DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on April 22, 2026. Claims 1-18 and 20-21.
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 Arguments
Concerning the “III. Prior Art Rejections” section on pages 8-10 of the Applicant’s Response filed on April 22, 2026, with regards to the rejection of claim 20, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the Constandinou reference does not teach the limitation of “a pull member wrapped around the first pulley and the second pulley, wherein a first end of the pull member is coupled to the actuator, and wherein a second end of the pull member is coupled to a first axle of the first pulley”. However, the examiner asserts that the applicant has too narrowly interpreted the term “coupled”. The term coupled does not require elements to be directly fixed or directly attached, but may instead be interpreted as merely being operatively coupled. In the instant case, one end of pull member 30 of Constandinou wraps around both the first pulley (Figure 2; 34) and the second pulley (Figure 2; 32), wherein a first end of the pull member is coupled to the actuator, operationally (Figure 1; 14), via a pinion and wherein a second end of the pull member is coupled to a first axle of the first pulley, operationally, via the first pulley wheel. Therefore, the rejection of claim 20 stands.
With regards to the rejections of claims 1 and 16 and their dependent claims, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are moot in new of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Constandinou (US 2023/0277192).
Concerning claim 20, the Constandinou reference teaches a medical device handle (Figure 1-7; 10) comprising: an actuator (Figure 1; 14); a first pulley (Figure 2; 34); a second pulley (Figure 1; 32), wherein the second pulley is movable relative to the first pulley along an axis extending between a first axle of the first pulley and a second axle of the second pulley ([¶ 0133]); a pull member wrapped around the first pulley and the second pulley (Figure 2; 30), wherein a first end of the pull member and coupled to the actuator ([¶ 0134], first end of pull member coupled to actuator via pinion 28), and wherein a second end of the pull member is coupled to a first axle of the first pulley (Figure 2; pull member 30 is operatively coupled to a first axle of the first pulley via the wheel of the first pulley), and a control member coupled to the second pulley (Figure 2; 20); wherein the actuator is configured to move the pull member proximally so as to move the second pulley proximally relative to the first pulley, thereby moving the control member proximally ([¶ 0133]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constandinou (US 2023/0277192) in view of Qiu et al. (US 2013/0096457, hereinafter Qiu).
Concerning claim 1, the Constandinou prior art reference teaches a medical device handle (Figure 1-7; 10) comprising: a base (Figure 7; 12); an actuator (Figure 7; 54); a first pulley (Figure 2; 34) having a first axle (Figure 7; center of 34 on which the pulley rotates); a second pulley (Figure 7; 32) having a second axle (Figure 7; center of 32 on which the pulley rotates), wherein the second pulley is distal to the first pulley (Figure 7; 32, 34), wherein the second pulley is movable relative to the first pulley along an axis extending between the first axle of the first pulley and the second axle of the second pulley ([¶ 0133]); a pull member wrapped around the first pulley and the second pulley (Figure 7; 30) and coupled to the actuator ([¶ 0134], pull member coupled to actuator via pinion 28), and a control member coupled to the second pulley (Figure 2; 20) wherein movement of the second pulley along the axis is configured to move the control member in a direction parallel to or coaxial with the axis ([¶ 0140]), but does not specifically teach the base including a slot, wherein the second axle is movable through the slot as the second pulley moves along the axis.
However, the Qiu reference teaches a medical device handle (Figure 10; 10) comprising a base (Figure 10; 21) including a slot (Figure 10; 45) a pulley/axle assembly (Figure 10; 42), wherein the pulley/axle assembly is movable relative to the handle through the slot as the pulley moves along an axis ([¶ 0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base of the Constandinou reference include a slot as in the Qiu reference wherein the second axle is movable through the slot as the second pulley moves along the axis given the Qiu reference teaches said slot as being a method for properly coupling a movable pulley/axle assembly within the wall of a handle (Qiu; [¶ 0047]).
Concerning claim 2, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches the first pulley (Figure 7; 34) being fixedly coupled to the base ([¶ 0133]).
Concerning claim 3, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches each of the pull member and the control member including at least one of a wire, a cable or a thread (Figure 7; 20, 30).
Concerning claim 4, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches the axis extending between the first axle of the first pulley and the second axle of the second pulley being approximately parallel to or coaxial with a longitudinal axis of the medical device handle (Figure 7; horizontal arrow), and wherein the Qiu reference teaches the slot being parallel to or coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the medical device handle (Figure 10; 45).
Concerning claim 5, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches movement of the control member being configured to actuate an end effector at a distal end of a shaft extending from the medical device handle ([¶ 0141]).
Concerning claim 6, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches the first pulley being rotatable about the first axle and the second pulley being rotatable about the second axle (given pulleys operate by rotating about their axles).
Concerning claim 11, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches the first pulley and the second pulley conferring a mechanical advantage, such that a force exerted by the actuator on the pull member is smaller than a force exerted by the second pulley on the control member ([¶ 0133]).
Concerning claim 13, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches the second pulley being coupled to the control member by a coupler (Figure 7; 33).
Concerning claim 14, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 13, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches the coupler being affixed to a face of the second pulley (Figure 2; 32, 33).
Concerning claim 15, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches movement of the second pulley along the axis by a distance is configured to move the control member by the distance ([¶ 0133]).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constandinou (US 2023/0277192) in view of Qiu et al. (US 2013/0096457, hereinafter Qiu) as applied to claims 1-6, 11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Hyodo et al. (US 2016/0360949, hereinafter Hyodo).
