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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/08/2026 has been entered. In the present application, claims 1-13 and 15-21 are currently pending. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 1, 9, 10, 16, and 19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the independent claims have been amended the independent claims with new limitations.
Such newly added limitations change the scope of the claims, renders the previous rejection moot, and requires a new ground of rejection. As such the previous grounds of rejection identified in the non-final office action dated, , have been withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Please see section 35 U.S.C. §103 below for further explanation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Control element, first control element, and second control element, in claims 1, 6, and 16, which have structural support within paragraph [0027] of the specification stating, “Elevator 26 may be pivotable via, e.g., an actuation wire or another control element that extends from handle 12, through shaft 14, to elevator 26;” and paragraph [0037] of the specification stating, “Control element 130 may include, for example, wire(s), cable(s), rod(s), chain(s), string(s), cord(s), or other suitable structures.” Support for such claim limitations are also in paragraphs [0029 and 0071] of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfgang et al. (WO2017025434A1) hereinafter Wolfgang [**Please note, [paragraph numbering] are annotated in the English translation.], in view of Iwasaka et al. (US2012/0238805) hereinafter Iwasaka.
Regarding Claim 1, Wolfgang discloses an distal portion (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head 1) of a medical device ([001] endoscope), comprising:
an elevator (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 pivotable working channel element 30) having:
a plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]) joined together by at least one hinge (Figs. 6-8 rotating element 62, 62’, 62”), wherein a first segment (Figs. 6-8 distal ring member 33) of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’distal ring member 33, [072-098) is a discrete structure; and
a control element (Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7, Examiner’s Note: As stated above control element is being interpreted as an element similar to a wire or cable. Here Wolfgang teaches a cable pull 7 as a control element.) coupled to at least one segment (Figs. 6-8 distal ring member 33) of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]), wherein proximal or distal movement ([084-094]) of the control element (Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7) is configured to move ([084-094]) the at least one segment (Figs. 6-8 distal ring member 33) of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]) relative to another of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]); and
a distal tip (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head body 11) including a camera (Fig. 1 camera 16), wherein the elevator (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 pivotable working channel element 30) is pivotable relative to (Figs. 6-8) the distal tip (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head body 11), including the camera (Fig. 1 camera 16), when the distal tip (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head body 11) is in a fixed position.
Wolfgang is silent to further comprise wherein the plurality of segments define a guide surface configured to receive and change an orientation of a medical instrument, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments has an open side, such that the guide surface is exposed along an entire longitudinal length of the elevator.
However Iwasaka, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the plurality of segments (Iwasaka – Figs. 1-7 distal insertion part 38 to include first and second joint rings 60-62) define a guide surface (Iwasaka – Fig. 7 guide groove 44) configured to receive and change an orientation of a medical instrument (Iwasaka – [0038] “In an interface 40 which is a border area between the proximal insertion part 36 and the distal insertion part 38, a treatment instrument exit 42 (for details, see FIG. 2 described later) which is an opening of the treatment instrument passage channel passing through the insertion part 14 is formed, so that when a treatment instrument is inserted through the treatment instrument entrance 28 of the operation part 12, the treatment instrument is passed through the treatment instrument passage channel and fed from the treatment instrument exit 42, and, as described later, guided by a treatment instrument guide groove 44 of the distal insertion part 38 and placed so as to project forward beyond the distal end portion 34.”), wherein each segment of the plurality of segments (Iwasaka – Figs. 1-7 distal insertion part 38 to include first and second joint rings 60-62) has an open side (Iwasaka – arc shape – Fig. 3 near upper external surface 56, [0023, 0043, 0046, 0055]), such that the guide surface (Iwasaka – Fig. 7 guide groove 44) is exposed along an entire longitudinal length of the elevator (Iwasaka – Figs. 1-7 distal insertion part 38 ) .
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolfgang with the teachings of Iwasaka to include wherein the plurality of segments define a guide surface configured to receive and change an orientation of a medical instrument, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments has an open side, such that the guide surface is exposed along an entire longitudinal length of the elevator for the benefit of having an elevator surface capable of “…corresponding to treatment instruments having difference diameter” (Iwasaka – [0072]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion of claim 1, wherein all of the plurality of segments (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]) are discrete structures.
Regarding Claim 3, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion of claim 1, wherein the plurality of segments (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]) consists of the first segment and a second segment (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’, distal ring member 33, [072-098]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion claim 1, wherein, in a first configuration (Wolfgang – Fig. 1, the absence of the pull on cable 7, [085]), all of the plurality of segments (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]) lie along an approximately straight line (Wolfgang – Fig. 1 illustrates pivotable working channel element 30 in a straight light, [075-082]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion of claim 4, wherein the approximately straight line (Wolfgang – Fig. 1 illustrates pivotable working channel element 30 in a straight light, [075-082]) is approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the medical device (Wolfgang – see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Wolfgang discloses the distal portion of claim 1, wherein the control element (Wolfgang - Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7) is a first control element (Wolfgang - Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7) but is silent as to further disclose the elevator comprises a second control element coupled to the at least one segment of the plurality of segments, wherein proximal or distal movement of the second control element is configured to move the at least one segment of the plurality of segments relative to another of the plurality of segments.
However Iwasaka, in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the elevator further comprising a second control element (Fig. 4 wire 70B) coupled to the at least one segment of the plurality of segments (Fig. 4 joint rings 60, 62), wherein proximal or distal movement of the second control element is configured to move the at least one segment of the plurality of segments (Fig. 4 joint rings 60, 62) relative to another of the plurality of segments (Fig. 4 joint rings 60, 62) ([0056] “On the other hand, each of the operation wires 68, 70A, and 70B is passed through the insertion part 14 and connected with a wire pulling mechanism within the operation part 12. The wire pulling mechanism has a mechanism to pull or loosen each of the operation wires 68, 70A, and 70B in conjunction with a rotating operation of each of the angle knobs 18 and 20 of the operation part 12, and the wire pulling mechanism pulls or loosens each of the operation wires 68, 70A, and 70B so that the bending part 32 bends in accordance with an operation of each of the angle knobs 18 and 20.”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolfgang with the teachings of Iwasaka to have the elevator comprises a second control element coupled to the at least one segment of the plurality of segments, wherein proximal or distal movement of the second control element is configured to move the at least one segment of the plurality of segments relative to another of the plurality of segments for the benefit of having the elevator bend in “…a four-directionally, vertically and laterally, bendable structure” (Iwasaka – [0051]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wolfgang in view of teaches the distal portion of claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of segments (Wolfgang - proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]) defines a first channel (Wolfgang – [079] “Respective cable pull channels are formed in the ring elements 31, 61, 61', 33. The respective cable pull channels correspond to the cable pull channel in the proximal ring element 31 of the first exemplary embodiment. The cable end is seated in the distal ring element 33, similar to the first exemplary embodiment.”) for receiving the first control element (Wolfgang - Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7).
Wolfgang is silent at explicitly disclosing wherein each of the plurality of segments defines a second channel for receiving the second control element.
However Iwasaka, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein each of the plurality of segments (Fig. 4 joint rings 60, 62) defines a second channel ([0052] “Further, lower wire receiving parts 64E and 66E, left wire receiving parts 64F and 66F, and right wire receiving parts 64G and 66G, each of which has a passage hole that an operation wire passes through, are formed so as to project from inner surfaces of each first joint ring 60 and each second joint ring 62, respectively.”) for receiving the second control element (Fig. 4 wire 70B).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolfgang with the teachings of Iwasaka to include each of the plurality of segments defines a second channel for receiving the second control element for the benefit of having the elevator bend in “…a four-directionally, vertically and laterally, bendable structure” (Iwasaka – [0051]) by having a guide surface that allows “…pulling of the two operations wires and loosening the other” (Iwasaka [0023-0024]).
Regarding Claim 8, Wolfgang in view of teaches the distal portion of claim 6, wherein the first control element (Wolfgang - Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7) is coupled to a first actuator of a handle of the medical device (Wolfgang – [064] “On the proximal side of the endoscope, the cable 7 is connected to a control element such as a joystick. In the rest position, no force is applied to the cable 7.”), but is silent at explicitly discloses wherein the second control element is coupled to a second actuator of a handle of the medical device, wherein the first actuator is separately actuatable from the second actuator.
However Iwasaka, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second control element Fig. 4 wire 70B) is coupled to a second actuator (Fig. 1 knob 20, [0056]) of a handle (Fig. 1 operation part 12) of the medical device (Fig. 1 endoscope 10), wherein the first actuator (Fig. 1 knob 18) is separately actuatable from the second actuator (Fig. 1 knob 20).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolfgang with the teachings of Iwasaka to include wherein the first control element is coupled to a first actuator of a handle of the medical device (Fig. 1, and wherein the second control element is coupled to a second actuator of a handle of the medical device, wherein the first actuator is separately actuatable from the second actuator for the benefit of controlling the elevator to go into multiple directions (Iwasaka – [0052-0059].
Regarding Claim 9, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion claim 1, wherein a distalmost segment (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 distal ring member 33) of the plurality of segments (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]), includes a socket (Wolfgang – Fig. 1 cable end 71, [079] “The cable end is seated in the distal ring element 33, similar to the first exemplary embodiment.) on an outer surface (Wolfgang – Fig. 1 near annotated 71 of distal ring member 33) of the distalmost segment (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 distal ring member 33), wherein the socket (Wolfgang – Fig. 1 cable end 71) is configured to receive a distal end of the control element (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Wolfgang discloses the distal portion claim 1, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098) includes a base wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall, wherein the first side wall of each segment defines a channel configured to receive the control element (Wolfgang - Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7 – [079] “Respective cable pull channels are formed in the ring elements 31, 61, 61', 33. The respective cable pull channels correspond to the cable pull channel in the proximal ring element 31 of the first exemplary embodiment. The cable end is seated in the distal ring element 33, similar to the first exemplary embodiment.”), but is silent at explicitly disclosing wherein a width of the first side wall of each segment is greater than a width of the second side wall of each segment.
However Iwasaka, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a width of the first side wall (see annotated Fig. 4)of each segment (Fig. 4 joint rings 60, 62) is greater than a width of the second side wall (see annotated Fig. 4) of each segment (Fig. 4 joint rings 60, 62).
PNG
media_image2.png
1530
1022
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolfgang with the teachings of Iwasaka to include wherein a width of the first side wall of each segment is greater than a width of the second side wall of each segment for the benefit of the inside surface of the plurality of segments creating “…cross-section having the shape of an arc having a predetermined central angle” (Iwasaka – [0055]) for the treatment tool to travel along.
Regarding Claim 12, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion claim 1, wherein the at least one hinge(Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 rotating element 62, 62’, 62”) includes a pin or rivet (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 bearing 63, 63’, 63”).
Regarding Claim 13, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion of claim 1, wherein a distalmost segment (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 distal ring member 33) of the plurality of segments (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, distal ring member 33, [072-098) includes a distally extending protrusion (Wolfgang – see annotated Fig. 6), wherein the control element (Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7) is affixed to the distally extending protrusion (Wolfgang – see annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
632
1694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion of claim [[14]] 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of segments (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098) is configured to rotate, while the control element (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7) moves distally (Wolfgang – [084-094]), relative to [[the]] a proximalmost segment (Wolfgang – [084-094]) of the plurality of segments (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098) before the proximalmost segment (Wolfgang – [084-094]) of the plurality of segments (Wolfgang – Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098)rotates with respect to the distal tip (Wolfgang – Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head body 11) of the medical device (Wolfgang – [001] endoscope).
Regarding Claim 16, Wolfgang discloses a distal portion (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head 1) of a medical device ([001] endoscope), comprising:
an elevator (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 pivotable working channel element 30) including a plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098) joined together by at least one hinge (Figs. 6-8 rotating element 62, 62’, 62”), wherein an accessory device (tools [005]) received by a guide surface (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 recess 33a) of the elevator (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 pivotable working channel element 30) extends parallel to a longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 1) of the distal portion (Wolfgang – Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head 1) of the medical device ([001] endoscope) in an unarticulated configuration (Fig. 1) of the elevator (Figs. 1-3, 6-9 pivotable working channel element 30); and
a first control element (Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7, Examiner’s Note: As stated above control element is being interpreted as an element similar to a wire or cable. Here Wolfgang teaches a cable pull 7 as a control element.) coupled to only a distalmost segment (Figs. 6-8 distal ring member 33) of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]), wherein proximal or distal movement ([084-094]) of the first control element (Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7) is configured to move ([084-094]) the distalmost segment (Figs. 6-8 distal ring member 33) of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]) relative to another of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]);
PNG
media_image1.png
456
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wolfgang is silent as to further comprise wherein the first control element extends externally to the elevator, along an outer side of the elevator, wherein the outer side is opposite an inner side that defines the guide surface.
However Iwasaka, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first control element (Iwasaka – Fig. 4 operation wire 68) extends externally to the elevator (Iwasaka – Figs. 1-7 distal insertion part 38 ), along an outer side (Iwasaka – Figs. 3-4 near lower external surface 54) of the elevator (Iwasaka – Figs. 1-7 distal insertion part 38 ), wherein the outer side (Iwasaka – Figs. 3-4 near lower external surface 54) is opposite an inner side (Figs. 3-4 upper external surface 56) that defines the guide surface (Iwasaka – Fig. 7 guide groove 44).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolfgang with the teachings of Iwasaka to include wherein the first control element extends externally to the elevator, along an outer side of the elevator, wherein the outer side is opposite an inner side that defines the guide surface for the benefit of “..caus[ing] the bending part…to bend downward…” (Iwasaka – [0057]).
Regarding Claim 18, Wolfgang discloses a distal portion of claim 16, wherein each of the plurality of segments (Figs. 6-8 proximal ring element 31, vertebral joint ring element 61, 61’ distal ring member 33, [072-098]) defines a first channel (Wolfgang – [079] “Respective cable pull channels are formed in the ring elements 31, 61, 61', 33. The respective cable pull channels correspond to the cable pull channel in the proximal ring element 31 of the first exemplary embodiment. The cable end is seated in the distal ring element 33, similar to the first exemplary embodiment.”) for receiving the first control element (Wolfgang - Figs. 6-8 cable pull 7).
Wolfgang is silent at explicitly disclosing wherein each of the plurality of segments defines a second channel for receiving the second control element.
However Iwasaka, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein each of the plurality of segments (Fig. 4 joint rings 60, 62) defines a second channel ([0052] “Further, lower wire receiving parts 64E and 66E, left wire receiving parts 64F and 66F, and right wire receiving parts 64G and 66G, each of which has a passage hole that an operation wire passes through, are formed so as to project from inner surfaces of each first joint ring 60 and each second joint ring 62, respectively.”) for receiving the second control element (Fig. 4 wire 70B).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wolfgang with the teachings of Iwasaka to include each of the plurality of segments defines a second channel for receiving the second control element for the benefit of having the elevator bend in “…a four-directionally, vertically and laterally, bendable structure” (Iwasaka – [0051]) by having a guide surface that allows “…pulling of the two operations wires and loosening the other” (Iwasaka [0023-0024]).
Regarding Claim 21, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach a distal portion of claim 16, wherein the distal portion (Wolfgang – Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head 1) includes a distal tip (Wolfgang – Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head body 11) having an imaging device (Wolfgang – Fig. 1 camera 16), wherein the elevator (Wolfgang – Figs. 1-3, 6-9 pivotable working channel element 30) is pivotable with respect to the distal tip (Wolfgang – Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head body 11), including the imaging device (Wolfgang – Fig. 1 camera 16), while the distal tip (Wolfgang – Figs. 1-3, 6-9 endoscope head body 11) is in a fixed position.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka in view of Masubuchi et al. (US5460168) hereinafter Masubuchi.
Regarding Claim 17, Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka teach the distal portion of claim 16 but is silent as further teach wherein at least two segments of the plurality of segments are formed monolithically with one another.
However Masubuchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the distal portion of claim 16, wherein at least two segments of the plurality of segments (Masubuchi – Figs. 20a-23 illustrate erecting base 74 divided into 3 segments all separated by two hinge portions 89) are formed monolithically (Masubuchi – Figs. 20a-23) with one another.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wolfgang in view of Iwasaka with the teachings of Masubuchi to include wherein at least two segments of the plurality of segments are formed monolithically with one another for the benefit of being made with one material but is also capable of bending at a specific angles (Masubuchi – [col. 20 lines 32-66]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowable. Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to teach, among other features, wherein the first segment includes a first distal surface, wherein a second segment of the plurality of segments includes a first proximal surface and a second distal surface, wherein a third segment of the plurality of segments includes a second proximal surface, wherein, in an unarticulated configuration of the elevator, the first distal surface of the first segment and the first proximal surface of the second segment are separated by a first angle, wherein, in the unarticulated configuration of the elevator, the second distal surface of the second segment and the second proximal surface of the third segment are separated by a second angle, and wherein the second angle differs from the first angle.
There is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to have the additional features as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant’s disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Dietz et al. (US8864675); and
Leanna et al. (US2007/0265494).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E MONAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael 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.
/MEGAN ELIZABETH MONAHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights