Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2,4,6-8,12-13 and 18-29 are pending. Claims 3, 5, 9-11, 14-17 are cancelled. Applicants’ amendment to the claims have overcome 112 rejections and objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action notified on 04/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2,4,6-8,12-13 and 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a stiffening element extending through a stiffening channel of each of at least three links of the plurality of links,” in lines 9-13.
The stiffening element 114, FIG. 4A, only extends through two links 160. Here, a single stiffening element does not extend through the three links.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 18 and 24 include similar defects.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 12-13, 19-23, 25-29, are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-2,4,6-8,12-13 and 18-29, 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.
Claim 1 recites, “a stiffening element extending through a stiffening channel of each of at least three links of the plurality of links,” in lines 9-13.
In the instant application, the stiffening element 114, FIG. 4A, only extends through two links 160 only. A single stiffening element does not extend through three links. The actuating element 12 extends through at least three links. From the language, it is unclear whether the applicant intends to mean a single stiffening element passing through the channel of each of the three links or separate stiffening element passing through the channel of each of the three links.
Therefore, for the purpose of examiner, the following feature of claim has not been given any patentable weight –
“a stiffening element extending through a stiffening channel of each of at least three links of the plurality of links, the stiffening element having a proximal end fixedly attached to a proximalmost link of the at least three links, and having a distal end fixedly attached to a distalmost link of the at least three links.”
Claims 18 and 24 include similar defects.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 12-13, 19-23, 25-29, are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Prindiville (US 20160228202).
Regarding claim 1, Prindiville discloses an articulation joint (FIG. 4) for a medical device, the articulation joint having a proximal end and a distal end and comprising:
a plurality of links (linked link members 302, 304, and 306; FIGS. 2-3; Para [0045]), each link of the plurality of links configured to articulate relative to adjacent links of the plurality of links (FIGS. 6A-6B);
one or more actuating wires (cables 410a and 410b; Para [0063]), each actuating wire extending through an actuation channel (channel are integrated with the links for guiding the cables; Para [0069]) of each link of the plurality of links, fixedly attached proximate the distal end of the articulation joint (Cable are attached to the proximal end of the instrument for providing actuation movement. FIG. 1), and translatable (cable movement 502, 504; Para [0063]) relative to the plurality of links to articulate the articulation joint (FIG. 6A, 6B; para [0070]); and
a stiffening element (Flexures 320-326; Flexures 320-326 can provide an inherent spring force to the link members; FIG. 4; Para [0051]) extending through a stiffening channel (Channel/groove/recess 321 where the flexures 320-326 are guided; FIG. 3 annotated) of each of at least three links of the plurality of links (FIG. 3, annotated below), having a proximal end fixedly attached a proximalmost link of the at least three links (FIG. 3), and having a distal end fixedly attached to a distalmost link of the at least three links (Flexures 324 is connected to the link members 304, 306; Note links, FIG. 3, annotated; Also see 112 (a), and 112(b) rejections above).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Prindiville discloses wherein each link of the plurality of links includes a wall (FIG. 3, annotated), wherein each stiffening channel is defined by the wall of a corresponding link (The outer surface defines the stiffening channel. FIG. 3) and is open to a side of the corresponding link (The stiffening channel/recess 321 opens on the side. FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Prindiville discloses wherein the stiffening channel has a rectangular cross-sectional shape (The recess 321 has a rectangular cross-section. FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Prindiville discloses wherein the stiffening element is a first stiffening element (flexure 324) and wherein the articulation joint further comprises a second stiffening element (flexure 320) disposed opposite the first stiffening element (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Prindiville discloses wherein the one or more actuating wires includes two (Cables 410a and 410b; Para [0063]) or four actuating wires.
Regarding claim 13, Prindiville discloses gaps (FIG. 3 annotated) disposed between each link of the plurality of links, wherein the gaps are narrowest at a location of the stiffening element.
Regarding claim 29, Prindiville discloses wherein the stiffening element (Flexures 320-326; Flexures 320-326 can provide an inherent spring force to the link members; FIG. 4; Para [0051]) extends through the stiffening channel (Channel/groove/recess 321 where the flexures 320-326 are guided; FIG. 3 annotated) of each link of the plurality of links, such that the stiffening element extends from a proximal most link of the articulation joint to a distalmost link of the articulation joint (Flexures 324 is connected to the link members 304, 306; Also see 112(a), 112(b) rejection set forth above).
Claim(s) 18-20, 22-23, 28, 24, 26, 27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Prindiville (US 20160228202).
Regarding claim 18, Prindiville discloses a medical device (FIGS. 1, 4) comprising:
a handle (FIG. 1), an articulation joint (FIG. 4), a flexible shaft (flexible shaft 104) disposed between the handle and the articulation joint, and a tip (end effector 402; FIG. 4) disposed distally of the articulation joint, wherein the articulation joint has a proximal end and a distal end (FIGS. 3-4) and comprises:
a plurality of links (Linked link members 302, 304, and 306; FIGS. 2-3; Para [0045]), each link of the plurality of links configured to articulate relative to adjacent links of the plurality of links (FIGS. 6A-6B);
one or more actuating wires (cables 410a and 410b; Para [0063]), each actuating wire extending through an actuation channel (channel are integrated with the links for guiding the cables; Para [0069]) of each link of the plurality of links, fixedly attached proximate the distal end of the articulation joint (Cable are attached to the proximal end of the instrument for providing actuation movement. FIG. 1), and translatable (cable movement 502, 504; Para [0063]) relative to the plurality of links to articulate the articulation joint (FIG. 6A, 6B; para [0070]); and
a stiffening element (Flexures 320-326; Flexures 320-326 can provide an inherent spring force to the link members; FIG. 4; Para [0051]) extending through a stiffening channel (Channel/groove where the Flexures 320-326 are guided; FIG. 3 annotated) of each link of the plurality of links, wherein the stiffening element has (a) a proximal end fixedly attached to a proximalmost link of the plurality of links (Flexures 324 is connected to the link members 304, 306; FIG. 4), and (c) a central portion (FIG. 3) that is between the proximal end and the distal end of the stiffening element, wherein the center portion extends through the stiffening channel of a middle link between the proximalmost link and the distalmost link (Also see 112(a), 112(b) rejections set forth above).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Prindiville discloses wherein each link defines four stiffening channels (Stiffening channels are defined - two on the distal side and two on the proximal side; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Prindiville discloses wherein the stiffening element is nonmetallic (Polymers may be used with the mechanism; Para [0043]).
Regarding claim 22, Prindiville discloses wherein each link of the plurality of links includes a wall having a radially inner surface defining a lumen (FIG. 3) and a radially outer surface defining an outer surface of a corresponding link (FIG.3), wherein each stiffening channel is disposed on the radially outer surface of the corresponding link (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 23, Prindiville discloses wherein the stiffening element is a first stiffening element and wherein the articulation joint further comprises a second stiffening element disposed opposite the first stiffening element (There are three stiffening elements and two of them are opposite to each other. FIG. 3; para [0048]).
Regarding claim 24, Prindiville discloses an articulation joint for a medical device (FIG. 4; Para [0001]), the articulation joint comprising:
at least three links (Linked link members 302, 304, and 306; FIGS. 2-3; Para [0045]), each link of the at least three links configured to articulate relative to adjacent links of the at least three links (FIG. 4; Para [0001]);
one or more actuating wires (cables 410a and 410b; Para [0063]), each actuating wire extending through an actuation channel (channel are integrated with the links for guiding the cables; Para [0069]) of each link of the at least three links, wherein each actuating wire is translatable relative to the at least three links to articulate the articulation joint (Cable are attached to the proximal end of the instrument for providing actuation movement. FIG. 1; cable movement 502, 504; Para [0063]; FIGS. 6A, 6B; para [0070]; and
a stiffening element (Flexures 320-326; Flexures 320-326 can provide an inherent spring force to the link members; FIG. 4; Para [0051]) extending from a proximal most link of the at least three links to a distalmost link of the at least three links (FIGS. 3-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Prindiville discloses wherein the stiffening element is a first stiffening element (Flexures 320-326), wherein the articulation joint further comprises a second stiffening element (Flexures 320-326), wherein the second stiffening element extends from the proximalmost link to the distalmost link of the at least three links (Flexures 320-326).
Regarding claim 27, Prindiville discloses wherein the stiffening element is Nonmetallic (Polymers may be used with the mechanism; Para [0043]).
Regarding claim 28, Prindiville discloses wherein the central portion of the stiffening element is fixedly attached to at least one other link of the plurality of links (FIG. 3).
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(s) 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prindiville (US 20160228202) in view of Julian (US 20200205908).
Regarding claim 4, Prindiville does not expressly disclose wherein the stiffening channel has a concave shape.
Julian is directed to a medical device (abstract) and teaches wherein the stiffening channel (One or more recesses 208 for connecting the links; FIG. 22B; Para [0119]) has a concave shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prindiville to include a concave shape in the stiffening channel in accordance with the teaching of Julian so that additional flexibility could be provided in bending by way of having an oval shaped channel.
Claim(s) 6, 21, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prindiville (US 20160228202) in view of Ikeda (US 20060199999).
Regarding claims 6, 21, and 25, Prindiville does not expressly disclose wherein the actuation channel has an enclosed shape.
Ikeda is directed to minimally invasive articulating surgical endoscope (abstract) and teaches wherein the actuation channel has an enclosed shape (Holes covering the channel for bending cables 104; FIG. 9; para [0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prindiville to have enclosed shape for covering the bending cables in accordance with the teaching of Ikeda so that bending cables could be protected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 06/01/2026 have been fully considered. However, the arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated below.
A patentable weight has not been given to the following feature recited in lines 9-13 of claim 1 (See rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) above) -
“a stiffening element extending through a stiffening channel of each of at least three links of the plurality of links, the stiffening element having a proximal end fixedly attached to a proximalmost link of the at least three links, and having a distal end fixedly attached to a distalmost link of the at least three links.” As discussed above this feature is not supported by the applicants disclosure.
Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO – 892. For example, see Yoon (US 20150327751) for body/links 111 and coupling slots 113.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, 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.
/SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
9/4/26
Prosecution Insights