DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on February 24th, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two channels running towards each other in the distal end of the body (claim 35) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 16, 19-21, 23-30, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar (U.S. Publication 2022/0110514) in view of Aragno (WO 2018/002858 A1) and in view of Storz (DE 3934804 A1).
Molnar discloses a device (for example see Figures 1-9) comprising:
(claim 16) a rigid curved body (14) including
(claim 16) a proximal end (14B)
(claim 16) a distal end (the portion of 14 extending from 14B to 14C)
(claim 16) wherein the body extends in a longitudinal direction from the proximal end to the distal end
(claim 16) a handle (12) connected to the proximal end of the body
(claim 16) a curved extension (the portion of 14 that includes 14C) arranged on an upper section of the distal end of the body
(claim 16) wherein the curved extension is capable of lifting the epiglottis of a patient
(claim 16) wherein the rigid body and curved body, the handle, and the curved extension are configured in one piece (paragraph 74)
(claim 21) wherein the rigid curved body, the handle, and the curved extension comprises a material consisting of plastic (paragraph 196; the hook is optionally cited and being interpreted as an optional limitation)
(claim 16) a light source (paragraph 147; element 26 includes a light source) arranged, i.e. positioned relative to, a lower section of the distal end of the body (for example see Figure 4)
(claim 27) wherein the light source includes a further light source, i.e. a second light source (Figure 4; paragraph 93; Figure 4 shows two cameras with light sources being used together)
(claim 16) an image capturing unit (26) arranged, i.e. positioned relative to, a lower section of the distal end of the body (for example see Figure 4)
(claim 28) wherein the image capturing unit includes a further image capturing unit, i.e. a second image capturing unit (see Figure 4; paragraph 93; Figure 4 shows two cameras being used together)
(claim 30) wherein the light source and the image capturing unit are electrically connected to an energy storage device, i.e. a battery, arranged in an interior space of the device (paragraphs 146; the cameras are positioned within an interior space of the device, i.e. channel 28 or port 20)
(claim 16) a first channel (28; paragraphs 90-95) on a first side of the body
(claim 16) wherein the channel extends along the longitudinal axis
(claim 16) wherein the channel includes an opening at a proximal end of the channel
(claim 16) wherein the channel includes an opening at a distal end of the channel
(claim 35) wherein the opening is at a distal end of the body (for example see Figure 3)
(claim 16) wherein the channel is capable of receiving a flexible surgical instrument capable of mechanical intervention at a site of surgery (for example bougie 30)
(claim 32) wherein the channel includes a slot along their length
(claim 32) wherein the slot provides at least one additional opening in addition to the distal and proximal openings (see Figure 3)
Molnar fails to disclose the device wherein the rigid curved body includes two channels on opposite sides of the body, wherein the light source and the further light source consist of one or more LEDs, wherein the image capturing unit and the further image capturing unit consist of one or more image capturing chips, and handle including a curved hook.
Regarding the device wherein the rigid curved body includes two channels on opposite sides of the body, Arango teaches a device comprising a rigid curved body (1), wherein the rigid curved body includes a first channel on a first side of the rigid curved body and an identical second channel on the opposite side of the body (see Figures 2A and 2B) in order to allow for the passage of multiple tools at one time reducing the time of the surgical procedure (page 8 lines 2-5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to provide the device of Molnar wherein the rigid curved body includes an identical second channel on the opposite side of the rigid curved body in view of Arango in order to allow for the passage of multiple tools at one time reducing the time of the surgical procedure.
Regarding the light source and the further light source consisting of one or more LEDs, Arango teaches a device comprising a visualization mechanism including an image capturing unit (10) and a light source (11), wherein the light source consists of one or more LEDs (page 7 line 15) in order to provide a high intensity low heat light source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar wherein the light source and the further light source consists of one or more LEDs in view of Arango in order to provide a high intensity low heat light source.
Regarding the image capturing unit and the further image capturing unit consisting of one ore more capturing chips, Arango teaches a device comprising a visualization mechanism including an image capturing unit (10), wherein the image capturing unit consists of one or more capturing chips (a 1.3MP 1/12” VGA CMO is a known capturing chip, i.e. chip camera) in order to provide a small high resolution image capturing unit in a surgical instrument. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar wherein the image capturing unit and the further image capturing unit consists of one or more capturing chips in view of Arango in order to provide a small high resolution image capturing unit in a surgical instrument.
Regarding claim 23, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango discloses the invention as claimed except for the rigid curved body having a length of 12 cm to 15 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the rigid curved body has a length of 12 cm to 15 cm, since it has been held the were the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves of routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claim limitations are written as and/or, therefore the examiner is interpreting the other limitations as optional. Regarding claim 24, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango discloses the invention as claimed except for the handle having a length of 8 cm to 10 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the handle has a length of 8 cm to 10 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claim limitations are written as and/or, therefore the examiner is interpreting the other limitations as optional.
Regarding claim 25, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango discloses the invention as claimed except for the curved extension having a length of 2 cm to 4.5 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the curved extension has a length of 2 cm to 4.5 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claim limitations are written as and/or, therefore the examiner is interpreting the other limitations as optional.
Regarding claim 27, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango discloses the invention as claimed except for the light source and the further light source are arranged a distance of 0.5 cm to 1 cm from each other at the distal end of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the light source and the further light source are arranged a distance of 0.5 cm to 1 cm from each other at the distal end of the body, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 29, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango discloses the invention as claimed except for the image capturing unit and the further image capturing unit are arranged a distance of 1 cm to 2 cm from each other at the distal end of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the image capturing unit and the further image capturing unit are arranged a distance of 1 cm to 2 cm from each other at the distal end of the body, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involves routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 33, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango discloses the invention as claimed except for the at least one slot of each channel having a length of at least 5 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the at least one slot of each channel has a length of at least 5 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claim limitations are written as and/or, therefore the examiner is interpreting the other limitations as optional.
Regarding claim 34, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango discloses the invention as claimed except for the two channels having a diameter in the range of 6 mm to 10 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the two channels have a diameter in the range of 6 mm to 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claim limitations are written as and/or, therefore the examiner is interpreting the other limitations as optional.
Regarding claim 35, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango discloses the invention as claimed except for the minimal distance between an edge of the distal opening of the first channel and an edge of the distal opening of the second channel is about 2 cm to 3 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the minimal distance between an edge of the distal opening of the first channel and an edge of the distal opening of the second channel is about 2 cm to 3 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claim limitations are written as and/or, therefore the examiner is interpreting the other limitations as optional.
Regarding the handle including a curved hook, Storz teaches a device (for example see Figure 1) comprising a laryngoscope body (1) and a handle (7), wherein the device further comprises a curved hook (15) at a proximal end of the handle (claim 16) such that the curved hook curves in a direction of the laryngoscope body (claim 19) and wherein the laryngoscope body, the handle, and the curved hook are made from one piece (see Figure 1) in order to allow the device to be attached to a supporting device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the handle further includes a curved hook at the proximal end and wherein the laryngoscope body, the handle, and the curved hook are made from one piece in view of Storz in order to allow the device to be attached to a supporting device.
Regarding claim 20, the device of Molnar as modified by Arango as further modified by Storz discloses the invention as claimed except for the curved hook having a length of 2 cm to 5 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango as further modified by Storz wherein the curved hook has a length of 2 cm to 5 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claim limitations are written as and/or, therefore the examiner is interpreting the other limitations as optional.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar (U.S. Publication 2022/0110514) in view of Aragno (WO 2018/002858 A1) further in view of Storz (DE 3934804 A1) further in view of Shalman (U.S. Publication 2010/0004514).
The device of Molnar as modified by Arango as further modified by Storz discloses the invention as claimed except for the rigid curved body including a further channel. Shalman teaches a device (for example see Figures 7-11) comprising a rigid curved body (301) including a first channel (313) and a second channel (314), wherein the rigid curved body includes a further channel (316) extending in the longitudinal direction of the body having a distal opening (the opening near element 315) at the distal end of the rigid curved body and a proximal opening (318) at the proximal end of the rigid curved body such that the further channel is capable of receiving a flexible laser optical fiber in order to guide a light source (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango wherein the rigid curved body includes a further channel in view of Shalman in order to guide a light source.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar (U.S. Publication 2022/0110514) in view of Aragno (WO 2018/002858 A1) further in view of Storz (DE 3934804 A1) further in view of Shah (U.S. Publication 2022/0118207.
The device of Molnar as modified by Arango as further modified by Storz discloses the device as claimed except for the energy storage device, i.e. a battery, being charged wirelessly. Shah teaches a device comprising an energy storage device, i.e. a battery, wherein the batter is charged wirelessly (paragraph 18) in order to provide a smaller surgical instrument. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Molnar as modified by Arango as further modified by Storz wherein the batter is charged wirelessly in view of Shah in order to provide a smaller surgical instrument.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s argument that Figure 3 shows the claimed limitations of claim 35, i.e. the two channels running towards each other in the distal end of the body, is not persuasive . The applicant states that Figure 3 of the application leaves it open if the channels diverge or run parallel (see page 9 of arguments). Therefore, the figure does not show the limitations of claim 35 and the objection has been upheld. The applicant’s arguments directed to the limitations added to claim 16 in the amendment have been discussed in the new grounds of rejection provided by the examiner. The applicant’s arguments directed to the teachings of the Storz reference (U.S. Patent 4,294,235) are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection provided by the examiner. The applicant’s argument that the Arango reference does not explicit state the motivation of improving light intensity and reducing heat making the 103 rejection improper is not persuasive. The motivation for a teaching does not need to be explicitly stated within the reference (see MPEP 2144). The applicant’s arguments regarding the advantages of the device (for example the device being more stable or having more joints) not being disclosed and/or taught by the prior art references is moot. The advantages the applicant discusses are not stated in the claims and it is irrelevant whether the reference includes those features or not.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references the examiner felt were relevant to the application.
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 Nicholas Woodall whose telephone number is (571) 272-5204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS W WOODALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights