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 .
Response to Amendment
The cancellation of claims 2 and 14, and the amendments to claims 1, 3, 13, 15 and 19 in the response filed on 05/18/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 remain pending in the application
Claims 2 and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Peterson fails to expressly teach the limitation stating “"wherein the spline structure comprises a plurality of channels, each one of the plurality of channels configured to receive a respective one of the plurality of distal end components". Applicant argues portion 4 is the spline structure and that the articulable bending portion 4, including distal end 32 is not encapsulated by the distal end capsule because part of it is sticking up from 42. Applicant argues the distal end 32 does not comprise any channels configured to receive respective distal end components and that support structure 29 is not equivalent to the spline structure.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive at least in view of paragraph [0048] of Peterson. The portion of 32 that is being used to teach the spline structure (along with 29) is the portion that is pointed to in Figs. 2 and 3, which are the channels 33. Paragraph [0048] of Peterson states “the segment 32 comprises two channels 33”. Both channels 33, along with 29 are fully encapsulated. Furthermore, paragraph [0051] of Peterson states that “In addition, the most distal segment of the bending portion as well as the ends of the control wires are also embedded in the material of the camera housing”. Therefore, Peterson meets the plain meaning of the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., none of the distal end components 26, 27, or 28 are disposed within channels of support structure 29 or within distal end 32) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive. The claim only states that the channels are “configured to receive a respective one of the plurality of distal end components”, not that the distal end components must be disposed within the components. Channels 33 receive stopper elements 35, as shown in Fig. 2 and explained in paragraph [0048]). The word receive means “to support the weight or pressure of” (Merriam Webster definition). Additionally, the stopper elements 35 are “one of the plurality of distal end components”, and they are fully encapsulated. Therefore, Peterson meets the plain meaning of the claim. In order to clarify the language, the examiner recommends adding language as described in Applicant’s section [0032] which states that “the channels are shaped to hold the distal end components in position relative to each other during the encapsulation process without needing potting or other securing material or mechanisms.”
The examiner also argues that though not relied on for the purposes of rejection, another embodiment in primary reference Peterson does teach claim 1 as well. 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”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art. Figs. 11- 13, show a distal cap assembly, comprising: a spline structure (Fig. 3); a plurality of distal end components disposed in the spline structure (108, 106); and a distal end capsule encapsulating the spline structure and the distal end components (101), wherein the distal end capsule is formed with an encapsulation material using a hot melt injection process ([0061]); wherein the spline structure comprises a plurality of channels (116), each one of the plurality of channels configured to receive a respective one of the plurality of distal end components (115).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “The endoscope of claim 15”. The examiner believes this is a typographical error and should be “The endoscope of claim 13”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2015/0005580 to Petersen.
Regarding claim 1, Petersen discloses a distal cap assembly, comprising: a spline structure (29, 32, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0048]); a plurality of distal end components disposed in the spline structure (26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0048]); and a distal end capsule encapsulating the spline structure and the distal end components (42, 43, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0051], [0052]), wherein the distal end capsule is formed with an encapsulation material using a hot melt injection process (42, 43, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0051], [0052]- The examiner notes that this is a product by process claim (see MPEP 2113), wherein the spline structure comprises a plurality of channels, each one of the plurality of channels configured to receive a respective one of the plurality of distal end components (32, 33, Fig. 2, [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 1, and Petersen further discloses wherein the spline structure comprises at least one lumen connecting a proximal end of the spline structure to the plurality of channels (31, Fig. 2, [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 3, and Petersen further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of distal end components is an image sensor (Fig. 2, [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 4, and Petersen further discloses wherein the at least one of the plurality of distal end components comprises a lead routed through the at least one lumen and coupled to the image sensor (30, Fig. 2, [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 5, and Petersen further discloses wherein at least another one of the plurality of distal end components is a light emitting diode (LED) (27, Fig. 2, [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 6, and Petersen further discloses wherein the at least one other of the plurality of distal end components comprises a lead routed through the at least one lumen and coupled to the LED ([0040]) and wherein the encapsulation material is at least partially transmissive to a wavelength of light emitted by the light emitting diode ([0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 4, and Petersen further discloses wherein the image sensor is a charge couple device (CCD) sensor or a complimentary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor ([0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 1, and Petersen further discloses wherein the spline structure comprises a raised ring disposed between the proximal end of the spline structure and a distal end of the spline structure (102, Fig. 11, [0061]).
Regarding claim 10, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 1, and Petersen further discloses wherein the distal end capsule entirely encapsulates at least one of the plurality of distal end components (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 1, and Petersen further discloses wherein a distal most end of at least one of the distal end components is flush with a distal most end of the distal end capsule (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 1, and Petersen further discloses wherein the encapsulation material is polymer ([0051]).
Regarding claim 13, Petersen discloses an endoscope comprising: a proximal end comprising at least one electric connector (2, Fig. 1, [0039]); a distal end comprising a plurality of distal end components (5, Fig. 1, [0039]); an outer lumen coupling the proximal end and the distal end (3, Fig. 1, [0039]); at least one lead disposed in the outer lumen (30, Fig. 2, [0049]), the at least one lead to electrically couple the at least one electric connector with the plurality of distal end components (30, Fig. 2, [0049]); wherein the distal end comprises a cap assembly (Figs. 11-13), comprising: a spline structure (29, 32, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0048]) wherein the plurality of distal end components are disposed in the spline structure (26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0048]); and a distal end capsule encapsulating the spline structure and the distal end components (Fig. 4), wherein the distal end capsule is formed with an encapsulation material using a hot melt injection process (42, 43, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0051], [0052]), wherein the spline structure comprises a plurality of channels, each one of the plurality of channels configured to receive a respective one of the plurality of distal end components (32, 33, Fig. 2, [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Petersen discloses the endoscope of claim 15, and Petersen further discloses wherein the spline structure comprises at least one distal lumen connecting a proximal end of the spline structure to the plurality of channels (31, Fig. 2, [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Petersen discloses the endoscope of claim 15, and Petersen further discloses wherein: at least one of the plurality of distal end components is an image sensor (Fig. 2, [0046] and wherein the at least one lead is routed through the at least one distal lumen (30, Fig. 2, [0049]); and at least another one of the plurality of distal end components is a light emitting diode (LED) and wherein the encapsulation material is at least partially transmissive to a wavelength of light emitted by the light emitting diode ([0012]).
Regarding claim 17, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 1, and Petersen further discloses wherein the spline structure comprises a raised ring disposed between a proximal end of the spline structure and a distal end of the spline structure and wherein the outer lumen abuts a first side of the raised ring proximate to the proximal end of the spline structure and wherein the distal end capsule abuts a second side of the raised ring proximate to the distal end of the spline structure (102, Fig. 11, [0061]).
Regarding claim 18, Petersen discloses the distal cap assembly of claim 1, and Petersen further discloses wherein the distal end capsule entirely encapsulates at least one of the plurality of distal end components and wherein a distal most end of at least one of the distal end components is flush with a distal most end of the distal end capsule (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN114176481A to Unannounced et al. (hereinafter “Unannounced”).
Regarding claim 19, Unannounced discloses the a method of manufacturing a distal cap assembly for a scope, comprising: providing a spline structure (10, Fig. 2) having a plurality of channels (see plurality of channels in Examiner’s annotated Fig 4); fitting a plurality of distal end components into the plurality of channels on the spline structure (40, 10, 30); inserting the spline structure and the plurality of distal end components into a mold (20, Fig. 2, [0046]); and injecting encapsulation material into the mold to encapsulate the spline structure and the distal end components to form a distal end capsule (42, 43, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0051], [0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN114176481A to Unannounced et al. (hereinafter “Unannounced”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0354350 to Birnkrant.
Regarding claim 20, Unannounced discloses the method of claim 19, but Unannounced fails to expressly teach further discloses comprising printing, depositing, or printing and depositing a plurality of layers of a spline structure material with a three-dimensional (3D) printer to form the spline structure.
However, Birnkrant teaches of analogous method that further discloses comprising printing, depositing, or printing and depositing a plurality of layers of a spline structure material with a three-dimensional (3D) printer to form the spline structure. (Birnkrant: inventive distal heads described herein may be produced by 3D printing).
Therefore, 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 device of Unannounced to utilize a 3D printer, as taught by Birnkrant. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of decreasing costs ([0040] of Birnkrant).
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 CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (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 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.
/C.A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights