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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 5th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 6-11 have been amended. Claims 2-5 are cancelled and Claim 13 is newly added. Claims 1, 6-13 are now pending in the application. The previous drawing objection is withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Comments
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kennedy II et al. (US 20140005478 A1, hereinafter Kennedy).
Regarding Claim 1, Kennedy discloses
A bridge (handle 30, FIG. 1) for a handheld surgical instrument (endoscopic access system 20, FIG. 1), comprising:
a channel-like guide bore (handle 30 + channel 59, FIGS. 1, 5) for an optical unit (stylet 120, FIG. 2B); and
at least one working channel for receiving at least one working instrument (elongate flexible cannula 110, FIGS. 1-2B; par. 6, 29 disclose accessory channel of endoscope which can receive an instrument such as a needle, catheter or sheath), wherein;
a distal end (distal handle segment 80, FIG. 1) of the bridge is configured to be coupled to a shaft (sheath 100, FIG. 1) for the optical unit and the at least one working instrument (FIGS. 1-2B, par. 22 discloses distal handle segment includes parts that cover/ slider over sheath, i.e. and cannula), and
a proximal end (proximal handle segment 40, FIG. 1) of the bridge is configured to be coupled to a telescope (par. 6 discloses medical devices are inserted through the endoscope, i.e. telescope capable of being inserted through proximal end);
the guide bore is segmented from the proximal end to the distal end (depicted in FIGS. 1-5),
the guide bore has three segments including:
a distal first segment (distal handle segment 80, FIG. 1);
a middle second segment (dividing region 60, FIG. 1); and
a proximal third segment (proximal handle segment 40, FIG. 1);
the segments have longitudinal axes offset with respect to one another (FIG. 4, par. 34 disclose segments may be disengaged, i.e. capable of being offset, as depicted in FIG. 5); and
a diameter of the middle second segment is larger than a diameter of the distal first segment and a diameter of the proximal third segment (depicted in FIGS. 4A-4I).
Regarding Claim 7, Kennedy discloses
The bridge for the handheld surgical instrument as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the longitudinal axis of the distal first segment is offset with respect to a longitudinal axis of an optical guide in an optical plate (lumen 112, FIG. 5, par. 44 disclose a flexible wire guide or any other medical component, i.e. optical guide can be inserted through lumen; FIG. 5 depicts segments disengaged and having offset longitudinal axes).
Regarding Claim 8, Kennedy discloses
The bridge for the handheld surgical instrument as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the longitudinal axis of the distal first segment is offset with respect to the longitudinal axes of the proximal third segment and/or the middle second segment, by 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm (FIG. 4, par. 34 disclose segments may be disengaged, i.e. capable of being offset by any degree of measurement, as depicted in FIG. 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Kennedy discloses
The bridge for the handheld surgical instrument as claimed in claim 1, wherein the middle second segment and the proximal third segment are oriented coaxially (depicted in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kennedy discloses
The bridge for the handheld surgical instrument as claimed in claim 7,
wherein the longitudinal axis of the distal first segment is offset away from the at least one working channel with respect to the longitudinal axes of the proximal third and/or the middle second segment (FIG. 7 depicts working instrument being offset from proximal handle and diving region; FIGS. 4-5, par. 34 disclose segments may be disengaged, i.e. working channel capable of being offset when provided in any one of the segments, as depicted in FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Kennedy discloses
The bridge for the handheld surgical instrument as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a section (distal shaft 88, FIG. 2A) of an inner wall of a distal section (sheath adjuster 82, FIG. 2A) of the guide bore serves as a support for the optical unit (par. 22 discloses sheath adjuster and distal shaft surround sheath to lock it, i.e. support stylet), and
an inner wall (pins 65, FIG. 4A) of a proximal section (distal region of proximal handle segment 62, FIG. 4A) of the guide bore encloses the optical unit with a form fit (FIG. 4A, par. 34 disclose snap-fit of pins with distal handle segment to enclose sheath/ stylet).
Regarding Claim 12, Kennedy discloses
A handheld surgical instrument (handle 30, FIG. 1) with a bridge (endoscopic access system 20, FIG. 1) as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 13, Kennedy discloses
The bridge for the handheld surgical instrument as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
a proximal end of the proximal third segment is aligned with the proximal end of the
bridge (depicted in FIG. 1); and
a distal end of the distal first segment is aligned with the distal end of the bridge (depicted in FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy II et al. (US 20140005478 A1, hereinafter Kennedy) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wynberg (US 20230329542 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kennedy discloses all of the elements of the current invention disclosed in claim 1, however, Kennedy does not disclose wherein the diameter of the middle second segment is 4.0 mm to 5.0 mm, the diameter of the distal first segment is 3.8 mm to 3.9 mm, and the diameter of the proximal third segment is 3.8 mm to 3.9 mm.
Wynberg teaches an analogous channel-like guide bore (protective sheath 20, FIG. 1) having a lumen (22, FIG. 1) dimensioned around a puncture wire (30/90, FIG. 1) comprising increased and decreased diameter segments which can have varied diameters from one another, which are smaller diameters than diameter of the sheath, i.e. sheath is dimensioned to have segments [FIG. 1, 0166, 0176]. The segments of wire (30/90), i.e. and the sheath (20), are sized according to the requirements of the system and have adjustable diameters to meet different needs [FIGS. 1B-1D, 0176].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the guide bore of Kennedy with the dimensioned segments of Wynberg in order to reduce or prevent kinking of the portion/segments of the guide bore and to allow flexion at appropriate segments and improved movement of inserted instruments, i.e. optical unit, inside guide bore [Wynberg - 0172-0173, 0176].
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 ABDUL HADI ABBASI whose telephone number is (571)272-4076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-4963. 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.
/ABDUL HADI ABBASI/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights