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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/30/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 21 and 38 have been amended, claims 31 – 33 have been cancelled, and claims 41 – 43 has been added. Thus, claims 21 – 30, and 34 – 43 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978) does not teach a shaft with an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross- sectional shape as seen in the newly amended claim 21 (same subject matter as cancelled claim 31 previously rejected by a combination of Brunnen and Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860)). Specifically, Applicant argued that Hosoi does not teach "a shaft with an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross- sectional shape" but rather a square shape. Applicant further argues that modifying Brunnen's circular tube segments to have such a shape would misalign the pins and claws or render the device inoperable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Shape Disclosure: Hosoi explicitly discloses in paragraph [0029] that the "joint member 7... has a substantially rectangular sectional shape" (see also Figure 4). The term "rectangular" encompasses "square" as a specific species. Furthermore, Hosoi discloses in Figures 6-10 and paragraphs [0035] – [0038] that the joint rings can have varied profiles to accommodate bending.
Operability/Modification: The rejection of the subject matter is based on 35 U.S.C. 103 (Obviousness), not anticipation. A rigid link does not need to be perfectly circular to function. Brunnen's pins 114" and claws 116" are connectors located at 90-degree intervals. Modifying the outer profile of the shaft to be rectangular or oblong (as taught by Hosoi) while maintaining the relative positions of the connecting pins/claws is a routine engineering adaptation. The motivation to use a non-circular (e.g., rectangular) cross-section is explicitly taught by Hosoi to "improve twisting response and resilience" and allow for better internal space utilization (Hosoi, paragraph [0005]).
Combination: A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the connectors (pins/claws) can be mounted on a shaft of any cross-sectional geometry (circular, rectangular, ellipsoidal) as long as the mechanical linkage is preserved. Combining Brunnen’s linkage mechanism with Hosoi’s shaft geometry is a predictable variation to achieve the structural benefits Hosoi describes.
Further, Claims 21 and 38 are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting rejection over U.S. 10,729,886 or U.S. 11,771,871 in view of Brunnen and Hosoi.
See rejections below for more details.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,729,886 in view of Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978), and in view of Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860).
Regarding claim 21 of the application, claim 1 of the patent recites every limitation of claim 21 of the application including an axial support structure, comprising: a plurality of rigid links coupled by joints, wherein: each of the plurality of rigid links comprises: a shaft; a pair of first connectors extending axially from a first end of the shaft and having an inner surface flush with an inner surface of the shaft or an outer surface flush with an outer surface of the shaft (male tab coplanar with the shaft as recited in claim 1 of the patent); and a pair of second connectors at a second end of the shaft opposite the first end and having an outer surface flush with the outer surface of the shaft (female tab coplanar with the shaft as recited in claim 1 of the patent), the pair of first connectors being complementary to the pair of second connectors and being radially spaced relative to the pair of second connectors by 90 degrees; wherein each of the plurality of rigid links is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to neighboring links among the plurality of rigid links, thereby aligning each pair of first connectors with a neighboring pair of second connectors to form the joints. Examiner notes that even though there are slight differences in wordings between the claims, the limitations of claim 21 of the application and claim 1 of the patent are similar.
However, claim 1 of the patent does not recite a flexible elongate device wherein each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure, and the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape.
Brunnen teaches a device similar to claim 1 of the patent and claim 21 of the application, further including a flexible elongate device (endoscope 1, Figure 1), each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure (each body segments 109’’ form a portion of axially extending grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ and the main lumen extending through the interior of section 108’’ as shown in Figure 11D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Brunnen with the device of claim 1 of the patent in order to simplify this production and mounting process, as well as to provide the interior space of the bendable portion to have a smooth wall and to be free from projections (Brunnen, paragraph [0018]).
Hosoi teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen, the patent, and the current application, further including that the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape (see rectangular sectional shape of joint member 7 as shown in Figure 4 and discussed in paragraph [0029]; see elliptical shape of joint member 7c as shown in Figures 6 – 10
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Hosoi as discussed above with the combined device of claim 1 of the patent and Brunnen in order to enhance durability against autoclaving and to improve twisting response and resilience (Hosoi, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,729,886 in view of Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978), and in view of Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860).
Regarding claim 38 of the application, claim 1 of the patent recite every limitations of claim 38 of the application including an axial support structure for a flexible elongate device comprising: a plurality of rigid links coupled by joints, wherein: each of the plurality of rigid links comprises: a shaft; a pair of first connectors at a first end of the shaft and having an inner surface flush with an inner surface of the shaft (male tab coplanar with the shaft as recited in claim 1 of the patent); and a pair of second connectors at a second end of the shaft opposite the first end and having an outer surface flush with the outer surface of the shaft (female tab coplanar with the shaft as recited in claim 1 of the patent), the pair of first connectors being complementary to the pair of second connectors and being radially spaced relative to the pair of second connectors by 90 degrees; wherein each of the plurality of rigid links is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to neighboring links among the plurality of rigid links, thereby aligning each pair of first connectors with a neighboring pair of second connectors to form the joints. Examiner notes that even though there are slight differences in wordings between the claims, the limitations of claim 38 of the application and claim 1 of the patent are similar.
However, claim 1 of the patent does not recite wherein each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure, and the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape.
Brunnen teaches a device similar to claim 1 of the patent and claim 38 of the application, further including that each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure (each body segments 109’’ form a portion of axially extending grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ and the main lumen extending through the interior of section 108’’ as shown in Figure 11D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Brunnen with the device of claim 1 of the patent in order to simplify this production and mounting process, as well as to provide the interior space of the bendable portion to have a smooth wall and to be free from projections (Brunnen, paragraph [0018]).
Hosoi teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen, the patent, and the current application, further including that the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape (see rectangular sectional shape of joint member 7 as shown in Figure 4 and discussed in paragraph [0029]; see elliptical shape of joint member 7c as shown in Figures 6 – 10
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Hosoi as discussed above with the combined device of claim 1 of the patent and Brunnen in order to enhance durability against autoclaving and to improve twisting response and resilience (Hosoi, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,771,871 in view of Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978), and in view of Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860).
Regarding claim 21 of the application, claim 1 of the patent recite every limitations of claim 21 of the application including an axial support structure, comprising: a plurality of rigid links coupled by joints, wherein: each of the plurality of rigid links comprises: a shaft; a pair of first connectors extending axially from a first end of the shaft and having an inner surface flush with an inner surface of the shaft; and a pair of second connectors at a second end of the shaft opposite the first end and having an outer surface flush with the outer surface of the shaft, the pair of first connectors being complementary to the pair of second connectors and being radially spaced relative to the pair of second connectors by 90 degrees; wherein each of the plurality of rigid links is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to neighboring links among the plurality of rigid links, thereby aligning each pair of first connectors with a neighboring pair of second connectors to form the joints. Examiner notes that even though there are slight differences in wordings between the claims, the limitations of claim 21 of the application and claim 1 of the patent are similar.
However, claim 1 of the patent does not recite a flexible elongate device wherein each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure, and the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape.
Brunnen teaches a device similar to claim 1 of the patent and claim 21 of the application, further including a flexible elongate device (endoscope 1, Figure 1), each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure (each body segments 109’’ form a portion of axially extending grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ and the main lumen extending through the interior of section 108’’ as shown in Figure 11D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Brunnen with the device of claim 1 of the patent in order to simplify this production and mounting process, as well as to provide the interior space of the bendable portion to have a smooth wall and to be free from projections (Brunnen, paragraph [0018]).
Hosoi teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen, the patent, and the current application, further including that the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape (see rectangular sectional shape of joint member 7 as shown in Figure 4 and discussed in paragraph [0029]; see elliptical shape of joint member 7c as shown in Figures 6 – 10
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Hosoi as discussed above with the combined device of claim 1 of the patent and Brunnen in order to enhance durability against autoclaving and to improve twisting response and resilience (Hosoi, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,771,871 in view of Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978), and in view of Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860).
Regarding claim 38 of the application, claim 1 of the patent recite every limitations of claim 38 of the application including an axial support structure for a flexible elongate device comprising: a plurality of rigid links coupled by joints, wherein: each of the plurality of rigid links comprises: a shaft; a pair of first connectors at a first end of the shaft and having an inner surface flush with an inner surface of the shaft; and a pair of second connectors at a second end of the shaft opposite the first end and having an outer surface flush with the outer surface of the shaft, the pair of first connectors being complementary to the pair of second connectors and being radially spaced relative to the pair of second connectors by 90 degrees; wherein each of the plurality of rigid links is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to neighboring links among the plurality of rigid links, thereby aligning each pair of first connectors with a neighboring pair of second connectors to form the joints. Examiner notes that even though there are slight differences in wordings between the claims, the limitations of claim 38 of the application and claim 1 of the patent are similar.
However, claim 1 of the patent does not recite wherein each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure, and the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape.
Brunnen teaches a device similar to claim 1 of the patent and claim 38 of the application, further including that each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure (each body segments 109’’ form a portion of axially extending grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ and the main lumen extending through the interior of section 108’’ as shown in Figure 11D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Brunnen with the device of claim 1 of the patent in order to simplify this production and mounting process, as well as to provide the interior space of the bendable portion to have a smooth wall and to be free from projections (Brunnen, paragraph [0018]).
Hosoi teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen, the patent, and the current application, further including that the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape (see rectangular sectional shape of joint member 7 as shown in Figure 4 and discussed in paragraph [0029]; see elliptical shape of joint member 7c as shown in Figures 6 – 10
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Hosoi as discussed above with the combined device of claim 1 of the patent and Brunnen in order to enhance durability against autoclaving and to improve twisting response and resilience (Hosoi, paragraph [0005]).
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) 21, 22, 25 – 27, 29, 34 – 39, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978) in view of Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860).
Regarding claim 21, Brunnen teaches a flexible elongate device (endoscope 1, Figure 1) comprising: an axial support structure (bendable portion 108’’ as shown in Figures 11A, 11B, and 11D which is an embodiment of bendable portion 8 as shown in Figure 1), comprising:
a plurality of rigid links (tube segments 109’’, Figure 10) coupled by joints (adjacent segments are coupled by joints formed by pins 114’’ and claws 116’’ as shown in Figures 10 and 11A and discussed in paragraph [0099]);
wherein: each of the plurality of rigid links comprises:
a shaft (the body of segment 109’’ as shown in Figure 10);
a pair of first connectors (pins 114’’ as shown in Figure 10) extending axially from a first end of the shaft and having an inner surface flush with an inner surface of the shaft or an outer surface flush with an outer surface of the shaft (pins 114’’ inner surface and outer surface are flushed with the inner surface and outer surface of the shaft respectively as shown in the interior view and exterior view of bendable portion 108’’ in Figures 11A and 11B);
and a pair of second connectors (claws 116’’ as shown in Figure 10) at a second end of the shaft opposite the first end and having an inner surface flush with an inner surface of the shaft or an outer surface flush with an outer surface of the shaft (claws 116’’ inner surface and outer surface are flushed with the inner surface and outer surface of the shaft respectively as shown in the interior view and exterior view of bendable portion 108’’ in Figures 11A and 11B);
the pair of first connectors being complementary to the pair of second connectors and being radially spaced relative to the pair of second connectors by 90 degrees (pins 114’’ and claws 116’’ are offset 90 degrees relative to each other as discussed in paragraph [0099]);
wherein each of the plurality of rigid links is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to neighboring links among the plurality of rigid links, thereby aligning each pair of first connectors with a neighboring pair of second connectors to form the joints (as discussed in paragraph [0099]);
and wherein each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure (each body segments 109’’ form a portion of axially extending grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ and the main lumen extending through the interior of section 108’’ as shown in Figure 11D).
However, Brunnen does not specify that wherein the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape
Hosoi teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen and the current application, further including that wherein the shaft has a rectangular or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape (see rectangular sectional shape of joint member 7 as shown in Figure 4 and discussed in paragraph [0029]; elliptical shape of joint member 7c as shown in Figures 6 – 10)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Hosoi as discussed above with the device of Brunnen in order to enhance durability against autoclaving and to improve twisting response and resilience (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 22, Brunnen teaches that the plurality of lumens includes a primary lumen (the main lumen extending through bendable portion 108’’ as shown in Figure 11A) configured to receive an instrument extendable through the flexible elongate device (see discussion of operative tools acting at the distal end of the device in paragraph [0014]). Examiner notes that the endoscope as disclosed by Brunnen is capable of receiving an instrument extendable through the flexible elongate device.
Regarding claim 25, Brunnen teaches that the plurality of lumens further includes a plurality of pull wire lumens disposed radially outward from the primary lumen (pull wire lumens 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ as shown in Figure 11D).
Regarding claim 26, Brunnen teaches that the plurality of rigid links are substantially identical to each other (each member 109’’ is identical to the others as shown in Figures 10D and 11A).
Regarding claim 27, Brunnen and Hosoi teach claim 21 as seen above.
However, Brunnen does not specify that the plurality of rigid links are composed of stainless steel.
Hosoi teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen and the current application, further including a plurality of rigid links composed of stainless steel (joint member 7 is made of stainless steel as discussed in paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Hosoi as discussed above with the combined device of Brunnen and Hosoi in order to enhance durability against autoclaving and to improve twisting response and resilience (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 29, Brunnen teaches that wherein the plurality of rigid links do not include nitinol. Examiner notes that Brunnen does not disclose nitinol and so the negative limitation “do not include nitinol” is met.
Regarding claim 33, Brunnen teaches that wherein the shaft has a circular cross- section (as shown in Figure 10D).
Regarding claim 34, Brunnen teaches that the shaft has a width, a height, a length, and a thickness (as shown in Figure 10D), and wherein the pair of first connectors are separated by the height and the pair of second connectors are separated by the width (the first pair of connectors are separated by height of member 7 and the second pair of connectors are separate by width member 7 since member 7 have a circular profile and the two pairs of connectors are 90 degrees offset from each other as discussed in paragraph [0099], and as shown in Figure 10D).
Regarding claim 35, Ueda teaches a pliable tube surrounding the axial support structure (see Figure 2A and discussion of plastic sleeve on the outside of the bendable portion 8).
Regarding claim 36, Brunnen teaches that the pair of first connectors comprises pins (pins 114’’, Figure 10) and the pair of second connectors comprises pin receivers (claws 116’’, Figure 10).
Regarding claim 37, Brunnen teaches that each of the plurality of rigid links comprises one or more harnesses (grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’, Figure 10) extending from an outer wall (each grooves is extending toward the center of each segments 109’’), and wherein at least one lumen of the plurality of lumens extends through at least one harness of the one or more harnesses (lumen formed by adjacent grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ are extending through the harnesses as shown in Figures 10 and 11D).
Regarding claim 38, Brunnen teaches an axial support structure (bendable portion 108’’ as shown in Figures 11A, 11B, and 11D which is an embodiment of bendable portion 8 as shown in Figure 1) for a flexible elongate device (endoscope 1, Figure 1) comprising:
a plurality of rigid links (tube segments 109’’, Figure 10) coupled by joints (adjacent segments are coupled by joints formed by pins 114’’ and claws 116’’ as shown in Figures 10 and 11A and discussed in paragraph [0099]);
wherein: each of the plurality of rigid links comprises:
a shaft (the body of segment 109’’ as shown in Figure 10);
a pair of first connectors (pins 114’’ as shown in Figure 10) extending axially from a first end of the shaft and having an inner surface flush with an inner surface of the shaft or an outer surface flush with an outer surface of the shaft (pins 114’’ inner surface and outer surface are flushed with the inner surface and outer surface of the shaft respectively as shown in the interior view and exterior view of bendable portion 108’’ in Figures 11A and 11B);
and a pair of second connectors (claws 116’’ as shown in Figure 10) at a second end of the shaft opposite the first end and having an inner surface flush with an inner surface of the shaft or an outer surface flush with an outer surface of the shaft (claws 116’’ inner surface and outer surface are flushed with the inner surface and outer surface of the shaft respectively as shown in the interior view and exterior view of bendable portion 108’’ in Figures 11A and 11B);
the pair of first connectors being complementary to the pair of second connectors and being radially spaced relative to the pair of second connectors by 90 degrees (pins 114’’ and claws 116’’ are offset 90 degrees relative to each other as discussed in paragraph [0099]);
wherein each of the plurality of rigid links is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to neighboring links among the plurality of rigid links, thereby aligning each pair of first connectors with a neighboring pair of second connectors to form the joints (as discussed in paragraph [0099]);
and wherein each of the plurality of rigid links forms at least a portion of a plurality of lumens extending through the axial support structure (each body segments 109’’ form a portion of axially extending grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ and the main lumen extending through the interior of section 108’’ as shown in Figure 11D).
However, Brunnen does not specify that wherein the shaft has an oblong, rectangular, or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape
Hosoi teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen and the current application, further including that wherein the shaft has a rectangular or ellipsoidal outer cross-sectional shape (see rectangular sectional shape of joint member 7 as shown in Figure 4 and discussed in paragraph [0029]; elliptical shape of joint member 7c as shown in Figures 6 – 10)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Hosoi as discussed above with the device of Brunnen in order to enhance durability against autoclaving and to improve twisting response and resilience (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 39, Brunnen teaches that the plurality of lumens includes a primary lumen (the main lumen extending through bendable portion 108’’ as shown in Figure 11A) configured to receive an instrument extendable through the flexible elongate device (see discussion of operative tools acting at the distal end of the device in paragraph [0014]). Examiner notes that the endoscope as disclosed by Brunnen is capable of receiving an instrument extendable through the flexible elongate device.
Regarding claim 41, Brunnen teaches that the primary lumen has a circular cross-sectional shape (See Figure 5C and 5D showing a circular lumen inside the tube).
Claim(s) 23, 24, 40, 42, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978) in view of Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860), and in view of Alvarez (U.S. 2011/0015648).
Regarding claim 23, Brunnen and Hosoi teaches claim 21 as seen above.
Brunnen further teaches that wherein the plurality of lumens further includes at least one pull wire lumen (grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ for housing control wires as shown in Figure 11D and discussed in paragraph [0100]).
However, Brunnen does not specify at least one secondary lumen.
Alvarez teaches a device similar to Brunnen and the current application, further including at least one lumen 91 (working lumen) as a primary lumen that accommodate working tools such as gasper tool and lumens 93 (instrumentation lumens) as secondary lumens that accommodate light bundle and video/optic bundle as discussed in paragraph [0032].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Alvarez with the device of Brunnen in order to accommodate and separate an optics bundle for direct optical visualization for procedures (paragraph [0029]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Brunnen, Hosoi, and Alvarez teach claim 23 as seen above.
However, Brunnen does not specify that the at least one secondary lumen is configured to receive at least one of an optical fiber or an electrical wire.
Alvarez teaches a device similar to Brunnen, Hosoi, and the current application, further including lumens 93 (instrumentation lumens) as secondary lumens that accommodate light bundle and video/optic bundle as discussed in paragraph [0032].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Alvarez with the device of Brunnen in order to accommodate and separate an optics bundle for direct optical visualization for procedures (paragraph [0029]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 40, Brunnen and Hosoi teaches claim 39 as seen above.
Brunnen further teaches that wherein the plurality of lumens further includes at least one pull wire lumen (grooves 123, 123’, 124, and 124’ for housing control wires as shown in Figure 11D and discussed in paragraph [0100]).
However, Brunnen does not specify at least one secondary lumen.
Alvarez teaches a device similar to Brunnen, Hosoi, and the current application, further including at least one secondary lumen (lumen 93, Figure 4B). Examiner notes that in the device as disclosed by Alvarez, lumen 91 (working lumen) is the primary lumen that accommodate working tools such as gasper tool and lumens 93 (instrumentation lumens) are secondary lumens that accommodate light bundle and video/optic bundle as discussed in paragraph [0032].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Alvarez with the combined device of Brunnen and Hosoi in order to accommodate and separate an optics bundle for direct optical visualization for certain procedures (paragraph [0029]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 42, Brunnen and Hosoi teach claim 41 as seen above.
Brunnen further teaches that wherein the plurality of lumens further includes at least one pull wire lumen (grooves 23 and 24 for housing control wires as shown in Figure 7C and discussed in paragraph [0093]) disposed radially outside the primary lumen and between a wall of the primary lumen and an interior surface of the shaft (See Figure 7C showing lumen 23 outside of primary center lumen between a wall of the primary lumen and an interior surface of the shaft 8’)
However, Brunnen does not specify wherein the at least one secondary lumen.
Alvarez teaches a device similar to Brunnen and the current application, further including at least one lumen 91 (working lumen) as a primary lumen that accommodate working tools such as gasper tool and lumens 93 (instrumentation lumens) as secondary lumens that accommodate light bundle and video/optic bundle as discussed in paragraph [0032].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Alvarez with the combined device of Brunnen and Hosoi in order to accommodate and separate an optics bundle for direct optical visualization for procedures (paragraph [0029]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 43, Brunnen and Hosoi teach claim 41 as seen above.
Brunnen further teaches that wherein the plurality of lumens further includes at least one pull wire lumen (grooves 123, 123’, 1234, 124’, Figure 11D) for housing control wires as shown in Figure 7C and discussed in paragraph [0100]) disposed radially outside the primary lumen and in a corner of the axial support structure (Figures 10D and 11D).
However, Brunnen does not specify wherein the at least one secondary lumen.
Alvarez teaches a device similar to Brunnen and the current application, further including at least one lumen 91 (working lumen) as a primary lumen that accommodate working tools such as gasper tool and lumens 93 (instrumentation lumens) as secondary lumens that accommodate light bundle and video/optic bundle as discussed in paragraph [0032].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Alvarez with the combined device of Brunnen and Hosoi in order to accommodate and separate an optics bundle for direct optical visualization for procedures (paragraph [0029]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978) in view of Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860), in view of Miyagi (U.S. 2003/0083550).
Regarding claim 28, Brunnen and Hosoi teach claim 21 as seen above.
However, Brunnen does not specify that wherein the plurality of rigid links are composed of plastic or thermoplastic material.
Miyagi teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen, Hosoi, and the current application, including a plurality of rigid links composed of plastic (the material of the joint ring can be plastic as discussed in paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Miyagi with the combined device of Brunnen and Hosoi since plastics would have been useful for improved machinability and anti-corrosion (paragraph [0055]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnen (U.S. 2005/0272978) in view of Hosoi (U.S. 2007/0161860), in view of Ueda (U.S. 2009/0062606).
Regarding claim 30, Brunnen and Hosoi teach claim 21 as seen above.
Brunnen discloses that each tube segments can optimally have different wall thicknesses and are easy to slide into each other.
However, Brunnen does not specify that each of the plurality of rigid links has an outer wall thickness of 1 mm or less.
Ueda teaches a flexible elongate device similar to Brunnen, Hosoi, and the current application, further including that each of the plurality of rigid links has an outer wall thickness of 1 mm or less (thickness of 0.3 mm to 0.4 mm is adequate to form joint ring 7 as discussed in paragraph [0059] and shown in Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the features of Ueda with the combined device of Brunnen and Hosoi in order to maintain the outer diameter of the flexible deice at a small value (paragraph 0059]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANH T BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1028. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 - 5.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
ANH T. BUI
Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/Anh Bui/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783