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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words resulting in undue length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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: a linkage unit, a controlling unit, a plurality of tension units, a tension adjusting unit, a plurality of adjusting members, and a plurality of connection members in claim 1; an adapter structure and an insert member in claims 9 and 21; and a linkage unit, a controlling unit and a plurality of tension units in claim 13.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The phrase “far away” in claims 1 and 13 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “far away” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what distance would be considered “far away” to satisfy the claim limitation. Accordingly, the claims are rendered indefinite.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (US 2023/0108741 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2024/0237889 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami discloses an endoscope, comprising a handle (3; Fig. 1; par. [0050]); a catheter (2; Fig. 1; par. [0050]), having a lens (within 6; par. [0051] and [0054]) at one end thereof (distal end), and extended into the handle (3) from one end of the handle (proximal end); an instrument tube (12; par. [0061]), wherein one end of the instrument tube is disposed outside the handle (3; Fig. 1); another end of the instrument tube is disposed inside the handle (par. [0062]); the catheter (2) is extended between and connected with one end of the handle (3) and another end of the instrument tube (par. [0062] – via branching member); a linkage unit (Fig. 2), disposed inside the handle (3; Fig. 2); a controlling unit (10; Figs. 1 and 2; par. [0056] and [0066]), disposed outside the handle (3; Fig. 1) and at a position corresponding to the linkage unit (Fig. 2), and extended into the handle (3) to be pivotally connected with the linkage unit (par. [0066] – via shaft 22; Fig. 2); a plurality of cables (23; Figs. 2 and 3; par. [0067]), wherein ends of the plurality of cables (23) are connected with the linkage unit (Fig. 2); other ends of the plurality of cables (23) are respectively connected to positions between two ends of the catheter (par. [0067] and [0077]); a plurality of tension units (35; par. [0076]; Fig. 2), respectively connected to perimeters of the plurality of cables (23; par. [0076]), wherein ends of the plurality of tension units (35) are connected to a position of the catheter, which is far away from one end of the handle by a preset distance (par. [0076]).
However, Kawakami does not specifically disclose a tension adjusting unit, including a plurality of adjusting members and a plurality of connection members, wherein the plurality of connection members is respectively connected with other ends of the plurality of tension units; the plurality of connection members is respectively moveably disposed at the plurality of adjusting members. As is generally known in the art and as taught by Lee, the length of the plurality of cables can increase over time as the endoscope is used, making it difficult to uniformly transmit force to bend the distal end (par. [0111]). Lee teaches using a tension adjusting unit (Fig. 6) including a plurality of adjusting members (270/271; Fig. 6; par. [0133]-[0135]) and a plurality of connection members (260; Fig. 6; par. [0133]-[0134]), wherein the plurality of connection members (260) is connected with an end of the plurality of tension units (240; par. [0130]); the plurality of connection members (260) is respectively moveably disposed at the plurality of adjusting members (270/271; Figs. 6-7; par. [0133]-[0135]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the tension adjusting unit of Lee in the endoscope of Kawakami in order to adjust tension when the lengths of the plurality of cables increase over time thereby uniformly transmitting force to the distal end, as taught by Lee. The tension adjusting unit in the endoscope of Kawakami would be located in the handle to connect with the plurality of cables and plurality of tension units, such that the plurality of adjusting members (270/271) is respectively disposed inside the handle and on positions, which are between one end of the handle (distal end) and the linkage unit (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Kawakami in view of Lee disclose the endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the linkage unit includes a body (21; Fig. 2; par. [0066]); a first bump (Fig. 2 – left edge of 21a; par. [0073]), disposed on a surface of the body (21), wherein a groove (21a1; Fig. 3; par. [0073]) is formed between the body (21) and the first bump (Fig. 2 – left edge of 21a; par. [0073]); and a second bump (Fig. 2 – right edge of 21a; par. [0073]), disposed on the surface of the body (21), wherein the first bump (Fig. 2 – left edge of 21a; par. [0073]) and the second bump (Fig. 2 – right edge of 21a; par. [0073]) are separated from each other by a given distance, which is determined according to a range of a preset bending angle of the cable (par. [0044] and [0005] – range is determined by the outer diameter of the body); the cable (23) is wound around the groove (21a1) and extended to the second bump (Fig. 2 – right edge of 21a; par. [0073]) to form a Z-type cable insertion structure (Fig. 2 – movement of 23 from around 37, into groove 21a1, and around 33).
Regarding claim 3, Kawakami in view of Lee disclose the endoscope according to claim 2, wherein the linkage unit (Fig. 2) includes a plurality of regulation clamps (33/34; Fig. 2; par. [0074]), which is respectively disposed on the surface of the body (21), wherein the plurality of cables (23) is respectively clamped and fixed by at least one of the plurality of regulation clamps (par. [0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Kawakami in view of Lee disclose the endoscope according to claim 2, wherein the linkage unit (Fig. 2) further includes a plurality of fixing pillars (33/34; Fig. 2; par. [0074]), which is disposed on the surface of the body (21), wherein a protrusion (top of 34) is formed on a top of at least one of the plurality of fixing pillars (33/34); the plurality of cables (23) is respectively wound around the plurality of fixing pillars (par. [0074]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Lee as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Yoshinaga et al. (US 2021/0113064 A1) in view of Morimoto et al. (US 2016/0089003 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kawakami in view of Lee disclose the endoscope according to claim 2, but does not specifically disclose wherein the linkage unit further includes a regulation fender, formed on an edge of the second bump and extended out of the second bump; a first regulation pillar, disposed inside the handle and on a perimeter of the body, and defining a first position where the regulation fender is allowed to reach; and a second regulation pillar, disposed inside the handle and on a perimeter of the body, and defining a second position where the regulation fender is allowed to reach, wherein a distance of the first position and the second position is a preset range by which the controlling unit is allowed to move the at least one cable. Yoshinaga teaches an analogous endoscope wherein the linkage unit (Fig. 2) includes a regulation fender (15d; Fig. 3; par. [0053]), formed on an edge of the body (15); a first regulation pillar (2d; Fig. 3; par. [0053]), disposed inside the handle (2/2b) and on a perimeter of the body (15), and defining a first position where the regulation fender is allowed to reach (par. [0053] and [0062]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the regulation fender and regulation pillar of Yoshinaga in the handle of Kawakami in order to limit the rotation range of the body in a first direction, as taught by Yoshinaga. Like Yoshinaga, Morimoto teaches an analogous endoscope that limits the rotation range in two directions. Morimoto uses a first (166a; Fig. 5; par. [0112]) and a second (166b; Fig. 5; par. [0112]) regulation structure, disposed inside the handle and on a perimeter of the body (152; Fig. 5), and defining a first and second position where the regulation fender (164) is allowed to reach (Fig. 5; par. [0112]), wherein a distance of the first position and the second position is a preset range by which the controlling unit is allowed to move the at least one cable (98; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a second regulation pillar in the endoscope of Kawakami in order to define the rotational range of the bending section of the endoscope.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akui (US 2022/0409028 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kawakami in view of Lee disclose the endoscope according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein an instrument tube fender is disposed inside the handle, extended from the instrument tube to an end of the handle; a part of the instrument tube, which is inside the handle, runs along the instrument tube fender and gradually bends toward the end of the handle. Akui teaches an analogous endoscope wherein an instrument tube fender (48; Fig.6; par. [0064]-[0065]) is disposed inside the handle (3; Fig. 2; par. [0065]), extended from the instrument tube to an end of the handle (Fig. 6); a part of the instrument tube (15; Fig. 6; par. [0064]-[0065]), which is inside the handle (3), runs along the instrument tube fender (48) and gradually bends toward the end of the handle (Fig. 6). Akui teaches that the instrument tube fender regulates the treatment instrument or the like from pressing against the inner walls of the instrument tube and moving toward the outer side direction of the bend (par. [0052]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the instrument tube fender of Akui in order to regulate the treatment instrument or the like from pressing against the inner walls of the instrument tube and moving toward the outer side direction of the bend, as taught by Akui.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matthison-Hansen (US 2021/0393113A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kawakami in view of Lee disclose the endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the catheter (2; Fig. 1) further includes a bendable member (7; par. [0056]), having a lens at one end thereof (par. [0054]); but does not specifically it comprising an adapter structure, wherein one end of the adapter structure is connected with another end of the bendable member; and an insert member, wherein one end of the insert member is connected with another end of the adapter structure; another end of the insert member is connected with another end of the instrument tube. Matthison-Hansen teaches an analogous endoscope having a bendable member (4; Fig. 1; par. [0041]) having a lens at one end thereof (par. [0006]); comprising an adapter structure (6; Fig. 2; par. [0047]), wherein one end of the adapter structure (6) is connected with another end of the bendable member (8); and an insert member (3; Fig. 1; par. [0041]), wherein one end of the insert member (3) is connected with another end of the adapter structure (6; Fig. 1; par. [0047]); another end of the insert member (3) is connected with another end of the instrument tube (14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the structure of the bendable member of Matthison-Hansen in the endoscope of Kawakami in order to provide a member that has increased resistance to torsional forces while also providing good utilization of the limited space within the bendable member, as taught by Matthison-Hansen (par. [0012]).
Regarding claim 10, Kawakami in view of Lee in view of Matthison-Hansen disclose the endoscope according to claim 9, wherein the bendable member includes a hose (Matthison-Hansen: 19; par. [0052]), having a lens at one end thereof (Matthison-Hansen: par. [0006] and [0052]), wherein one end of the adapter structure (Matthison-Hansen: 6) is connected with another end of the hose (Matthison-Hansen: 19; Fig. 7); and a plurality of moveable blocks (Matthison-Hansen: 8; par. [0047]; Fig. 2), disposed on a surface of the hose (Matthison-Hansen: 19; Fig. 7), and connected to each other in series (Matthison-Hansen: Fig. 2; par. [0047]), wherein the plurality of cables (Matthison-Hansen: 22; par. [0047]) is inserted through each of the moveable blocks (Matthison-Hansen: 8 via 10; par. [0047]; Fig. 15) in sequence and fixed to different positions of a last moveable block (Matthison-Hansen: par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, Kawakami in view of Lee in view of Matthison-Hansen disclose the endoscope according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of connection members (Lee: 260; Fig. 6) are respectively block bodies; ends of the plurality of tension units (35; Lee: 240) are respectively fixed to the plurality of block bodies (Lee: 260; Fig. 6); the adjusting member (Lee: 270/271) includes a plurality of slots (Lee: Fig. 6); the plurality of slots is disposed inside the handle and respectively at positions, which are between one end of the handle and the linkage unit (modified Kawakami: Fig. 2); the plurality of slots respectively accommodates and presses-fit to the plurality of block bodies (Lee; par. [0130]-[0131] and [0133]).
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (US 2023/0108741 A1) in view of Snoke et al. (US 20140200402A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami discloses an endoscope, comprising a handle (3; Fig. 1; par. [0050]); a catheter (2; Fig. 1; par. [0050]), wherein one end of the catheter (2) is extended into one end of the handle (3; Fig. 1); another end of the catheter (2) is extended out of the handle (3) and has a lens (within 6; par. [0051] and [0054]); an instrument tube (12; par. [0061]), wherein one end of the instrument tube is disposed outside the handle (3; Fig. 1); another end of the instrument tube is disposed inside the handle (par. [0062]). However, Kawakami does not specifically disclose that the instrument tube has an engagement member; the engagement member is connected with one end of the catheter; the instrument tube has a glue overflow recess on a perimeter of the engagement member. Snoke teaches an analogous device wherein the instrument tube (42; par. [0106]) has an engagement member (43/44; Luer connector; par. [0106]), the instrument tube (42) has a glue overflow recess on a perimeter of the engagement member (the Examiner notes that Applicant considers a Luer connecter an engagement member with a glue overflow recess; see par. [0035] of the published application; as the engagement member of Snoke comprises a Luer connecter it is capable of having a glue overflow recess when engaged with the instrument tube). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the engagement member of Snoke in the device of Kawakami in order to provide secure engagement with the instrument tube.
Regarding claim 13, Kawakami in view of Lee in view of Snoke disclose the endoscope according to claim 12, wherein the handle includes a linkage unit (Fig. 2), disposed inside the handle (3; Fig. 2); a controlling unit (10; Figs. 1 and 2; par. [0056] and [0066]), disposed outside the handle (3; Fig. 1) and at a position corresponding to the linkage unit (Fig. 2), and extended into the handle (3) to be pivotally connected with the linkage unit (par. [0066] – via shaft 22; Fig. 2); a plurality of cables (23; Figs. 2 and 3; par. [0067]), wherein ends of the plurality of cables (23) are connected with the linkage unit (Fig. 2); other ends of the plurality of cables (23) are respectively connected to positions between two ends of the catheter (par. [0067] and [0077]); a plurality of tension units (35; par. [0076]; Fig. 2), respectively connected to perimeters of the plurality of cables (23; par. [0076]), wherein ends of the plurality of tension units (35) are connected to a position of the catheter, which is far away from one end of the handle by a preset distance (par. [0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Kawakami in view of Lee in view of Snoke disclose the endoscope according to claim 13, wherein the linkage unit includes a body (21; Fig. 2; par. [0066]); a first bump (Fig. 2 – left edge of 21a; par. [0073]), disposed on a surface of the body (21), wherein a groove (21a1; Fig. 3; par. [0073]) is formed between the body (21) and the first bump (Fig. 2 – left edge of 21a; par. [0073]); and a second bump (Fig. 2 – right edge of 21a; par. [0073]), disposed on the surface of the body (21), wherein the first bump (Fig. 2 – left edge of 21a; par. [0073]) and the second bump (Fig. 2 – right edge of 21a; par. [0073]) are separated from each other by a given distance, which is determined according to a range of a preset bending angle of the cable (par. [0044] and [0005] – range is determined by the outer diameter of the body); the cable (23) is wound around the groove (21a1) and extended to the second bump (Fig. 2 – right edge of 21a; par. [0073]) to form a Z-type cable insertion structure (Fig. 2 – movement of 23 from around 37, into groove 21a1, and around 33).
Regarding claim 15, Kawakami in view of Lee in view of Snoke disclose the endoscope according to claim 13, wherein the linkage unit (Fig. 2) includes a plurality of regulation clamps (33/34; Fig. 2; par. [0074]), which is respectively disposed on the surface of the body (21), wherein the plurality of cables (23) is respectively clamped and fixed by at least one of the plurality of regulation clamps (par. [0074]).
Regarding claim 17, Kawakami in view of Lee in view of Snoke disclose the endoscope according to claim 13, wherein the linkage unit (Fig. 2) further includes a plurality of fixing pillars (33/34; Fig. 2; par. [0074]), which is disposed on the surface of the body (21), wherein a protrusion (top of 34) is formed on a top of at least one of the plurality of fixing pillars (33/34); the plurality of cables (23) is respectively wound around the plurality of fixing pillars (par. [0074]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Snoke as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Yoshinaga et al. (US 2021/0113064 A1) in view of Morimoto et al. (US 2016/0089003 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kawakami in view of Snoke disclose the endoscope according to claim 13, but does not specifically disclose wherein the linkage unit further includes a regulation fender, formed on an edge of the second bump and extended out of the second bump; a first regulation pillar, disposed inside the handle and on a perimeter of the body, and defining a first position where the regulation fender is allowed to reach; and a second regulation pillar, disposed inside the handle and on a perimeter of the body, and defining a second position where the regulation fender is allowed to reach, wherein a distance of the first position and the second position is a preset range by which the controlling unit is allowed to move the at least one cable. Yoshinaga teaches an analogous endoscope wherein the linkage unit (Fig. 2) includes a regulation fender (15d; Fig. 3; par. [0053]), formed on an edge of the body (15); a first regulation pillar (2d; Fig. 3; par. [0053]), disposed inside the handle (2/2b) and on a perimeter of the body (15), and defining a first position where the regulation fender is allowed to reach (par. [0053] and [0062]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the regulation fender and regulation pillar of Yoshinaga in the handle of Kawakami in order to limit the rotation range of the body in a first direction, as taught by Yoshinaga. Like Yoshinaga, Morimoto teaches an analogous endoscope that limits the rotation range in two directions. Morimoto uses a first (166a; Fig. 5; par. [0112]) and a second (166b; Fig. 5; par. [0112]) regulation structure, disposed inside the handle and on a perimeter of the body (152; Fig. 5), and defining a first and second position where the regulation fender (164) is allowed to reach (Fig. 5; par. [0112]), wherein a distance of the first position and the second position is a preset range by which the controlling unit is allowed to move the at least one cable (98; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a second regulation pillar in the endoscope of Kawakami in order to define the rotational range of the bending section of the endoscope.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Snoke as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Akui (US 2022/0409028 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kawakami in view of Snoke disclose the endoscope according to claim 12, but does not specifically disclose wherein an instrument tube fender is disposed inside the handle, extended from the instrument tube to an end of the handle; a part of the instrument tube, which is inside the handle, runs along the instrument tube fender and gradually bends toward the end of the handle. Akui teaches an analogous endoscope wherein an instrument tube fender (48; Fig.6; par. [0064]-[0065]) is disposed inside the handle (3; Fig. 2; par. [0065]), extended from the instrument tube to an end of the handle (Fig. 6); a part of the instrument tube (15; Fig. 6; par. [0064]-[0065]), which is inside the handle (3), runs along the instrument tube fender (48) and gradually bends toward the end of the handle (Fig. 6). Akui teaches that the instrument tube fender regulates the treatment instrument or the like from pressing against the inner walls of the instrument tube and moving toward the outer side direction of the bend (par. [0052]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the instrument tube fender of Akui in order to regulate the treatment instrument or the like from pressing against the inner walls of the instrument tube and moving toward the outer side direction of the bend, as taught by Akui.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Snoke as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Matthison-Hansen (US 2021/0393113A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kawakami in view of Snoke disclose the endoscope according to claim 12, wherein the catheter (2; Fig. 1) further includes a bendable member (7; par. [0056]), having a lens at one end thereof (par. [0054]); but does not specifically it comprising an adapter structure, wherein one end of the adapter structure is connected with another end of the bendable member; and an insert member, wherein one end of the insert member is connected with another end of the adapter structure; another end of the insert member is connected with another end of the instrument tube. Matthison-Hansen teaches an analogous endoscope having a bendable member (4; Fig. 1; par. [0041]) having a lens at one end thereof (par. [0006]); comprising an adapter structure (6; Fig. 2; par. [0047]), wherein one end of the adapter structure (6) is connected with another end of the bendable member (8); and an insert member (3; Fig. 1; par. [0041]), wherein one end of the insert member (3) is connected with another end of the adapter structure (6; Fig. 1; par. [0047]); another end of the insert member (3) is connected with another end of the instrument tube (14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the structure of the bendable member of Matthison-Hansen in the endoscope of Kawakami in order to provide a member that has increased resistance to torsional forces while also providing good utilization of the limited space within the bendable member, as taught by Matthison-Hansen (par. [0012]).
Regarding claim 22, Kawakami in view of Snoke in view of Matthison-Hansen disclose the endoscope according to claim 21, wherein the bendable member includes a hose (Matthison-Hansen: 19; par. [0052]), having a lens at one end thereof (Matthison-Hansen: par. [0006] and [0052]), wherein one end of the adapter structure (Matthison-Hansen: 6) is connected with another end of the hose (Matthison-Hansen: 19; Fig. 7); and a plurality of moveable blocks (Matthison-Hansen: 8; par. [0047]; Fig. 2), disposed on a surface of the hose (Matthison-Hansen: 19; Fig. 7), and connected to each other in series (Matthison-Hansen: Fig. 2; par. [0047]), wherein the plurality of cables (Matthison-Hansen: 22; par. [0047]) is inserted through each of the moveable blocks (Matthison-Hansen: 8 via 10; par. [0047]; Fig. 15) in sequence and fixed to different positions of a last moveable block (Matthison-Hansen: par. [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the prior art of record does not specifically disclose, or otherwise render obvious, the endoscope wherein the at least regulation clamp each includes a first clamp plate, disposed on the surface of the body, and having a plurality of first protrusions formed on a region, which is between two ends of the first clamp plate; and a second clamp plate, disposed on the surface of the body, and having a plurality of second protrusions formed on a region, which is between two ends of the second clamp plate and faces the plurality of first protrusions, wherein each of the plurality of second protrusions is extended to a space between two adjacent first protrusions to form a staggered structure; alternatively, each of the plurality of first protrusions is extended to a space between two adjacent second protrusions to form a staggered structure, wherein one of the plurality of cables is inserted into a space between the plurality of first protrusions and the plurality of second protrusions, and the plurality of first protrusions and the plurality of second protrusions jointly clamp one of the plurality of cables.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the prior art of record does not specifically disclose, or otherwise render obvious, the endoscope wherein the linkage unit includes two fixing pillars and at least one of the plurality of cables is wound around the two fixing pillars to-and-fro interweavingly in an 8-shaped route.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYNAE E BOLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYNAE E BOLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
1/5/26