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
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/30/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/24/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9, as amended, recites “being in a half-finished state during a manufacturing process”. There is no support from the original disclosure for a manufacturing process, or what constitutes a half-finished state of an apparatus in a manufacturing process. In fact, there is no mention of the phrases “half-finished state” or “manufacturing process” in the original disclosure.
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 1-6 and 8-9 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.
Claim 2 recites “when setting the close-contact state, an initial tension of the multi-structured flexible body is set so that a friction between the wire of the inner coil spring and the wire of the outer coil spring is made smaller with respect to a restoring force of the multi-structured flexible body returning from the flexed state to the extended state” which is generally unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, the claim reads like a method step of “setting the close-contact state”, while the claims are drawn to an apparatus, and what is required by the claim cannot be determined. There is no structure or materials recited by the claims to adjust an initial tension, or to adjust frictional contact between the components of the invention. Additionally, it is unclear what is required by “made smaller” as there is no other friction defined by the claims to make smaller. Lastly, it is unclear how the friction and a restoring force are related by “made smaller with respect a restoring force”.
Claim 4 recites “cord-like members” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “cord-like” is a relative term not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The addition of “wherein each of the plurality of cord-like members is a driving wire” did not make the term “cord-like” definite. If the members are driving wires, they should be simply claimed as such. To claim them both as “cord-like” and “driving wires” makes it unclear as to what structure the claim actually requires.
Claim 9 recites “A half-finished product of a flexural structure in which a multi-structured flexible body is bendable from an extended state to a flexed state, the half-finished product of the flexural structure being in a half-finished state during a manufacturing process” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if amended claim 9 is drawn to the originally claimed apparatus, or is now attempting to define a method of manufacture. Applicant must specify the invention to be claimed and provide proper conforming claim limitation language. As the original presentation of the claim is an apparatus, it is being interpreted as such for the purposes of examination.
Additionally, the term “A half-finished product” is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. While the term “half finished product” is common in the body method claims to follow the progress of a product through the manufacturing steps of the method, its use in an apparatus claim is unclear. The amendment to add “in a half-finished state during a manufacturing process” does not define the term, but instead highlights why the claim is indefinite. There are no method or manufacturing steps in an apparatus claim, and therefore there is no way to define what a half-finished state of a product is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirata et al. (US 2021/0307773 A1).
Hirata discloses a flexural structure, in which a multi-structured flexible body is bendable from an extended state to a flexed state, the flexural structure comprising: an outer coil spring (5), constituting the multi-structured flexible body; an inner coil spring (7), provided inside the outer coil spring and having a wire overlap (see Fig. 2) a wire of the outer coil spring in a coil radial direction to constitute the multi-structured flexible body; a one-side receiving member (33), receiving one side of the multi-structured flexible body; and an other-side receiving member (31b), receiving an other side of the multi-structured flexible body; wherein a close-contact state (Paragraph [0050]) between wires of the inner coil spring and the outer coil spring is set in an extended state (free state paragraph [0050]) of the multi-structured flexible body in accordance with a spacing (distance between the receiving members in the free state) between the one-side receiving member and the other-side receiving member; wherein when setting the close-contact state, an initial tension (the multi-structured flexible body would necessarily have an initial tension) of the multi-structured flexible body is set so that a friction (there would be friction between touching components) between the wires is made smaller (as best understood, the friction between the coils would be smaller as the force exerted on them is reduced) with respect to a restoring force of the multi-structured flexible body returning from the flexed state to the extended state; further comprising: a close-contact setting part (29/143, see paragraph [0153]), adjusting the spacing between the one-side receiving member and the other-side receiving member and setting a close-contact state between the wires of the inner coil spring and the outer coil spring; wherein the close-contact setting part comprises a plurality of cord-like members (as best understood, elements 29/143 are “cord-like”), where the cord-like members are driving wires (described as driving wires, see Paragraphs [0014], [0153]), one side (see top of Fig. 12) of which is fixed to the one-side receiving member and an other side (see bottom of Fig. 12) of which is routed through the other-side receiving member, for operating a displacement of the multi-structured flexible body to a flexed state, and the cord-like members are shared when setting the close-contact state; wherein the close-contact setting part comprises an operation part (110) that is provided on the other side of the cord-like members and that operates a displacement between an extended state and a flexed state of the multi-structured flexible body by relative pulling and pulling back operations between the plurality of cord-like members, the operation part is supported in a position adjustable manner toward a direction of the multi-structured flexible body in the extended state, and the close-contact state is set by adjusting a position of the operation part in an extended state of the multi-structured flexible body (as best understood, 110 functions as claimed by actuating the “cord-like” members 29/143); and comprising: a flexible tube (23), having one end part coupled to the one-side receiving member, enclosing the inner coil spring and the outer coil spring, and constituting the multi-structured flexible body along with the inner coil spring and the outer coil spring; and an attaching base part (31a)), coupled to an other end part of the flexible tube and penetrating the inner coil spring and the outer coil spring along with the flexible tube, wherein the other-side receiving member is fixed in an end part of a hollow shaft (see Fig. 12), and the close-contact setting part sets the close-contact state by coupling the attaching base part to the end part of the hollow shaft to move the attaching base part and having the other-side receiving member to receive other end parts of the inner coil spring and the outer coil spring.
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) 6, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 2021/0307773 A1) in view of Yoshii et al. (USPN 11,147,643).
Hirata discloses the claimed invention including wherein the operation part comprises a pulley (141) that is supported (in so far as applicant’s pulley is supported, the prior art pulley is considered to be supported) by the other-side receiving member and is rotatably operable and movable for wrapping the cord-like members around the one-side receiving member.
Hirata does not disclose the close-contact setting part comprises a tensioner that adjusts a position of the pulley.
Yoshii discloses a tensioner (15) that adjusts the position of a pulley (14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the device of Hirata to have a tensioner to adjust the position of the pulley, In order to allow the tension in the members 29/143 to be adjustable independent of actuation of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues that “the technical solution defined by the amended claim 1 of the application was not disclosed by Hirata, and there is no structural motivation for one skilled person in the art to modify Hirata as amended claim 1 of the application.”
This was not found to be persuasive, as the argument does not specifically point out any structure, or function the structure is not capable of preforming that is recited in the claims, that the Hirata reference is lacking. As the Hirata reference, discloses the limitations defined by the claim, it is considered to anticipate the invention of claims 1 and 9, as detailed in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues “As to claim 6, the Office indicates that the feature of "the close-contact setting part comprises a tensioner that adjusts a position of the pulley" is obvious under Hirata and Yoshii. However, the pulling member 15 (interpreted as the tensioner of claim 6 of the application) of the tension adjusting mechanism 6 in Yoshii is for apply[ing] an appropriate initial tension to the wire 5 to prevent increased friction between the wire 5 and the inner lumen when the long guide member 2 is bent, thereby improving transmission performance. Differently, the close-contact setting part recited in claim 6 of the application aims to directly adjust and set the initial tension (close-contact state) of the coil spring body by compressing the double coil spring axially using the tension of the drive wire. This technical solution of claim 6 of the application repurposes the tension adjustment mechanism of the drive wire to improve the transmission performance of the wire and to easily set the mechanical initial state of the bending structure body, which deviates from the purpose and teaching of Yoshii. Therefore, claim 6 of the application cannot be easily obtained according to Hirata and Yoshii.”
This is not persuasive, as the Yoshii reference was relied upon for the teaching of a tensioner that adjusts the position of a pully. The fact that the Applicant uses the aforementioned structures for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that it’s use in a prior art device would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the reference. Accordingly, the motivation to combine Hirata and Yoshii is proper.
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 JAKE COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 PM.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
JAKE COOK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/Jake Cook/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights