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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 4/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15-20, 22, 25, and 51-52 remain pending in the application. Claims 7, 17-20, and 22 remain withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 4/9/2026, do not address the specification objection presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/9/2026. The examiner believes the discrepancy is due to possible oversight. Accordingly, the objection to the specification set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/9/2026 stands. Please see section Specification below for further explanation.
With the exception of the aforementioned objection, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112b rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/9/2026. The claim interpretation under 112(f) presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/9/2026 of “a sensor system” in claim 1 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 4/9/2026, with respect to the 112(f) interpretations of claims 1, 17, and 18, have been fully considered and are not persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The applicant argues that “a pneumatic system” and “a hydraulic system” do not invoke an interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f). The Applicant’s arguments are on the grounds that “pneumatic” and “hydraulic” are well-established engineering terms specifying the operating medium and implying specific structural components. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The terms “pneumatic” and “hydraulic” merely characterize the type of medium utilized within the recited system. While such terminology informs one of ordinary skill in the art that the system uses compressed gas or hydraulic fluid, respectively, the terminology does not identify any particular structural components of the system.
Accordingly, the interpretation invoked under 35 USC § 112(f) of “the selective rigidization system”, “a pneumatic system”, and “a hydraulic system” as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/9/2026 stands. Please see section Claim Interpretation below for further explanation.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 4/9/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 102 of Claim 1, have been fully considered and are not persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant amended the independent claim with newly added limitations. Such newly added limitations change the scope of the claims; however, a new ground of rejection is not necessitated.
The applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the current grounds of rejection. The applicant’s argument is on the grounds that Bogusky ‘575 fails to disclose “the sensor system configured to determine position information for the rigidizable section relative to a distal portion of the flexible delivery device based on a comparison of data from the first sensor and the second sensor, wherein the selective rigidization system, responsive to the position information, is configured to transition a portion of the rigidizable section of the elongated instrument from a bendable state to a rigid state.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bogusky ‘575 discloses that the selective rigidization system can be responsive to position information (paragraph 0087). Bogusky ‘575 further discloses that this position information can include a predetermined distance between the distal end of the medical instrument and the distal end of the elongate device (paragraph 0085). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand such distance information to be based upon on a comparison of data from a first sensor in the medical instrument and a second sensor in the elongate device.
Please see section 35 U.S.C. § 102 below for further explanation.
Specification
The use of the terms Bluetooth, Infrared Data Association (IrDA), Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT), and ZigBee, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 limitations are:
“the selective rigidization system … is configured to transition a portion of the rigidizable section of the instrument from a bendable state to a rigid state” in claim 1 as described in Paras. [0030-0031] and [0036] of Applicant’s specification.
“a pneumatic system configured to apply a vacuum to the rigidizable section” in claim 17 as described in Para. [0045] of Applicant’s specification.
“a hydraulic system configured to apply a pressurized fluid to the rigidizable section” in claim 18 as described in Para. [0045] of Applicant’s 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 § 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "wherein the sensor system includes an optical fiber shape sensor, and encoder, or an optical sensor" in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the claim requires (1) an optical fiber, an encoder, or an optical sensor as alternative components, (2) an optical fiber and an encoder, or alternatively an optical sensor, or (3) some other combination of the recited components. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For the purposes of examination, “wherein the sensor system includes an optical fiber shape sensor, and encoder, or an optical sensor” is being interpreted as “wherein the sensor system includes at least one of an optical fiber shape sensor, an encoder, or an optical sensor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 16, 25, and 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0030575 A1 to Bogusky et al. (“Bogusky ‘575”).
Regarding claim 1, Bogusky discloses a system (medical system 100; Fig. 1, paragraph 0053) comprising:
a flexible delivery device (medical instrument 226) including a tool channel extending therethrough (elongate device 226 can include a working lumen or channel 221 sized and shaped to receive a medical instrument 242; Fig. 2A-B, paragraph 0063);
an elongated instrument (elongate device 202) configured to extend within the tool channel (in other examples, the elongate device 202 may be housed within the working lumen 221 of medical instrument 226; paragraph 0071), the elongated instrument including a flexible section (the elongate sheath 202 may include a flexible body 216 having a distal end 218, a proximal end 217, a lumen 241 extending therebetween, and a plurality of segments 224 dividing a portion of or the entire length of the flexible body 216; Fig. 2C, paragraph 0067) and a rigidizable section (a stiffening mechanism may be positioned in each of a plurality of the segments 224 along flexible body 216 for individually rigidizing each of the plurality of segments 224, providing for controllably variable stiffness along the length of the flexible body; Fig. 2C, paragraph 0068);
a selective rigidization system at least partially extending within the elongated instrument (a stiffening mechanism may be positioned in each of a plurality of the segments 224 along flexible body 216 for individually rigidizing each of the plurality of segments 224, providing for controllably variable stiffness along the length of the flexible body; Fig. 2C, paragraph 0068); and
a sensor system including a first sensor associated with the elongated instrument (the elongate device 202 may include sensor systems, such as shape sensor 222 in the form of an optical fiber, position sensor 220 in the form of a plurality of EM sensors distributed along the length of the flexible body 216, and/or a plurality of force sensors distributed along the length of the flexible body 216; Fig. 2A and 2C, paragraph 0070) and a second sensor associated with the flexible delivery device (tracking system 230 may optionally track distal end 228 and/or one or more of the segments of elongate device 226 using a shape sensor 222; Fig.2A, paragraph 0062), the sensor system configured to determine position information for the rigidizable section relative to a distal portion of the flexible delivery device based on a comparison of data from the first sensor and the second sensor (the elongate device 202 may continue to advance until the distal end 218 of the elongate device is positioned a predetermined distance beyond the distal end of the medical instrument 226; Fig. 5A-6B, paragraph 0100),
wherein the selective rigidization system, responsive to the position information, is configured to transition a portion of the rigidizable section of the elongated instrument from a bendable state to a rigid state (in some examples, the actuation of one or more stiffening mechanisms along the elongate device 202 may be performed in conjunction with real-time position information, which may be displayed on display system 110 of Fig. 1 for use in the control of medical instrument system 200; paragraph 0087). During the telescoping operation shown in Figs. 6A-6B, Bogusky ‘575 discloses that the stiffening mechanism in elongate device 202 is actuated once the distal end of the elongate device 202 is positioned a predetermined difference beyond the distal end of the medical instrument 226 (paragraphs 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 2, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the flexible section remains in a flexible state when the rigidizable section is in the rigid state (each of the plurality of segments 224 is configurable, either on an individual basis or as part of a group of segments, between a rigid state and a flexible state based on actuation of a corresponding stiffening mechanism; 2C, paragraph 0068-0069).
Regarding claim 3, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claims 1-2. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein when the rigidizable section is in the rigid state, the elongated instrument is axially movable relative to the flexible delivery device (during motion of the elongate device drive unit 204a and the medical device drive unit 204b toward the reference location 408a, the elongate device drive unit 204a configures actuation of one or more stiffening mechanisms of the elongate device 202 to transition from a rigid state to a flexible state (e.g. become more flexible); Fig. 4A-B, paragraph 0076). The proximal portion of the elongate device is rigid and the distal portion of the elongate device is flexible during axial motion of the elongate device (Fig. 4A-B; paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 5, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the sensor system includes an optical fiber shape sensor (the elongate device 202 may include sensor systems, such as shape sensor 222 in the form of an optical fiber; paragraph 0070), an encoder (actuator position sensors such as resolvers, encoders, potentiometers, and other mechanisms may provide sensor data to medical system 100 describing the rotation and orientation of the motor shafts. This position sensor data may be used to determine motion of the objects manipulated by the actuators; Fig. 1, paragraph 0056), or an optical sensor (medical system 100 may include a sensor system 108 with one or more sub-systems for receiving information about the instruments of manipulator assembly 102. Such sub-systems may include … a visualization system for capturing images from the distal end of medical instrument 104; Fig. 1, paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 9, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the portion of the rigidizable section includes an entire length of the elongated instrument distal of the distal portion of the flexible delivery device (A drive unit (e.g. drive unit 204 configures actuation of one or more stiffening mechanisms in a first segment 506 of the elongate device 202 to be maintained in a rigid state while the steerable end 502 of the medical instrument 226 navigates the section of patient anatomy; Fig. 5A-C, paragraphs 0083-0085). As disclosed by Bogusky ‘575, the distal segment of the elongate device located distal of the distal portion of the medical instrument is in a rigid state while the medical device transitions from its position in Fig. 5B to its position in Fig. 5C.
Regarding claim 10, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the portion of the rigidizable section includes a partial length of the elongated instrument distal of the distal portion of the flexible delivery device (A drive unit (e.g. drive unit 204 configures actuation of one or more stiffening mechanisms in a first segment 506 of the elongate device 202 to be maintained in a rigid state while the steerable end 502 of the medical instrument 226 navigates the section of patient anatomy; Fig. 5A-C, paragraphs 0083-0085). As disclosed by Bogusky ‘575, the distal segment of the elongate device located distal of the distal portion of the medical instrument is in a rigid state while the medical device transitions from its position in Fig. 5B to its position in Fig. 5C.
Regarding claim 11, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the portion of the rigidizable section includes a portion of the elongated instrument distal to a distal end face of the flexible delivery device and includes a portion of the elongated instrument proximal to the distal end face of the flexible delivery device (A drive unit (e.g. drive unit 204 configures actuation of one or more stiffening mechanisms in a first segment 506 of the elongate device 202 to be maintained in a rigid state while the steerable end 502 of the medical instrument 226 navigates the section of patient anatomy; Fig. 5A-C, paragraphs 0083-0085). As disclosed by Bogusky ‘575, the distal segment of the elongate device located distal of the distal portion of the medical instrument and a proximal segment of the elongate device located proximal of the distal portion of the medical instrument is in a rigid state while the medical device transitions from its position in Fig. 5B to its position in Fig. 5C.
Regarding claim 12, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the rigidizable section includes predetermined segments and transitioning to the rigid state includes rigidizing one or more of the predetermined segments (a stiffening mechanism may be positioned in each of a plurality of the segments 224 along flexible body 216 for individually rigidizing each of the plurality of segments 224, providing for controllably variable stiffness along the length of the flexible body; Fig. 2C and 5A-5C, paragraphs 0068 and 0083-0084).
Regarding claim 16, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the selective rigidization system includes a series of compressible linkages (as the elongate device drive unit 204a continues to advance toward the reference location 408a, the segments 224 is/are able to collapse or compress in the flexible state; Fig. 4A, paragraph 0076-0077).
Regarding claim 25, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the selective rigidization system, responsive to the position information, is configured to transition a portion of the rigidizable section of the elongated instrument from the rigid state to the bendable state (various segments 224 along the flexible body 216 may switch from a rigid state to a flexible state as the flexible body navigates through anatomy depending on where the particular segments 224 are positioned within anatomy; paragraphs 0090) (while the elongate device 202 is advanced along the steerable end 502 of the medical instrument, the drive unit 204 configures actuation of one or more stiffening mechanisms in the first segment 506 of the elongate device 202 to transition from the rigid state to a flexible state; Fig. 5A-C, paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 51, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the selective rigidization system is configured to transition the portion of the rigidizable section of the elongated instrument from the bendable state to the rigid state automatically (the drive unit 204 may actuate the stiffening mechanism in the distal segment of the elongate device 202 to be configured in a rigid state; paragraph 0100) upon the comparison of data from the first sensor and the second sensor indicating that the elongated instrument has extended distally past the distal portion of the flexible delivery device by a predetermined distance (the elongate device 202 may continue to advance until the distal end 218 of the elongate device is positioned a predetermined distance beyond the distal end of the medical instrument 226; Fig. 5A-6B, paragraph 0100) During the telescoping operation shown in Figs. 6A-6B, Bogusky ‘575 discloses that the stiffening mechanism in elongate device 202 is actuated once the distal end of the elongate device 202 is positioned a predetermined difference beyond the distal end of the medical instrument 226 (paragraphs 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 52, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claims 1 and 51. Bogusky ‘575 further discloses wherein the selective rigidization system is configured to transition the portion of the rigidizable section of the elongated instrument back to the bendable state from the rigid state automatically upon a second comparison of data from the first sensor and the second sensor indicating that the elongated instrument has retracted into the distal portion of the flexible delivery device a predetermined amount (once the medical instrument 226 is withdrawn into the elongate device 202 the predetermined distance, the elongate device may again be configured in a flexible state; Fig. 14C, paragraph 0161). Examiner notes that relative motion of the elongate device with respect to the medical instrument or vice vera may be referred to as telescopic operation (paragraph 0071).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogusky ‘575 in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2025/0359736 A1 to Ferrante et al. (“Ferrante”).
Regarding claim 4, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claims 1-3. However, Bogusky ‘575 does not explicitly disclose wherein when the rigidizable section is in the rigid state, the elongated instrument is rotationally movable relative to the delivery device.
Ferrante teaches wherein when the rigidizable section is in the rigid state, the elongated instrument is rotationally movable relative to the delivery device (Fig. 20A illustrates rotation, e.g., roll, 2040 of the distal tip of the inner rigidizing device 2010 relative to the distal end of the outer rigidizing device 2000 … The inner rigidizing device 2010 may be in a rigid state; Fig. 20A, paragraph 0194). Ferrante teaches this type of roll of the inner rigidizing device is useful for panning around a structure such as a lumen (paragraph 0194).
Ferrante is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of medical instruments with a selective ridigization system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bogusky ‘575 to incorporate the teachings of Ferrante by rotating the elongate device relative to the medical instrument while the elongate device is in a rigid state. Doing so is useful for panning around a structure such as a lumen, as recognized by Ferrante.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogusky ‘575 in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0268233 A1 to Bugusky et al. (“Bogusky ‘233”).
Regarding claim 15, Bogusky ‘575 discloses the system according to claim 1. However, Bogusky ‘575 does not explicitly disclose wherein the selective rigidization system includes a tendon extending through a coil pipe in the rigidizable section.
Bogusky ‘233 teaches wherein the selective rigidization system includes a tendon extending through a coil pipe in the rigidizable section (for example, a stiffening system or mechanism 500 uses the characteristics of the coil pipe 423 within the control element lumen 412 to stiffen the pose of the flexible body 410. Fig. 5. Is an enlarged schematic showing an example of the conduit or coil pipe 423 within control element lumen 412 extending around the control element 421, such as a pull wire; Fig. 5 and 6A-D, paragraph 0084-0086).
Bogusky ‘233 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of medical instruments with a selective ridigization system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted the rigidization mechanism of Bogusky ‘575 with the rigidization mechanism of Bogusky ‘233, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Bogusky ‘233 is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one rigidization mechanism for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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 OLIVIA G STARKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/OLIVIA GRACE STARKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights