wire (Tulley FIG. 7, left-right control wire 714) of the medical device for deflection of the distal end of the medical device in a second plane upon rotation of the second pulley (Tulley FIG. 7, left-right control wheel 604B turning pulley 709B), wherein the second pulley rotatable relative to the housing;
wherein rotation of the second pulley is limited relative to the housing to an angular distance that is greater than 360 degrees by a feature other than the articulation wire (Tulley paragraph [0039], “control wire… 714 are shown in FIG. 7 formed with loops configured to fit around the pulley…709B respectively”. Thus, the angular distance of pulley 709B is limited to the amount of rotation of control wheel 604B, not the control wire 714).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control Tulley’s left-right control with Hino’s up-down control (see Hino paragraph [0049]. 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 a 4-6 axis of rotation freedom.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0143238 – “Hino”) in view of Tulley (US PGPUB 2011/0118550 – “Tulley”) and Wang (US PGPUB 2015/0133248 – “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 24, Hino in view of Tulley teach the features of Claim 23, as described above.
Hino in view of Tulley do not explicitly teach wherein the second pulley is rotatable relative to the housing until a boss extending from the second pulley contacts a second stop.
Wang teaches wherein the second pulley (Wang FIG. 2, gear 5) is rotatable relative to the housing (Wang FIG. 2 outer wheel 2) until a boss (Wang FIG. 2, boss 10) extending from the second pulley contacts a second stop (Wang FIG. 2, edge of concave groove 8).
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 Wang’s groove/boss pair with the medical device disclosed by Hino in view of Tulley. 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 a flexible insertion portion that does not freely rotate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the objection to Claims 2 and 18, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments. The objection to Claims 2 and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments. The previous rejection of Claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, Claims 1 and 3 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in response to Applicants Arguments, as presented above. Examiner notes that these new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are necessitated in order to fully respond to Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the feature of a rotational stop idler.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues broadly against the rejection against the feature of a rotational stop idler. This argument raises the issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which is presented in the rejection of Claims 1-9 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.112(b) above.
Second, Applicant asserts on pages 6-7 that Yoshinaga et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0113064 – “Yoshinaga”) is “completely devoid of a teaching of a rotational stop idler”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not define a structure or feature of “a rotational stop idler”, other than it has a limited rotational distance (Claim 1), two sides (Claim 2), grooves (Claim 3), and a continuous bearing surface (Claim 16). Examiner is unaware of any well-known definition for “a rotational stop idler”. Therefore, absent other documentation or declarations from Applicant, Examiner has given a broadest reasonable interpretation of “a rotational stop idler” as a mechanical rotational stop for a pulley.
Third, Applicant asserts on page 7 that Yoshinaga fails to teach that the first and second rotational distances are tied to the rotational stop idler, or that Yoshinaga’s pulley 15A rotates. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Yoshinaga FIG. 13, the claimed rotational distances are shown as the rotational distance between the shaft member 13A (rotational stop idler) and the pulley 15A. Yoshinaga’s pulley 15A is shown rotating in the -90°, Neutral, and +90° positions shown in Yoshinaga FIG. 13. Therefore, the first and second rotational distances are tied to the rotational stop idler.
Fourth, Applicant asserts on page 7 that Yoshinaga fails to teach the first pulley is rotatable relative to the housing no more than the sum of the first rotational distance and the second rotational distance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Yoshinaga FIG. 13, the first rotational distance is the distance that pulley 15A moves relative to shaft member 13A. The second rotational distance is the distance that shaft member 13A moves relative to frame portion 2b1 of frame 2b, as also shown in Yoshinaga FIG. 13. As shown in the -90° and Neutral blocks in Yoshinaga FIG. 13, the shaft member 13A and the pulley 15A move together, such that the rotational movement/distance of the shaft member 13A and the pulley 15A are the same movement. Therefore, the rotational movement/distance of the shaft member 13A adds nothing to the rotational movement/distance of the pulley 15A, such that the first pulley is rotatable relative to the housing no more than the sum of the first rotational distance and the second rotational distance.
The rejections of Claims 2, 4-6, and 9 are traversed on page 8 for depending on Claim 1.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9are maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that, in Hino et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0143238 – “Hino”), the pulley 114 in Hino FIG. 2 is not limited to greater than 360 degrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed phrase “rotation of the first pulley is limited relative to the housing to an angular distance that is greater than 360 degrees” simply means that the first pulley can rotate more than 360 degrees. Hino’s pulley 114 has a spiral cut groove (see Hino paragraph [0040]) that wraps around the pulley 114 more than 360 degrees. Therefore, the pulley 114 is able to rotate more than 360 degrees. Examiner further points to the further rejection of Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), since “a feature other than the articulation wire” is not positively claimed or described in the claim, and thus presents no patentable weight, as described in the rejection of Claims 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented above.
As such, the rejections of Claims 22-24 are maintained for depending on rejected Claim 21.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 3, 7-8, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, Applicant asserts that there would be no motivation to combine Yoshinaga with Wang (US PGPUB 2015/0133248 – “Wang”) when rejecting Claims 3 and 17-20. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that the teaching, suggestion, motivation (TSM) test referenced by Applicant on page 9 is no longer explicitly required after KSR (KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391; MPEP 2141(I) and MPEP 2141(III).) Rather it is only one of seven factors that can be considered for obviousness to combine, which include combining known prior art to yield a predictable improvement result. Second, Examiner presented a clear rationale in the October 22, 2025 non-final rejection for combining Yoshinaga and Wang, by stating “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 an interlocked pulley system to control precise handling of control wires for insertion portion directional control.” The present rejection further providing TSM support in Wang paragraph [0023] for motivation to combine based on an endoscope having a pulley system with bosses and connecting grooves that prevent inner wheels and gears from rotating about the pulley body.
On page 9, Applicant asserts, apparently with regard to the rejection of Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103, that there would be no motivation to combine Hino et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0143238 – “Hino”) and Tulley (US PGPUB 2011/0118550 – “Tulley”). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control Tulley’s left-right control with Hino’s up-down control (see Hino paragraph [0049]. 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 a 4-6 axis of rotation freedom. Applicant further states that nothing in Hino or Tulley suggests a need to add the features of Wang. Claim 23 is only rejected based on the teachings of Hino and Tulley. Again, Examiner notes that the teaching, suggestion, motivation (TSM) test referenced by Applicant on page 9 with regard to the rejection of Claim 23 (as well as Claims 21-22 and 24) is no longer explicitly required after KSR (KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391; MPEP 2141(I) and MPEP 2141(III).)
On page 10, Applicant asserts, with regard to the rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103, that there would be no motivation to combine Yoshinaga et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0113064 – “Yoshinaga”) and Seddiqui et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0149127 – “Seddiqui”). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that the reason for using a single-use shaft comes from the present application, not Seddiqui. Again, Examiner notes that the teaching, suggestion, motivation (TSM) test referenced by Applicant on page 10 with regard to the rejection of
Claim 8 is no longer explicitly required after KSR. As such, Examiner has provided at least one motivation to combine when stating that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Seddiqui’s semi-disposable endoscope for Yoshinaga’s endoscope. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of an endoscope having expensive reusable component (control handle) with less expensive insertion portions (catheter body) for economic reasons.
On page 10, Applicant asserts that Claims 2-9, 16-20, and 22-24 should be allowed if their respective base Claims 1 and 21 are allowed. However, the rejections of Claims 1 and 21 are maintained. Therefore, the rejections of Claims 1-9 and 16-24 (including Claims 2-9, 16-20, and 22-24) are 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 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
04/05/2026
Prosecution Insights