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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated May 27, 2026.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are pending.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reydel et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0119671 – “Reydel”) in view of Marescaux et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0054733 – “Marescaux”).
Regarding Claim 1,
An endoscope treatment tool (Reydel FIG. 1A, apparatus 10) comprising:
an insertion part (Reydel FIG. 1A, tubular member 11), having a grip portion that is openable and closable (Reydel FIG. 1A, tissue grabbing assembly 18), and a bending portion (Reydel FIG. 1B, bendable section 25) that is able to be bent and is disposed at a proximal end side of the grip portion (Reydel FIG. 1B, showing bendable section 25 proximal to tissue grabbing assembly 18);
an operation part (Reydel FIG. 1A, actuator 17), having an operation handle (Reydel FIG. 1A, handle 16) and being disposed at a proximal end side of the insertion part (Reydel FIG. 1A, showing actuator 17 proximal to tubular member 11);
an operation wire (Reydel FIG. 1A, control wire 19) that extends from the operation part to the insertion part (Reydel FIG. 1B, showing flexible tube 13 within tubular member 11; Reydel paragraph [0028], “Tissue grabbing assembly 18 is disposed on the distal end of flexible tube 13, and is operably coupled to actuator 17 via one or more control wires 19 that extend through flexible tube 13”), wherein
the grip portion is configured to be closed by the operation wire being pulled to an operation part side as the operation handle moves in a closing direction (Reydel paragraph [0033], “when control wire 19 is extended in the distal direction, flexible tube 13 is carried in the distal direction. When control wire 19 is retracted in the proximal direction, flexible tube remains stationary until jaws 28a and 28b close together, after which further retraction of control wire 19 by moving actuator 17 causes flexible tube 13 to buckle in bendable region 25”), and
the bending portion is configured to bend by the operation wire being pulled to the operation part side as the operation handle further moves in the closing direction in a state where the grip portion is closed (Reydel FIG. 3D, showing bendable section 25 being bent laterally; Reydel paragraph [0036], “Referring to FIG. 3D, additional proximal movement of actuator 17 causes flexible tubes 13 and 14 to buckle at bendable sections 25 and 26. Hinge assembly 20 transmits force applied to flexible tube 13 via control wire 19 and actuator 17 to the distal tip 24.”).
Reydel does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the bending portion has a plurality of bending pieces that are arranged in a longitudinal direction of the insertion part and are connected to be movable,
each bending piece has a wire guide that holds the operation wire, and as the operation wire is pulled to the operation part side, the bending portion bends to a wire guide side.
Marescaux teaches:
wherein the bending portion (Marescaux FIG. 1, articulating section 13) has a plurality of bending pieces (Marescaux FIG. 8, link members 50) that are arranged in a longitudinal direction of the insertion part and are connected to be movable (see Marescaux paragraph [0090]), and
each bending piece has a wire guide (Marescaux FIG. 8, guides 54 on each of the link members 50) that holds the operation wire, and as the operation wire is pulled to the operation part side, the bending portion bends to a wire guide side (Marescaux paragraph [0090], “control wires 44 are shown along the sides of the link members 50, disposed within guides 54. The guides 54 do not inhibit axial movement of the control wires 44, but allow them to slide axially in the articulating portion.”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control Marescaux’s vertebral link members with control wire guides with the endoscope treatment tool disclosed by Reydel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope treatment tool that is articulatable/steerable using control wires that are guided to the distal end of the bending portion (Marescaux FIG. 8, points 57 in the distal link member 56; Marescaux paragraph [0090], “guides 54…retain the control wires 44 against opposite sides of the articulating portion 13. The control wires 44 are attached by lugs at points 57 in the distal link member 56. ”).
Regarding Claim 2, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Marescaux further teaches:
wherein the operation part has an operation part body (Marescaux FIG. 1, handle portion 11), and the operation handle (Marescaux FIG. 1, lever member 15) is swingably supported by the operation part body (Marescaux FIG. 1, showing lever member 15 connected to / supported by handle portion 11),
the operation handle approaches the operation part body by being swung in the closing direction (Marescaux paragraph [0065], “Lever member 15 controls the actuation of the tool portion 14. In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 1 and 1A, the tool portion 14 is a grasper-type tool for securely grasping and holding tissue or other materials or objects between its two movable jaw members 16a and 16b. The jaw members 16a and 16b are moved by moving the lever 15, which, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, has a ring portion for receiving the index or middle finger of the surgeon. In effect, the lever 15 has a trigger-like action”; Marescaux paragraph [0073], “When the surgeon grips the handle portion 11, the lever 15 is actuated by the surgeon's middle finger.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Marescaux’s trigger control of the grasper-type tool 14 with the endoscope treatment tool disclosed by Reydel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope treatment tool whose tool portion 14 and bendable articulating portion 13 are user-manipulated with one hand (see Marescaux FIG. 1 and Marescaux paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Marescaux further teaches wherein the operation part has a member that generates a frictional force with respect to a swing of the operation handle, so as to maintain a position of the operation handle in the closing direction (Marescaux FIG. 2, pivot 26; Marescaux paragraph [0079], “lever 15, which actuates the tool portion of the endoscopic surgical instrument, is pivotable about pivot 26”; Marescaux paragraph [0078], “unwanted movement of the control parts, i.e. the lever 15…is inhibited…by friction”).
Regarding Claim 4, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Marescaux further teaches:
wherein the operation part (Examiner-annotated Marescaux FIG. 1 shown below, operation part) is configured to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Marescaux FIG. 1, elongated middle portion 12 and rotating control 22; Marescaux paragraph [0070], “handle portion 11 further includes a rotating control 22 which is also coupled to the tool insert which links the lever 15 and the tool portion 14. The rotating control 22 is coupled to the tool insert so that when the rotating control 22 is rotated by the surgeon, the rotation is transmitted via the tool insert to the tool portion 14”; Examiner interprets the connection between the tool insert and the lever 15 as a component of the insertion part),
PNG
media_image1.png
504
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the grip portion (Marescaux FIG. 1, tool portion 14) is configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Marescaux FIG. 1, outer sheath of elongated middle portion 12) in response to a rotation of the operation part (Marescaux paragraph [0070], “handle portion 11 further includes a rotating control 22 which is also coupled to the tool insert which links the lever 15 and the tool portion 14. The rotating control 22 is coupled to the tool insert so that when the rotating control 22 is rotated by the surgeon, the rotation is transmitted via the tool insert to the tool portion 14”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Marescaux’s rotating control with the endoscope disclosed by Reydel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope having proximal/precise user control of rotation of the distal instrument, as described in Marescaux paragraph [0073].
Regarding Claim 5, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Marescaux further teaches wherein the operation part has a member (Marescaux FIG. 1, rotation lock mechanism 23) that generates a frictional force with respect to the rotation of the operation part, so as to maintain a position of the operation part in a rotation direction thereof (Marescaux paragraph [0072], “rotation lock mechanism 23 is disposed on threads which allow it to move when it is rotated from a proximal position separated from the rotating control to a distal position in which it makes frictional contact with the rotating mechanism”).
Regarding Claim 6, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Reydel further discloses wherein an operation resistance when the bending portion bends based on pulling of the operation wire is larger than an operation resistance when the grip portion is closed based on the pulling of the operation wire (Reydel paragraph [0033], “Flexible tube 14 may be affixed to and immovable within catheter 11, while flexible tube 13 is coupled to catheter 11 via hinge 20. Accordingly, when control wire 19 is extended in the distal direction, flexible tube 13 is carried in the distal direction. When control wire 19 is retracted in the proximal direction, flexible tube remains stationary until jaws 28a and 28b close together, after which further retraction of control wire 19 by moving actuator 17 causes flexible tube 13 to buckle in bendable region 25”).
Regarding Claim 7, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Reydel further discloses wherein the bending portion has an elastic member that straightens the bending portion (paragraph [0030], “Flexible tubes 13 and 14 preferably include bendable sections 25 and 26, respectively…Preferably, flexible tubes 13 and 14 are made from polymeric materials or biocompatible metals such as Nitinol”; note that it is well known in the art that Nitinol is a flexible biocompatible metal with shape memory).
Regarding Claim 9, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Reydel further discloses wherein as the bending portion (Reydel FIG. 3D, bendable section 25) bends, the grip portion (Reydel FIG. 3D, showing tissue grabbing assembly 18 ) is erected from a state of being laid along a longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Reydel FIG. 3D, showing tissue grabbing assembly 18 erected/raised/moved laterally from a state of being laid along the longitudinal axis of the portion of tube 13 that is within tubular member 11).
Regarding Claim 10, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Marescaux further teaches
wherein the operation part (Examiner-annotated Marescaux FIG. 1 shown below, operation part) is configured to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Marescaux FIG. 1, elongated middle portion 12 and rotating control 22; Marescaux paragraph [0070], “handle portion 11 further includes a rotating control 22 which is also coupled to the tool insert which links the lever 15 and the tool portion 14. The rotating control 22 is coupled to the tool insert so that when the rotating control 22 is rotated by the surgeon, the rotation is transmitted via the tool insert to the tool portion 14”; Examiner interprets the connection between the tool insert and the lever 15 as a component of the insertion part),
PNG
media_image1.png
504
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the grip portion (Marescaux FIG. 1, tool portion 14) is configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Marescaux FIG. 1, outer sheath of elongated middle portion 12) in response to a rotation of the operation part (Marescaux paragraph [0070], “handle portion 11 further includes a rotating control 22 which is also coupled to the tool insert which links the lever 15 and the tool portion 14. The rotating control 22 is coupled to the tool insert so that when the rotating control 22 is rotated by the surgeon, the rotation is transmitted via the tool insert to the tool portion 14”),
when the operation part is rotated in a state where the bending portion is bent, the grip portion rotates while keeping an erected state with respect to the longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Marescaux paragraph [0070], “when the rotating control 22 is rotated by the surgeon, the rotation is transmitted via the tool insert to the tool portion 14”; Examiner interprets this passage as teaching that the tool portion 14 shown in Marescaux FIG. 3D rotates while erected/gripping tissue fold F).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Marescaux’s rotating control 22 for grasper-type tool 14 with the endoscope treatment tool disclosed by Reydel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope treatment tool whose tool portion 14 can be rotated and/or locked during an operation (see Marescaux paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 11, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Reydel further discloses wherein the operation part has a connecting portion (Reydel FIG. 1B, flexible tube 13) that connects the bending portion (Reydel FIG. 1B, bendable section 25) to the operation part ((Reydel FIG. 1A, actuator 17),
the grip portion moves forward and backward, when the operation part moves forward and backward along a longitudinal axis of the insertion part with respect to the connecting portion (Reydel FIG. 3B-3C, showing tissue grabbing assembly 18 moving forward and backward when the actuator 17 shown in Reydel FIG. 1A moves forward and backward).
Regarding Claim 12, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Marescaux further teaches wherein the grip portion (Examiner-annotated Marescaux FIG. 1 shown below, tool portion 14) rotates, when the operation part (Marescaux FIG. 1, operation part) is rotated around the longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Marescaux FIG. 1, elongated middle portion 12) with respect to the connecting portion (Marescaux paragraph [0070], “handle portion 11 further includes a rotating control 22 which is also coupled to the tool insert which links the lever 15 and the tool portion 14. The rotating control 22 is coupled to the tool insert so that when the rotating control 22 is rotated by the surgeon, the rotation is transmitted via the tool insert to the tool portion 14”).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Marescaux’s rotating control 22 for grasper-type tool 14 with the endoscope treatment tool disclosed by Reydel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope treatment tool whose tool portion 14 can be rotated and/or locked during an operation (see Marescaux paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 13, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Marescaux further teaches:
wherein the operation part has an operation part body (Marescaux FIG. 1, handle portion 11), and the operation handle (Marescaux FIG. 1, lever member 15) is swingably supported by the operation part body (Marescaux FIG. 1, showing lever member 15 connected to / supported by handle portion 11),
the operation handle approaches the operation part body by being swung in the closing direction (Marescaux paragraph [0065], “Lever member 15 controls the actuation of the tool portion 14. In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 1 and 1A, the tool portion 14 is a grasper-type tool for securely grasping and holding tissue or other materials or objects between its two movable jaw members 16a and 16b. The jaw members 16a and 16b are moved by moving the lever 15, which, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, has a ring portion for receiving the index or middle finger of the surgeon. In effect, the lever 15 has a trigger-like action”; Marescaux paragraph [0073], “When the surgeon grips the handle portion 11, the lever 15 is actuated by the surgeon's middle finger.”),
the grip portion rotates (Marescaux FIG. 1, tool portion 14), when the operation handle (Marescaux FIG. 1, lever member 15) and the operation part body (Marescaux FIG. 1, handle portion 11) are rotated around the longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Marescaux FIG. 1, outer sheath of elongated middle portion 12) with respect to the connecting portion (Reydel FIG. 1B, flexible tube 13; Marescaux paragraph [0070], “handle portion 11 further includes a rotating control 22 which is also coupled to the tool insert which links the lever 15 and the tool portion 14. The rotating control 22 is coupled to the tool insert so that when the rotating control 22 is rotated by the surgeon, the rotation is transmitted via the tool insert to the tool portion 14”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Marescaux’s rotating control 22 for grasper-type tool 14 with the endoscope treatment tool disclosed by Reydel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope treatment tool whose tool portion 14 can be rotated and/or locked during an operation (see Marescaux paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 14, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Reydel further discloses wherein the grip portion has a pair of grip claws (Reydel FIG. 1B, jaws 28a/28b of grabbing assembly 18; Reydel paragraph [0031], “Each of jaws 28a and 28b may include sharpened teeth 33 or protrusions disposed near its distal ends to facilitate grasping of the tissue wall of the GI lumen.”).
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reydel et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0119671 – “Reydel”) in view of Marescaux et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0054733 – “Marescaux”) and Piskun et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0231534 – “Piskun”).
Regarding Claim 15, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Thus, Reydel in view of Marescaux teaches a first treatment tool that is the endoscope treatment tool according to claim 1.
Reydel further discloses a second treatment tool (Reydel FIG. 4, jaw assembly 36).
Reydel in view of Marescaux does not explicitly teach an endoscope that has a first treatment tool channel into which the first treatment tool is insertable and a second treatment tool channel into which the second treatment tool is insertable.
Piskun teaches an endoscope (Piskun FIG. 4D, first working channel 410b for a first tool (see also paragraph [0068] of Piskun) that has a first treatment tool channel (Piskun FIG. 4D, first working channel 410b) into which the first treatment tool is insertable (Piskun paragraph [0068], “a first working channel 410b for a first tool (not shown)”) and a second treatment tool channel (Piskun FIG. 4D, second working channel 410c) into which the second treatment tool is insertable (Piskun paragraph [0068], “a second working channel 410c for a second tool (not shown)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Piskun’s tool channel(s) with the endoscope device taught by Reydel in view of Marescaux. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination in order to selectively incorporate different tools into a single system.
Regarding Claim 16, Reydel in view of in view of Marescaux and Piskun teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Marescaux further teaches wherein at least one of the first treatment tool or the second treatment tool is attachable to and detachable from an endoscope operation part that performs operation of the endoscope (Marescaux FIG. 2A, tool insert 30; Marescaux paragraph [0079], “FIG. 2A shows a tool insert 30 which acts as the tool insert referenced above and links the lever 15 and the tool portion 14”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Marescaux’s tool insert with the endoscope device taught by Reydel in view of Piskun. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope having interchangeable tools, thus reducing costs of ownership and usage.
Regarding Claim 18, Reydel in view of Marescaux and Piskun teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Thus, Reydel in view of Piskun teaches using the endoscope device according to claim 15.
Reydel further discloses:
gripping the lesion part by the grip portion of the first treatment tool (Reydel FIG. 3C, showing tissue grabbing assembly 18 grabbing tissue wall W);
lifting, in a state where the lesion part is gripped, the lesion part by bending the bending portion of the first treatment tool (Reydel FIG.s. 3A-3C; Reydel paragraph [0016], “FIGS. 3A to 3E show side views illustrating one example of a method for forming a tissue fold with the device of FIGS. 1A and 1B”); and
treating, in a state where the lesion part is lifted, the lesion part by the second treatment tool inserted in the second treatment tool channel of the endoscope (Reydel FIGs. 8B-8C, showing anchor 56 and suture 42 being applied to the lesion part by secondary grasper 39).
Piskun further teaches disposing the grip portion of the first treatment tool at a lesion part in a body through the first treatment tool channel of the endoscope (Piskun FIG. 4D, first working channel 410b for a first tool; Piskun paragraph [0068], “a first working channel 410b for a first tool (not shown)”)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reydel et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0119671 – “Reydel”) in view of Marescaux et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0054733 – “Marescaux”), Piskun et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0231534 – “Piskun”), and Dycus et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0018331 – “Dycus”).
Regarding Claim 17, Reydel in view of Marescaux and Piskun teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Reydel discloses in Reydel FIG. 3B a tissue grabbing assembly 18 that grabs tissue W, thus having the same structure as a hemostat. However, Reydel in view of Marescaux and Piskun does not explicitly teach wherein the second treatment tool is an incision tool or a hemostatic tool.
Dycus teaches wherein the second treatment tool is an incision tool or a hemostatic tool (Dycus FIG. 20, end effector assembly 100 clamping vascular tissue 420; Dycus paragraph [0078], “end effector assembly 100 which mutually cooperate to grasp, seal and divide tubular vessels and vascular tissue 420”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Dycus’ hemostat for Reydel’s tissue grabbing assembly in the endoscope device taught by Reydel in view of Marescaux and Piskun. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of known prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that has explicitly has the capability of clamping blood vessels during surgery in order to stop bleeding.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reydel et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0119671 – “Reydel”) in view of Marescaux et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0054733 – “Marescaux”), Piskun et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0231534 – “Piskun”), and Akahoshi et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0022826 – “Akahoshi”).
Regarding Claim 19, Reydel in view of Marescaux and Piskun teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Reydel in view of Marescaux and Piskun does not explicitly teach wherein as the grip portion of the first treatment tool is rotated about a longitudinal axis of the insertion part in a state where the lesion part is lifted, the lesion part is swung.
Akahoshi teaches wherein as the grip portion (Akahoshi FIG. 4, grasper assembly 2) of the first treatment tool (Akahoshi FIG. 4, forceps 1 and rotary tool adjuster 50) is rotated about a longitudinal axis of the insertion part (Akahoshi FIG. 4, insertion portion/flexible cord 3 within endoscopic insertion tube 42) in a state where the lesion part is lifted, the lesion part is swung (Akahoshi paragraph [0048], “rotary tool adjustor 50 can be turned smoothly by operator's fingers…flexible cord 3 is turned around its longitudinal axis in step with rotation of the rotary tool adjustor 50 to transmit the rotation to the grasper assembly 2 at the fore distal end of the flexible cord 3. In this manner, the grasper assembly 2 of the forceps 1 can be turned through a desired angle clockwise or counterclockwise to bring the same to an appropriately oriented radial position confronting a lesion to be grasped by the forceps 1”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Akahoshi’s rotatable lesion grabber with the method described by endoscope Reydel in view of Marescaux and Piskun. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that is capable of manipulating a lesion in a radial direction (see Akahoshi paragraph [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed May 27, 2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment to Claim 10 removing the typographical error that was the basis of the objection. The objection to Claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed May 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Marescaux et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0054733 – “Marescaux”). Specifically, Marescaux teaches the newly-added features to exemplary Claim 1 of wherein the bending portion (Marescaux FIG. 1, articulating section 13) has a plurality of bending pieces (Marescaux FIG. 8, link members 50) that are arranged in a longitudinal direction of the insertion part and are connected to be movable (see Marescaux paragraph [0090]), and each bending piece has a wire guide (Marescaux FIG. 8, guides 54 on each of the link members 50) that holds the operation wire, and as the operation wire is pulled to the operation part side, the bending portion bends to a wire guide side (Marescaux paragraph [0090], “control wires 44 are shown along the sides of the link members 50, disposed within guides 54. The guides 54 do not inhibit axial movement of the control wires 44, but allow them to slide axially in the articulating portion.”. As such, the rejection of Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed May 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 8 are moot, since Claim 8 is now cancelled. However, the feature from now-cancelled Claim 8 of “wherein the bending portion has a plurality of bending pieces that are arranged in a longitudinal direction of the insertion part and are connected to be movable rotationally” is taught by the cited passage from Claim 1, as described in the response to the arguments against the rejection of Claim 1, That is wherein the bending portion (Marescaux FIG. 1, articulating section 13) has a plurality of bending pieces (Marescaux FIG. 8, link members 50) that are arranged in a longitudinal direction of the insertion part and are connected to be movable (see Marescaux paragraph [0090]).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16, filed May 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 2-5, 10, 12-13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. On page 13, Applicant asserts that Reydel et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0119671 – “Reydel”) fails to disclose/teach/suggest the newly-added features of Claim 1. As described above, Marescaux, not Reydel, is cited as teaching these features. Similarly, the arguments on pages 14-16 asserting that none of the cited art that includes Hashimoto et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0063354 – “Hashimoto”), Piskun et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0231534 – “Piskun”), Dycus et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0018331 – “Dycus”), or Akahoshi et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0022826 – “Akahoshi”) teach the newly-added features of Claim 1. However, as described in this Response to Arguments section and the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 presented above, Marescaux clearly teaches these newly-claimed features. As such, the rejection of Claims 2-5, 10, 12-13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
07/20/26
Prosecution Insights