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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (U.S. 2001/0049509) in view of Henzler et al. (U.S. 2015/0133736).
With respect to claim 1, Sekine et al. et al. teaches an attachment for an imaging device, comprising:
a first sheath (38) including a central lonqitudinal axis, a proximal end, a distal end, a first lumen (9 for example), and a second lumen (39/37), wherein the second lumen is positioned on an interior surface of the first lumen, wherein the second lumen extends from a proximal openinq at the proximal end of the first sheath and within a wall of the first sheath alonq a side of the first sheath to a distal opening at the distal end of the first sheath, wherein the proximal openinq is radially outward from the distal openinq relative to the central lonqitudinal axis (FIG. 12); and
a second sheath (36) positioned around an exterior of the first sheath (FIG. 13); and
a connector (11) coupled to the proximal end of the first sheath and configured to be coupled to the imaging device (FIG. 1 for example).
However, Sekine et al. does not teach the connector is removable.
With respect to claim 1, Henzler et al. teaches a connector (36) removably coupled to the proximal end of the first sheath (14) and configured to be coupled a surgical device (FIG. 1b for example).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Sekine et al. to have a removable connector in the manner taught by Henzler et al. in order to allow for easier sterilization between procedures.
With respect to claims 2-3, this is considered intended use.
With respect to claim 5, Sekine et al. teaches the proximal end of the first sheath has a diameter larger than a diameter of the distal end of the first sheath (FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 7, Sekine et al. teaches the connector has a recess, and wherein a distal end of the recess is in communication with a distal opening of the second lumen (FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 13, Sekine teaches the second sheath is slidable along a length of the first sheath (para [0043])
With respect to claim 15, Sekine et al. et al. teaches an attachment for an imaging device, comprising:
a first sheath (38) including a central lonqitudinal axis, a proximal end, a distal end, a first lumen (9 for example), and a second lumen (39/37), wherein the second lumen is radially outward of the central longitudinal axis and includes a wall defining an interior surface of the first sheath (FIG. 12);
a second sheath (36) including a proximal end, a distal end, and a third lumen extending from the proximal end of the second sheath to the distal end of the second sheath; (FIG. 13);
a connector (11) coupled to the proximal end of the first sheath and configured to be coupled to the imaging device (FIG. 1 for example);
wherein the first sheath is configured to receive a shaft of the imaging device, and wherein the third lumen of the second sheath receives the first sheath (FIG. 13).
However, Sekine et al. does not teach the connector is removable.
With respect to claim 15, Henzler et al. teaches a connector (36) removably coupled to the proximal end of the first sheath (14) and configured to be coupled a surgical device (FIG. 1b for example).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Sekine et al. to have a removable connector in the manner taught by Henzler et al. in order to allow for easier sterilization between procedures.
With respect to claim 17, Sekine et al. teaches the proximal end of the first sheath has a diameter larger than a diameter of the distal end of the first sheath (FIG. 2).
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (U.S. 2001/0049509) in view of Henzler et al. (U.S. 2015/0133736) as applied to claim 1 and 15 above and further in view of Igov (U.S. 2016/0174814).
Sekine et al. teaches an attachment as set forth above. However, Sekine et al. does not teach the wall of the second sheath includes an opening.
With respect to claim 8, Igov teaches a device with a first sheath (1528 for example) and a second sheath (642 for example) wherein a wall of the second sheath includes an opening extending from a distal end of the second sheath to a proximal end of the second sheath (FIG. 13B for example).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the second sheath of Sekine et al. to have an opening in the manner taught by Igov in order to allow conveying a large object along the channel and/or positioning the channel over an endoprobe (para [0136] of Igov).
With respect to claim 9, Igov teaches the opening is expandable to permit decoupling the first sheath from the second sheath (para [0193])
With respect to claim 10, Igov teaches a proximal end of the second sheath includes a grip that comprises a protrusion extending radially outward (FIG. 13B for example).
With respect to claim 11, Igov teaches the second sheath defines a third lumen and a fourth lumen, wherein the fourth lumen is positioned on an interior surface of the third lumen (FIG. 10 for example).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the second sheath of Sekine et al. to have a fourth lumen in the manner taught by Igov in order to allow for control of one or more tasks inside a lumen (para [0133]).
With respect to claim 12 this is considered intended use.
With respect to claim 16, Igov teaches the second sheath includes a protrusion extending radially inward from an interior wall of the second sheath relative to the central longitudinal axis, wherein the second sheath includes a fourth lumen positioned radially outward of the first sheath, and wherein the fourth lumen extends longitudinally through the protrusion of the second sheath from a proximal opening of the fourth lumen to a distal opening of the fourth lumen (FIG. 37A for example).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the second sheath of Sekine et al. to have a fourth lumen in the manner taught by Igov in order to allow for control of one or more tasks inside a lumen (para [0133]).
With respect to claim 18, Igov teaches a device with a first sheath (1528 for example) and a second sheath (642 for example) wherein a wall of the second sheath includes an expandable opening extending from the proximal end of the second sheath to the distal end of the second sehath (FIG. 13B for example).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the second sheath of Sekine et al. to have an opening in the manner taught by Igov in order to allow conveying a large object along the channel and/or positioning the channel over an endoprobe (para [0136] of Igov).
With respect to claim 19, Igov teaches the second sheath is removably coupled to the first sheath (para [0193]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (U.S. 2001/0049509) in view of Henzler et al. (U.S. 2015/0133736) and Igov (U.S. 2016/0174814)
With respect to claim 20, Sekine et al. et al. teaches an attachment for an imaging device, comprising:
a first sheath (38) including a central longitudinal axis, a proximal end, a distal end, a first lumen (9 for example) extending from the proximal end of the first sheath to the distal end of the first sheath, and a second lumen (39/37) positioned on an interior surface of the first sheath, wherein the second lumen extends from a proximal opening at the proximal end side of the first sheath and within a wall of the first sheath along a side of the first sheath to a distal opening at the distal end of the first sheath, wherein the proximal opening is radially outward from the distal opening relative to the central longitudinal axis (FIG. 2 for example); and
a second sheath (36) including a proximal end, a distal end, and a third lumen extending from the proximal end to the distal end (FIG. 13); and
a connector (11) coupled to the proximal end of the first sheath and configured to be coupled to the imaging device (FIG. 1 for example);
wherein the second lumen is configured to receive a guidewire therein (intended use).
However, Sekine et al. does not teach the connector is removable. Sekine further does not teach a fourth lumen.
With respect to claim 20, Henzler et al. teaches a connector (36) removably coupled to the proximal end of the first sheath (14) and configured to be coupled a surgical device (FIG. 1b for example).
With respect to claim 20, Igov teaches a device with a first sheath (1528 for example) and a second sheath (642 for example) wherein the second sheath including a proximal end, a distal end, a third lumen extending from the proximal end of the second sheath to the distal end of the second sheath, and a fourth lumen positioned on an interior surface of the second sheath (FIG. 30A for example);
wherein the fourth lumen is configured to receive a guidewire therein (intended use); and
wherein the second sheath includes an expandable opening extending from the proximal end of the second sheath to the distal end of the second sheath, wherein the expandable opening permits decoupling the first sheath from the second sheath (para [0193]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Sekine et al. to have a removable connector in the manner taught by Henzler et al. in order to allow for easier sterilization between procedures.
Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the second sheath of Sekine et al. to have a fourth lumen and an opening in the manner taught by Igov in order to allow for control of one or more tasks inside a lumen (para [0133]) and allow conveying a large object along the channel and/or positioning the channel over an endoprobe (para [0136] of Igov).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm EST.
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 (571) 270-7235. 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.
/ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights