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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon et al (U.S. Patent Application 20150057537, hereinafter “Dillon”) in view of Miyamoto et al (U.S. Patent Application 2008/0287961, hereinafter “Miyamoto”). Dillon teaches a scope system comprising:
A handle (figure 2A element 218)
PNG
media_image1.png
601
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A stationary member comprising an elongate tube connected to the handle (figure 2B elements 240 and 250)
PNG
media_image2.png
463
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A movable elongate member comprising a tubular body with a proximal end (figure 2b element 250 pointed to with an arrow below) and a distal end (figure 2b element 250 at element 215 circled below)
PNG
media_image3.png
463
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein, the movable elongate member is removably attachable (paragraph 9 “removably mounting the handle”) directly to the handle and is configured for insertion and longitudinal movement through a portion of the handle (paragraph 28 “miniscope shaft 250… freely slidable therethrough to allow longitudinal manipulation”)
Wherein, when the proximal end of the movable elongate member is attached to the handle and a distal length is disposed through the at least a portion (figure 2b element 215 circled above) of the handle, the movable elongate member forms a loop (figure 2b loop made up of element 250 shown above) around to and through the at least a portion of the handle and is also movably disposed longitudinally (paragraph 28 “miniscope shaft 250… freely slidable therethrough to allow longitudinal manipulation”) through at least a length of the elongate tube
However, Dillon fails to teach a handle configured to select between a side-viewing duodenoscope mode and an end-viewing cholangioscope mode of the movable elongate member relative to the stationary member comprising the elongate tube. With “cholangioschope” and “duodenoscope” being interpreted as adjectives rather than structural limitations, Miyamoto teaches a handle configured to select (figure 19 element 10) between a side-viewing (figure 27 element 11) duodenoscope mode and an end-viewing (figure 26 element 11) cholangioscope mode of the movable elongate member relative to the stationary member comprising the elongate tube.
PNG
media_image4.png
801
629
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
805
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 15, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon. Regarding claim 15, Dillon teaches a scope system, wherein the movable elongate member further comprises an access channel extending at least partially longitudinally therethrough, the access channel configured to receive a wire guide or instrument. In paragraph 31, Dillon discloses a miniscope including “one or more other channels/lumens (e.g., for passage therethrough of guidewire(s), therapeutic and/or diagnostic tools, fluids (e.g., radiopaque contrast, flushing fluid), and/or other materials)”.
Regarding claim 16, Dillon teaches a scope system wherein the movable elongate member comprises one or more channels extending at least partially longitudinally therethrough, the one or more channels configured to provide insufflation of gas, suction, and/or irrigation liquid to the distal end. As seen in paragraph 31, Dillon discloses passage of fluids through channels as a feature of the miniscope.
Regarding claim 17, Dillon teaches a scope system wherein the movable elongate member further comprises a camera at the distal end, and one or more light fibers and/or LEDs configured to provide illumination for the camera. Dillon discloses lumens within the elongate shaft as well as visualization elements on the distal end of the shaft in paragraph 31 of the specification.
Regarding claim 20, Dillon teaches a scope system wherein the movable elongate member further comprises an access channel extending at least partially longitudinally therethrough, the access channel configured to receive a wireguide or instrument entering through the skive. Paragraph 31 of Dillon details an elongate catheter shaft that includes channels for passage of wireguides or other instruments.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to claims 1-14, 18, and 19, claims 1, 18, and 19 have been found to contain allowable subject matter. Any claims that depend from there from are also found to contain allowable subject matter due to their dependency on the allowable subject matter.
Reasons for Allowance
The allowable subject matter found in claim 1 that has not been found to have been anticipated or taught in the prior art, in combination with the other claim limitations is as follows: “wherein, when the handle is in the locked configuration, the movable elongate member is stored on a surface of the handle; and wherein, when the handle is in the unlocked configuration, the proximal end of the movable elongate member is attached to the handle, and the movable elongate member is movably disposed within the elongate tube.”
The closest prior art of reference is Chu et al (U.S. Patent 10,918,402, hereinafter “Chu”). Chu is a scope system with a handle encompassing a locking element, a stationary member comprising an elongate tube, and a movable elongate member with both a distal and proximal end. However, the locking mechanism of Chu is geared towards locking the shaft of the scope in an extended position, rather than the claimed element of a locking configuration to store the movable elongate member on the surface of the handle.
The allowable subject matter found in claim 18 that has not been found to have been anticipated or taught in the prior art, in combination with the other claim limitations is as follows: “a removable handle lock configured to engage and – when engaged – to hold the movable elongate member and to prevent switching between a side-viewing duodenoscope mode and an end-viewing cholangioscope mode of the movable elongate member relative to the stationary member comprising the elongate tube”.
The closest prior art of reference is Gibbons et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0262301, hereinafter “Gibbons”). Gibbons is a scope system comprising a locking element to prevent switching between a side and distal end facing view of the distal end of the endoscope, but Gibbons does not incorporate this lock removably.
While claim 19 is not dependent upon claim 1, it encompasses the exact same elements as claim 1 with the additional limitation of the tubular body comprising “a skive between the proximal end and the distal end”. As claim 1 was allowable by itself, the addition of a limitation to create claim 19 does not affect the allowability of 19, and so it is deemed allowable with the same closest prior art of reference as that of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAYTON BARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0912. The examiner can normally be reached N/A.
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 5712707235. 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.
/DAYTON HYUN JIN BARKER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795