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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1 in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged.
In response to Applicant’s request to examine claims 33 and 34 because these claims have been amended to depend from elected claim 14, this request is denied. MPEP 1850 II. 6th para states, “[t]he examiner should bear in mind that a claim may also contain a reference to another claim even if it is not a dependent claim as defined in PCT Rule 6.4. One example of this is a claim referring to a claim of a different category (for example, "Apparatus for carrying out the process of Claim 1 ...," or "Process for the manufacture of the product of Claim 1 ..."). Similarly, a claim to one part referring to another cooperating part, for example, "plug for cooperation with the socket of Claim 1 ...") is not a dependent claim.” As such, claim 33 is not a dependent claim because it refers to a different category than claim 14.
Status of Claims
Claims 14-28 and 30-34 are pending, claims 33-34 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 14-28 and 30-32 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copies have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 24, 2008 has been considered by the examiner.
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 wire guide including a plurality of apertures (claim 25) 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 § 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 25 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 14 recites inter alia, “the wall including an arcuate ledge.” Claim 25 recites inter alia, “[t]he endoscope of claim 14, wherein the operating member further comprises a wire guide.” The transitional phrase “further comprises” indicates the features of claim 25 are separate from and in addition to the features already recited in claim 14. However, turning to paragraph [0049] of the published specification, “[s]tarting clockwise the wire guide comprises a ledge 89 adapted to keep the first pull-wire 191 at a predetermined distance from the axle 82.” That is, the specification specifically teaches the arcuate ledge of claim 14 is part of the wire guide and not a separate additional feature. It is unclear how the invention of claim 25 can “further comprise” a wire guide when features of the wire guide have already been recited in claim 14. Therefore, claim 25 is indefinite at least because it is unclear what specific structures are being recited.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 30-31 are duplicates of claims 22-23. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulley (U.S. 2011/0118550 in view of Martin et al. (U.S. 2017/0014135).
With respect to claim 14, Tulley teaches an endoscope (100) comprising:
a handle (105) including an operating member (104), the operating member comprising a wall (209), the wall including an arcuate ledge (312),;
a first pull-wire (106B) comprising a proximal section and a distal end, the proximal section extending along the arcuate ledge (FIG. 3-4);
a second pull-wire (106C) comprising a proximal section and a distal end, the proximal section of the first pull-wire being affixed to the proximal section of the second pull-wire (at 210); and
an insertion cord (101) including a bending section (102), the bending section being connected to the distal end of the first pull-wire and to the distal end of the second pull-wire (para [0022]).
However, Tulley does not teach a first hook and a second hook.
With respect to claim 14, Martin et al. teaches a surgical tool (10) comprising:
a handle including (20) an operating member (1120), the operating member comprising a wall (FIG. 31), the wall including an arcuate ledge (FIG. 31),a first hook (1206), and a second hook (1216), the first hook and the second hook being separated by a minor angular spacing having a minor angle and a major angular spacing having a major angle, the minor angle and the major angle being conjugate angles (FIG. 31)
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 operating member of Tulley to include first and second hooks as taught by Martin et al. in order to act as a guide for the pull-wires (para [0113] of Martin et al.). Modifying Tulley in view of Martin et al. in this manner would result in the first pull-wire (106B of Tulley) comprising a proximal section and a distal end, the proximal section extending along the arcuate ledge, partially around the first hook, and partially around the second hook (because the pull wires of Tulley pass over the entire circumference of the pulley 209, see FIG. 3), and the proximal section being affixed to the wall (via 210/211 of Tulley) within the minor angular spacing (FIG. 3 Tulley, FIG. 31 of Martin et al.).
With respect to claim 15, Tulley in view of Martin et al. teaches the arcuate ledge, the first hook, and the second hook protrude from one side of the wall (FIG. 3 of Tulley, FIG. 31 of Martin et al.).
With respect to claim 17, Martin et al. teaches the wall comprises a hole (1182) positioned within the minor angular spacinq (FIG. 32), wherein the endoscope further comprises a fastener including a stem (1176) and a head (1178), the stem received by the hole in a first position and in a second position of the fastener (FIG. 31), wherein the arcuate ledge, the first hook, the second hook and the head protrude from one side of the wall (FIG. 31), wherein the proximal section of the first pull-wire extends slidingly, while the fastener is in the first position, along the arcuate ledge, partially around the first hook, partially around the stem, and partially around the second hook, and wherein, when the fastener is in the second position, the fastener affixes the proximal section of the first pull-wire to the operating member and prevents the proximal section of the first pull-wire from sliding along the arcuate ledge (para [0113] 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 anchor element of Tulley to instead utilize the fastener as taught by Martin et al. in order to provide a more secure means of locking the pull wires in place on the pulley.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Martin et al. teaches the fastener is a screw (1178). However, both a rivet and a blind rivet were known in the art such that on of ordinary skill could have substituted the screw of Martin et al. for either a rivet or a blind rivet and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
With respect to claim 20, Tulley teaches the operating member further comprises a portal extending radially outwardly from the arcuate ledge (FIG. 12).
With respect to claim 21, Tulley teaches the portal comprises an aperture (1205), and wherein the proximal section of the first pull-wire passes through the aperture (FIG. 12).
With respect to claim 22, Tulley in view of Martin et al. teaches the operating member comprises a central axle (710, FIG. 7 of Tulley), wherein the wall comprises a first section and a second section, the first section extending along a first plane perpendicular to the central axis, and the second section extending along a second plane offset from the first plane, and wherein the arcuate ledge and the first hook protrude from one side of the first section of the wall (FIG. 31 of Martin et al.).
With respect to claim 26, Tulley teaches the first pull-wire and the second pull-wire are constituted by one and the same physical wire (106).
Claim(s) 16 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulley (U.S. 2011/0118550 in view of Martin et al. (U.S. 2017/0014135) as applied to claim 22 above and further in view of Appling et al. (U.S. 2021/0212553).
Tulley in view of Martin et al. teaches an endoscope as set forth above. However, Tulley in view of Martin et al. does not teach a barb or a plurality of teeth.
With respect to claim 16, Tulley in view of Martin et al. teaches the arcuate ledge, the first hook, and the second hook protrude from one side of the wall (FIG. 3 of Tulley, FIG. 31 of Martin et al.).
With respect to claim 16, Appling wherein the operating member further comprises a portal extending radially outwardly from the arcuate ledge, wherein the portal comprises an aperture, wherein the arcuate ledge comprises a free arm with a barb, and wherein the proximal section of the first pull-wire passes through the aperture and between the wall and the free arm (FIG. 12B, para [0066]).
With respect to claim 23 Appling et al. teaches the second section of the operating member comprises teeth including ledges and flanges, the ledges and flanges guiding the proximal section of the first pull-wire (FIG. 12B, para [0066]).
With respect to claim 24, Appling et al. teaches at least some of the teeth comprise portals with apertures, the proximal section of the first pull-wire passing through said apertures of said portals of said teeth (FIG. 12B, para [0066]).
With respect to claim 25, Appling et al. teaches the operating member further comprises a wire guide including a plurality of apertures, and wherein the proximal section of the first pull-wire passes through the plurality of apertures, said apertures being located at different angles, relative to the central axis, within said major angular spacing (FIG. 12B, para [0066]).
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 Tulley to include the plurality of teeth as taught by Appling et al. in order to increase frictional force on the pull wire to inhibit movement with respect to the pulley (para [0066] of Appling et al.).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulley (U.S. 2011/0118550 in view of Martin et al. (U.S. 2017/0014135) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Lund et al. (U.S. 2020/0229684).
With respect to claim 27, Tulley teaches the first pull-wire is partially surrounded by a first guide tube (Bowden cable, para [0022]), and wherein the second pull-wire is partially surrounded by a second guide tube (Bowden cable, para [0022]).
However, Tulley does not teach an anchoring block.
With respect to claim 27, Lund et al. teaches an endoscope wherein the first pull-wire (17) is partially surrounded by a first guide tube (16), the proximal section of the first pull-wire extending proximally from the first guide tube (FIG. 6), wherein the second pull-wire (17) is partially surrounded by a second guide tube (16), the proximal section of the second pull-wire extending proximally from the second guide tube (FIG. 6), and wherein the first guide tube and the second guide tube are affixed to an anchoring block (15).
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 Tulley to include an anchoring block in the manner taught by Lund et al. in order to provide a means of securing the guide tubes with respect to the handle (para [0015] of Lund et al.).
Claim(s) 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulley (U.S. 2011/0118550 in view of Martin et al. (U.S. 2017/0014135) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Saito (U.S. 2016/0073856).
Tulley in view of Martin et al. teaches an endoscope as set forth above. However, Tulley in view of Martin et al. does not teach a display.
With respect to claims 28 and 32, a display device connectable to an endoscope (para [0027]).
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 Tulley to further include a display device in the manner taught by Saito in order to allow images to be displayed (para [0027] of Saito).
Conclusion
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