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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-8 & 10-14 are rejected.
Claim 9 is objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Specifically, GB 2569013 B is listed in the specification and has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed March 13, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, there is no legible copy of foreign patent document KR-10-2016/0056725 A.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first and second steering wires” on Line 3. Examiner kindly request Applicant amend this limitation to read “the first and second continuous steering wires [emphasis added]” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
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 limitation is:
"a user control assembly" configured to control the steering wiring portions in Claims 1-2, as described on Page 13, Line 35 – Page 14, Line 8 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-6, 8 & 11-13 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 recites the limitation “said steering wire portions” on Line 5. It is unclear whether these “steering wire portions” are the same as the “two steering wire portions [of the first continuous steering wire]” previously recited on Line 8 of Claim 1, the “two further steering wire portions [of the second continuous steering wire]” previously recited on Line 4 of Claim 2, or separate, different steering wire portions. For the purpose of examination, “said steering wire portions” is being interpreted as “the two further steering wire portions of the second continuous steering wire”.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the four steering wire portions are substantially equiangularly spaced” on Lines 1-2. It is unclear whether these “four steering wire portions” are the “two steering wire portions [of the first continuous steering wire]” previously recited on Line 8 of Claim 1 and the “two further steering wire portions [of the second continuous steering wire]” previously recited on Line 4 of Claim 2 or four separate, different steering wire portions. For the purpose of examination “wherein the four steering wire portions are substantially equiangularly spaced” is being interpreted as “wherein the two steering wire portions of the first continuous steering wire and the further two steering wire portions of the second continuous steering wire define four steering wire portions, wherein the four steering wire portions are substantially equiangularly spaced”.
NOTE: Examiner highly recommends Applicant amend “the two steering wire portions [of the first continuous steering wire]” and “the further two steering wire portions [of the second continuous steering wire]” to read as “first and second steering wire portions” and “third and fourth wire portions”, respectively, to provide better clarity throughout.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitation “the distal tip of the steering section” on Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the distal tip of the steering section” is being interpreted as “the distal tip of the insertion section [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the first and second continuous steering wires each have a first end coupled to the first rotational drive wheel and a second end coupled to the second rotational drive wheel” on Lines 3-5. It is unclear whether “a first end [of the first continuous steering wire]” and “a second end [of the first continuous steering wire]” are the same as the “first and second ends coupled to a user control assembly” previously recited on Line 6 of Claim 1, or separate, different “first and second ends”. Similarly, it is unclear whether “a first end [of the second continuous steering wire]” and “a second end [of the second continuous steering wire]” are the same as the “first and second ends coupled to the user control assembly” previously recited on Lines 2-3 of Claim 2 or separate, different “first and second ends”. For the purpose of examination, “wherein the first and second continuous steering wires each have a first end coupled to the first rotational drive wheel and a second end coupled to the second rotational drive wheel” is being interpreted as “wherein the first and second continuous steering wires each have the first end coupled to the first rotational drive wheel and the second end coupled to the second rotational drive wheel [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claims 4-6 & 12-13, Claims 4-6 rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-7 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schutz et al. (hereinafter "Schutz") (US 2023/0165444).
Regarding Claim 1, Schutz discloses an imaging endoscopy system (Fig. 11, 100; [0080]) comprising:
a hand controller (Fig. 11, 130; [0081]);
an insertion section (Fig. 11, an insertion portion comprising 1 and 133; [0081]) having a proximal end (Fig. 11, 133; [0081]) connected to the hand controller ([0081]) and a distal end (Figs. 1 & 11, 1; [0081]) for insertion into a subject ([0081]), the distal end having a steering section (Figs. 1 & 2, a steering portion comprising 2a, 2b and 2c; [0082]) and a distal tip (Figs. 1 & 2, 3; [0082]);
a steering control mechanism comprising a first continuous steering wire (Figs. 1 & 2, 10; [0084]), said first continuous steering wire having first (Figs. 12 & 13, a proximal end of 12 of 10; [0084]) and second ends (Figs. 12 & 13, a proximal end of 13 of 10; [0084]) coupled to a user control assembly at the hand controller (Fig. 11, manipulator wheels (not labeled); [0013] & [0084]), and an intermediate portion (Fig. 1, 14 of 10; [0084]) fixed at the distal tip of the insertion section ([0086]), thereby defining two steering wire portions (Fig. 1, 12 of 10 and 13 of 10; [0084]) extending from the hand controller to the distal tip ([0084]), said steering wire portions capable of being tensioned to cause bending of the steering section in response to operation of the user control assembly of the hand controller ([0084]).
Regarding Claim 2, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 1. Schutz further discloses a second continuous steering wire (Figs. 1 & 2, 11; [0084]), said second continuous steering wire having first (Figs. 12 & 13, a proximal end of 12 of 11; [0084]) and second ends (Figs. 12 & 13, a proximal end of 13 of 11; [0084]) coupled to the user control assembly at the hand controller ([0084]), and an intermediate portion (Fig. 1, 14 of 11; [0084]) fixed at the distal tip of the insertion section ([0086]), thereby defining two further steering wire portions (Fig. 1, 12 of 11 and 13 of 11; [0084]) extending from the hand controller to the distal tip ([0084]), said steering wire portions capable of being tensioned to cause bending of the steering section in response to operation of the user control assembly of the hand controller ([0084]).
Regarding Claim 3, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 2. Schutz further discloses wherein the four steering wire portions are substantially equiangularly spaced around the insertion section when viewed in cross section (see Figs. 3a & 3b).
Regarding Claim 4, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 2. Schutz further discloses wherein a first pair of opposed steering wire portions of the four steering wire portions are configured to cooperate to steer the distal tip in a first predetermined plane (see Figs. 3a, 3b & [0092]), and wherein a second pair of opposed steering wire portions of the four steering wire portions are configured to cooperate to steer the distal tip in a second predetermined plane (see Figs. 3a, 3b & [0092]).
Regarding Claim 5, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 4. Schutz further discloses wherein each pair of opposed steering wire portions are part of the same continuous steering wire (see Fig. 3b & [0092]).
Regarding Claim 6, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 4. Schutz further discloses wherein each pair of opposed steering wire portions includes one portion constituting part of the first continuous steering wire, and one portion constituting part of the second continuous steering wire (see Figs. 1, 2, 3a & [0092]).
Regarding Claim 7, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 1. Schutz further discloses wherein the intermediate portion of the first and/or second continuous wire portions is fixed at the distal tip via one or more of a clamping member, a knot, or an adhesive ([0047]).
Regarding Claim 10, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 1. Schutz further discloses wherein the user control assembly of the steering control mechanism includes one or more user input control elements selected from one or more rotatable control wheels (Fig. 11, manipulator wheels (not labeled); [0013] & [0084]), one or more switches, one or more levers or one or more buttons.
Regarding Claim 11, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 2. Schutz further discloses wherein the steering control mechanism comprises first (Fig. 12, a first operating element; [0038]) and second rotational drive wheels (Fig. 12, a second operating element; [0038]), wherein the first and second continuous steering wires each have a first end coupled to the first rotational drive wheel ([0038]) and a second end coupled to the second rotational drive wheel ([0038]).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevens-Wright et al. (hereinafter "Stevens") (U.S. 5,462,527).
Regarding Claim 1, in an alternative, Stevens discloses an imaging endoscopy system (Fig. 1, a system comprising 10, 12 and 14; Col. 3, Lines 57-63) comprising:
a hand controller (Fig. 1, 12; Col. 3, Lines 59-61);
an insertion section (Fig. 1, an insertion portion comprising 10 and 14; Col. 3, Lines 57-63) having a proximal end (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 3, Lines 58-59) connected to the hand controller (Fig. 14, Col. 9, Lines 52-61) and a distal end (Fig. 3, 14; Col. 3, Lines 60-62) for insertion into a subject (Col. 1, Lines 11-21), the distal end having a steering section (Fig. 1, 15 and 16; Col. 3, Lines 64-66) and a distal tip (Fig. 1, 17; Col. 3, Lines 66-67);
a steering control mechanism comprising a first continuous steering wire (Fig. 14, a horizontal pull cable assembly comprising 32a and 32c; Col. 4, Lines 42-47), said first continuous steering wire having first (a proximal end of 32a; see Fig. 14) and second ends (a proximal end of 32c; see Fig. 14) coupled to a user control assembly at the hand controller (Fig. 14, the proximal end of 32a and the proximal end of 32c are connected to 98 of 92 of an actuator assembly; Col. 10, Lines 17-34), and an intermediate portion (Fig. 9, 50; Col. 5, Lines 27-35) fixed at the distal tip of the insertion section (Col. 5, Lines 27-35), thereby defining two steering wire portions (Fig. 14, 32a and 32c; Col. 4, Lines 42-47) extending from the hand controller to the distal tip (see Figs. 13a-13c), said steering wire portions capable of being tensioned to cause bending of the steering section in response to operation of the user control assembly of the hand controller (Col. 6, Lines 48-54).
Regarding Claim 2, in an alternative, Stevens discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 1. Stevens further discloses a second continuous steering wire (Fig. 14, a vertical pull cable assembly comprising 32b and 32d; Col. 4, Lines 48-52), said second continuous steering wire having first (a proximal end of 32b; see Fig. 14) and second ends (a proximal end of 32d; see Fig. 14) coupled to the user control assembly at the hand controller (Fig. 14, the proximal end of 32b and the proximal end of 32d are connected to 142 of 140 of the actuator assembly; Col. 11, Lines 18-25), and an intermediate portion (Fig. 3, 72; Col. 6, Lines 9-17) fixed at the distal tip of the insertion section (Col. 6, Lines 9-17), thereby defining two further steering wire portions (Fig. 14, 32b and 32d; Col. 4, Lines 48-52) extending from the hand controller to the distal tip (see Figs. 13d-13f), said steering wire portions capable of being tensioned to cause bending of the steering section in response to operation of the user control assembly of the hand controller (Col. 6, Lines 56-64).
Regarding Claim 4, in an alternative, Stevens discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 2. Stevens further discloses wherein a first pair of opposed steering wire portions of the four steering wire portions are configured to cooperate to steer the distal tip in a first predetermined plane (Figs. 2 & 3, 32a and 32c cause 17 to bend horizontally; Col. 6, Lines 49-54), and wherein a second pair of opposed steering wire portions of the four steering wire portions are configured to cooperate to steer the distal tip in a second predetermined plane (Figs. 2 & 3, 32b and 32d cause 17 to bend vertically; Col. 6, Lines 56-64).
Regarding Claim 5, in an alternative, Stevens discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 4. Stevens further discloses wherein each pair of opposed steering wire portions are part of the same continuous steering wire (Figs. 13a-13f, 32a and 32c are part of the horizontal pull cable assembly and 32b and 32d are part of vertical pull cable assembly; Col. 4, Lines 42-52).
Regarding Claim 7, in an alternative, Stevens discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 1. Stevens further discloses wherein the intermediate portion of the first and/or second continuous wire portions is fixed at the distal tip via one or more of a clamping member, a knot (Fig. 3, 50 and 72 are knots; Col. 5, Lines 27-35 & Col. 6, Lines 9-17), or an adhesive.
Regarding Claim 8, Stevens discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 7. Stevens further discloses wherein the intermediate portion of the first and/or second continuous wire portions is threaded through a hole formed in the distal tip of the steering section (Figs. 3 & 8, 32b and 32d of vertical pull cable assembly are threaded through 70b and 70d of 17, respectively; Col. 6, Lines 9-12), fixed via a knot arranged distally of said hole (Fig. 3, 72 is distal to 70b and 70d; Col. 6, Lines 12-17).
Regarding Claim 10, in an alternative, Stevens discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 1. Stevens further discloses wherein the user control assembly of the steering control mechanism includes one or more user input control elements selected from one or more rotatable control wheels (Fig. 14, 92 is a thumb wheel; Col. 8, Lines 53-67), one or more switches, one or more levers or one or more buttons.
Regarding Claim 14, Stevens discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 1. Stevens further discloses wherein each steering wire portion comprises a respective outer constant length cable sheath defining an axis of constrained movement for its respective steering wire portion (Col. 4, Lines 25-26).
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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutz et al. (hereinafter "Schutz") (US 2023/0165444) in view of Kefurt (US 2022/0354346).
Regarding Claims 12-13, Schutz discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 11. Schutz fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the first and second rotational drive wheels comprise first and second drive wheel body portions having respective drum elements, and the ends of the first and second steering wires are coupled to the rotational drive wheels by being attached to the drum elements of the drive wheels and wherein the rotational drive wheels are configured to provide one-way relative rotation of their respective first and second drum elements.
However, Kefurt teaches an imaging endoscopy system (Fig. 3, an endoscope; [0025]) comprising:
a hand controller (Fig. 3, 2; [0028]);
an insertion section (Fig. 3, 19; [0032]);
a steering control mechanism comprising:
a first continuous steering wire (Fig. 3, 12’; [0031]) having first and second ends (see Fig. 3) coupled to a user control assembly at the hand controller ([0031]),
a second continuous steering wire (Fig. 3, 12’’; [0031]), having first and second ends (see Fig. 3) coupled to a user control assembly at the hand controller ([0031]);
a first rotational drive wheel having a first (Fig. 3, a first 30; [0032]) and second drive wheel body portions (Fig. 3, a second 30; [0032]) having respective first (Fig. 3, 14’; [0032]) and second drum elements (Fig. 3, 14’’; [0032]);
a second rotational drive wheel having a first (Fig. 3, a third 30; [0032]) and second drive wheel body portions (Fig. 3, a fourth 30; [0032]) having respective first (Fig. 3, 15’; [0032]) and second drum elements (Fig. 3, 15’’; [0032]);
wherein the ends of the first and second steering wires are coupled to the rotational drive wheels by being attached to the drum elements of the drive wheels (see Fig. 3); and
wherein the each of the first and second rotational drive wheels are configured to provide one-way relative rotation of their respective first and second drum elements ([0031]).
The advantage of the rotational drive wheels each having two body portions and two drums is to better control the bending of the steering section (Kefurt; [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotational drive wheels as disclosed by Schutz, to include the two body portions and two drums taught by Kefurt, to better control the bending of the steering section (Kefurt; [0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 9, Stevens discloses the imaging endoscopy system according to Claim 7. Stevens, alone or in combination with Schutz and/or Kefurt, fails to explicitly disclose, teach or suggest wherein the intermediate portion of the first and/or second continuous wire portions is fixed at the distal tip by a 'Figure 8' knot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoshinaga et al. (US 2021/0113064) teaches a bending operation mechanism of an endoscope.
Wang et al. (US 2021/0059506) teaches a wiring fixing structure for an endoscope.
Ide (US 2020/0187765) teaches an insertion portion of an endoscope.
Sinibaldi et al. (US 2018/0125593) teaches a shape-keeping deployment structure for an endoscope.
Jungles (US 2018/0028786) teaches a distal wire securement for a steerable catheter.
Farrell et al. (US 2017/0266410) teaches a multi-channel catheter insert.
Williams (US 2015/0366435) teaches a mechanism of a small drive wire retention on a spool.
Dillon (US 2013/0041314) teaches a steerable catheter with equiangularly spaced steering wires.
Selkee (US 2008/0103520) teaches an insert molded catheter puller member connector.
Bagley et al. (US 2006/0146127) teaches a flexible borescope assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm 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 (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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795