Concerning claims 7-10, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches a resilient member in the form of a spring configured to exert a restoring force on the pull member when the medical device is in the second configuration (Figure 4A; 46 | [¶ 0141]), but does not specifically teach said resilient member extending between the first pulley and the second pulley to restore force on the second pulley.
However, the Hyodo reference teaches a manipulation device including a first fixed pulley (Figure 5; 2) and a second movable pulley (Figure 5; 45), and a control member coupled to the second pulley, and further including a resilient member extending between the first pulley and the second pulley to exert a restoring force on the second pulley (Figure 5; 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the resilient member of the Constandinou and Qiu combination be positioned between the first pulley and the second pulley to exert a restoring force on the second pulley as in the Hyodo reference as a simple substitution of one known placement for a biasing member for exerting a restoring force on a control member (the compression spring at the end effector of Constandinou) for another known placement for a biasing member for exerting a restoring force on a control member (the coil spring within the pully mechanism of the Hyodo reference) which would yield the predictable result of effectively operating in the same manner.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constandinou (US 2023/0277192) in view of Qiu et al. (US 2013/0096457, hereinafter Qiu) as applied to claims 1-6, 11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Kirkemo (US 2016/0089127).
Concerning claim 12, the combination of the Constandinou and Qiu references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches the actuator being a push button ([¶ 0076]) or a lever ([¶ 0153]), but does not specifically teach at least one finger loop.
However, the Kirkemo reference teaches a medical device handle, therein being in the same field of endeavor as the Constandinou and Qiu references, wherein the handle includes an actuator that may be a ring, button, or trigger ([¶ 0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the actuator of the Constandinou and Qiu combination be at least one finger loop as in the Kirkemo reference, given the Kirkemo reference defines a ring, or finger loop as an obvious alternative to a button or trigger (Kirkemo; [¶ 0052]).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constandinou (US 2023/0277192) in view of Hyodo et al. (US 2016/0360949, hereinafter Hyodo).
Concerning claim 16, the Constandinou prior art reference teaches a medical device handle (Figure 1-7; 10) comprising: a base (Figure 7; 12); an actuator (Figure 7; 54); a first pulley (Figure 2; 34) having a first axle (Figure 7; center of 34 on which the pulley rotates), wherein the pulley is longitudinally fixed ([¶ 0133]); a second pulley (Figure 7; 32) having a second axle (Figure 7; center of 32 on which the pulley rotates), wherein the second pulley is distal to the first pulley (Figure 7; 32, 34), wherein the second pulley is longitudinally movable relative to the first pulley along an axis extending between the first axle of the first pulley and the second axle of the second pulley ([¶ 0133]); a pull member wrapped around the first pulley and the second pulley (Figure 2; 30) and coupled to the actuator ([¶ 0134], pull member coupled to actuator via pinion 28), and a control member coupled to the second pulley (Figure 7; 20) wherein the medical device handle is configured to transition from a first configuration, in which the first pulley and the second pulley are separated by a first longitudinal distance, to a second configuration, in which the first pulley and the second pully are separated by a second longitudinal distance, wherein the second distance is smaller than the first distance ([¶ 0133], first configuration = actuator is not pressed; second configuration = actuator is pressed), further comprising a resilient member in the form of a spring configured to exert a restoring force on the pull member when the medical device is in the second configuration (Figure 4A; 46 | [¶ 0141]), but does not specifically teach the resilient member being connected to the first axle and the second axle.
However, the Hyodo reference teaches a manipulation device including a first fixed pulley (Figure 5; 2) and a second movable pulley (Figure 5; 45), and a control member coupled to the second pulley, and further including a resilient member extending between the first pulley and the second pulley to exert a restoring force on the second pulley (Figure 5; 43), wherein the resilient member is connected to the center of the pulley associated with the axle (Figure 5; 42, 43, 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the resilient member of the Constandinou and Qiu combination be positioned between the first pulley and the second pulley and connected to the first axle and the second axle to exert a restoring force on the second pulley as in the Hyodo reference as a simple substitution of one known placement for a biasing member for exerting a restoring force on a control member (the compression spring at the end effector of Constandinou) for another known placement for a biasing member for exerting a restoring force on a control member (the coil spring within the pully mechanism of the Hyodo reference) which would yield the predictable result of effectively operating in the same manner.
Concerning claim 17, the combination of the Constandinou, Qiu, and Hyodo references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 16, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches transitioning the medial device handle from the first configuration to the second configuration causes the control member to move proximally ([¶ 0134]).
Concerning claim 18, the combination of the Constandinou, Qiu, and Hyodo references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 17, wherein the Constandinou reference further teaches the movement of the control member being configured to actuate an end effector at a distal end of a shaft extending from the medical device handle ([¶ 0141]).
Concerning claim 21, the combination of the Constandinou, Qiu, and Hyodo references as discussed above teaches the medical device handle of claim 16, wherein the Hyodo reference teaches the movable pulley being movably supported within a guide (Hyodo; Figure 5; 46), therein limiting movement of the pulley in directions that are approximately coaxial with or parallel to a longitudinal axis of the medical device handle/base.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the Constandinou, Qiu, and Hyodo combination include the guide of the Hyodo reference to guide movement of the movable pulley (Hyodo; [¶ 0061]).
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 MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights