The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bent portion" in Lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. Publication 2024/0081850, hereinafter “Lee”).
As to Claim 1, Lee discloses an endoscopic tube set (10) in [0071] and Fig. 2, comprising:
an endoscopic tube (110) in [0075] and Fig. 2, comprising:
a body (120) in [0074] and Fig. 2;
a catheter (500, 520) in [0073] and [0077] connected to the body, having therein one single working channel, having a proximal opening adjacent to label (520) in Fig. 2 proximal to the body, and having a distal opening distal to the body as shown in the magnified tip of Fig. 2; and
a position limiting component (113) in [0078] and Fig. 4a fitted to the distal opening of the catheter, having a position limiting opening not round in shape, and having a position limiting mark (opening); and
a working element (111) in coordination “the optical fiber and an imaging device” and “monitor 700” in [0078]-[0079] having a cross section corresponding in shape to the position limiting opening of the position limiting component and having at least one positioning mark.
As to Claim 2, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the position limiting component is made of a material “medical rubber, silicon, etc.” in [0081] not penetrable by X-ray.
As to Claim 3, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 1, wherein the position limiting component further has a plurality of guiding elements (the various sides therein) extending toward an inner edge of the position limiting component from the position limiting opening of the position limiting component.
As to Claim 4, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 1, wherein the working element is an image capturing device “the optical fiber and an imaging device” in [0078]-[0079], a sampling device or a rinsing device.
As to Claim 6, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 1, wherein the endoscopic tube further comprises: a distal bending mechanism “cable” in [0077] connected to the body and the catheter and comprising: an operating handle disposed outside the body and rotatably connected to the body; a spool disposed inside the body and connected to the operating handle; and a cable partially wound around the spool and having two ends connected to two sides proximal to the distal opening of the catheter respectively, wherein the operating handle can be rotated as described in [0108] to drive the cable moving, causing a portion of the catheter to bend, with the bent portion being adjacent to the distal opening of the catheter.
As to Claim 7, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 6, wherein the endoscopic tube further comprises: a catheter rotating mechanism (121, 122) in [0080] connected to the body and the catheter and comprising: a rotatable element connected to the catheter and rotatably connected to the body, wherein the rotatable element can be rotated as described in [0108] to move the catheter, allowing the catheter to rotate as shown in Fig. 2.
As to Claim 8, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 7, wherein the endoscopic tube further comprises a sensing mechanism linked to the distal bending mechanism and the catheter rotating mechanism as described in [0108] to sense a bending state of the catheter near the distal opening and a rotating state of the catheter.
As to Claim 9, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 1, wherein the catheter further has a rinsing port adjacent to label (520) in Fig. 2 proximal to the proximal opening.
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 of this title, 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Chu et al. (U.S. Publication 2024/0382726, hereinafter “Chu”).
As to Claim 5, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 1, however does not specifically disclose an inflation device. Chu teaches in the analogous field of endoscopy wherein the endoscopic tube further comprises an inflation device (44) in [0103] and Fig. 1 enclosing the catheter, having an expansion free end made of an elastic material “non-extensible material” in [0103] and proximal to the distal opening of the catheter, having an end proximal to the distal opening of the catheter and closed, and having an end proximal to the proximal opening of the catheter and being in communication with a gas admitting component having a gas admitting opening for admitting an external fluid, wherein the expansion free end expands when a gas is introduced into a space between the inflation device and the catheter through the gas admitting opening. It would have been obvious to provide Lee with an inflation device as taught by Chu in order to facilitate fitment with target anatomy to fulfill the same navigational function with predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Gao et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0409854, hereinafter “Gao”).
As to Claim 10, Lee discloses the endoscopic tube set of claim 1, however does not specifically disclose a cross structure. Gao teaches in the analogous field of endoscopy wherein a channel can have a bellow cross parallel structure (61) in [0043] and Fig. 2 proximal to the distal opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the endoscopic tube set of Lee such that channels can have various shapes to accommodate the physical dimensions of various structures as taught by Gao in [0044]-[0049] in order to fulfill the same function with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM B CHOU whose telephone number is (571) 270-3367. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 am - 6 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, Michael Carey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM CHOU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights