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 .
The current application has the effective filing date of 12/10/2021 according to the priority chain on the record.
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
Claims 1-7 are examined below.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations “supporting member(s)” and “supporting portion(s)” are similar, and “drive member” and “driven member are also similar. The Examiner suggests rephrasing to disambiguate the different features. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
“bend body” in claim 1
“transmission member” in claim 1
“driven member” in claim 1
“coupling member” in claim 1
“first/second supporting member” in claims 1 and 2
“first/second/third/fourth supporting portion” in claims 1-5
“first/second/third/fourth engaging portion” in claims 1-5
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first/second/third/fourth supporting portion” in claims 6-7
“first/second/third/fourth engaging portion” in claims 6-7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 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 4, the following limitations are indefinite: “when viewed in the direction of the rotational axis, a first straight line connecting a center of the first supporting portion with a center of the second supporting portion intersects with the first engaging portion…” Firstly, it is unclear what is meant by “direction of the rotational axis.” Secondly, the “first supporting portion” and “second supporting portion” belong on the same structure, i.e. “first supporting member”, as such, it is unclear what is meant by “a first straight line connecting a center of the first supporting portion with a center of the second supporting portion” and what is further meant by this “first straight line intersects with the first engaging portion” which is also on the “first supporting member.” Fort purposes of examination, it is the Examiner’s best guess that all of the “first supporting portion”, “second supporting portion” and “first engaging portion” are aligned in a straight line.
Further regarding claim 4 and 5, additional limitations recite the same features of ‘straight line’ and ‘intersect’, these limitations are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. US 2019/0239966 A1 (hereinafter “Xu”, cited in applicant’s IDS).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a supporting apparatus (Fig. 1: driving unit 20) configured to support a unit including a bend body (Fig.1: flexible surgical instrument 10 or Fig. 2: flexible continuous body structure composed of a distal structural body 101), the supporting apparatus (20) comprising:
a drive member (first threaded rod 214 and second threaded rod 215) configured to rotate around a rotational axis (see [0057] and [0058] “Each of the transmission chains 210 comprises a first threaded rod 214 and a second threaded rod 215 which are spaced apart from each other and rotationally supported between the third fixing plate 212 and the fourth fixing plate 213…”, rotationally supported here implies each of 214 and 215 has its own rotational axis);
a transmission member (first nut 220 and second nut 221) coupled to the drive member (214, 215) and configured to be moved in a direction of the rotational axis by rotation of the drive member (see Fig.8 and [0058] “…A first nut 220 and a second nut 221 are respectively connected, in a matching manner, to the first threaded rod 214 and the second threaded rod 215 between the third fixing plate 212 and the fourth fixing plate 213…”);
a driven member (output rods 222, 223) for bending the bend body (10/101), the driven member (222, 223) being coupled to the transmission member (220, 221) and configured to be moved in the direction of the rotational axis by movement of the transmission member (see Figs. 7-8, and [0058]);
a coupling member (Fig.8: coupling 407 via threaded rod 408; see [0068: last sentence]);
a first supporting member (third fixing plate 212) having a first supporting portion (see annotated Fig. 8: larger holes along the perimeter) that supports the drive member (214, 215), a second supporting portion (see annotated Fig. 8: smaller holes along the perimeter) that supports the driven member (222, 223), and a first engaging portion (see annotated Fig. 8: 212 has a central hole for supporting and engaging the rod 408) that is engaged with the coupling member (407; Fig. 8: see center solid line); and
a second supporting member (fourth fixing plate 213) having the same shape as the first supporting member (212; see Figs. 7-8), the second supporting member (213) having (i) a third supporting portion (see annotated Fig. 8: larger holes along the perimeter) that corresponds to the first supporting portion (annotated Fig. 8: dotted line) and that supports the drive member (214), (ii) a fourth supporting portion (see annotated Fig. 8: smaller holes along the perimeter) that corresponds to the second supporting portion (annotated Fig. 8: dotted line) and that supports the driven member (223), and (iii) a second engaging portion (see annotated Fig. 8: central hole in 213 that supports and engages nut 409 to the rod 408 to coupling 407) that corresponds to the first engaging portion (central hole in 212) and that is engaged with the coupling member (411; Fig. 8: see center solid line), the second supporting member (213) being disposed at a location away from the first supporting member (212) in the direction of the rotational axis (implicit taught as illustrated in Fig. 8 and [0068] “… an output shaft of the motor 406 is connected to one end of a threaded rod 408 via a coupling 407, the other end of the threaded rod 408 is rotatably supported on the fourth fixing plate 213, a nut 409 is connected, in a matching manner, to the threaded rod 408 between the third fixing plate 212 and the fourth fixing plate 213…”).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses the supporting apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the first supporting member (212) has a plurality of the first supporting portions (larger holes along the perimeter) and a plurality of the second supporting portions (smaller holes along its perimeter), and the second supporting member (213) has a plurality of the third supporting portions (larger holes along the perimeter) and a plurality of the fourth supporting portions (smaller holes along its perimeter).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses the supporting apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the plurality of first supporting portions (larger holes on 212) and the plurality of second supporting portions (smaller holes on 212) are disposed so as to surround the first engaging portion (see Figs. 7-8: central hole surrounding by larger and smaller holes disposed along the perimeter of plate 212), and the plurality of third supporting portions (larger holes on 213) and the plurality of fourth supporting portions (smaller holes on 213) are disposed so as to surround the second engaging portion (see Figs. 7-8: central hole surrounding by larger and smaller holes disposed along the perimeter of plate 213).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses the supporting apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein, when viewed in the direction of the rotational axis, a first straight line connecting a center of the first supporting portion (larger hole on 212) with a center of the second supporting portion (smaller hole on 212) intersects with the first engaging portion (central hole on 212), and a second straight line connecting a center of the third supporting portion (smaller hole on 212) with a center of the fourth supporting portion intersects with the second engaging portion (central hole on 213). (This claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(b), the interpretation is based on the Examiner’s best guess, see annotated Fig. 8 immediately above)
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses the supporting apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the first engaging portion, the first supporting portion, the second supporting portion, the second engaging portion, the third supporting portion, and the fourth supporting portion are holes. (implicit, see Figs. 1 and 7-8, insertion holes for various rods, also see [0060])
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses the supporting apparatus according to Claim 6, but does not disclose wherein a radius of the first engaging portion (central hole on 212) is greater than a radius of the first supporting portion (larger perimeter holes on 212) and is greater than a radius of the second supporting portion (smaller holes on 212), and a radius of the second engaging portion (central hole on 213) is greater than a radius of the third supporting portion (larger perimeter holes on 213) and is greater than a radius of the fourth supporting portion (smaller holes on 213). However, the radius of individual engaging portions, i.e. central poles, for supporting the coupling member, i.e. 408 and 407, would have been an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because providing a bigger central hole would imply a coupling member and rod with larger radius, which would provide the benefit of added strength and stability to the distal structural body 101.
Conclusion
Note to Applicant: Claim 5 is not rejected under prior art, but remains rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2015/0352728 A1 Figs. 3-4B
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights