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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of priority document EP 23192177.6 has been received
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthison-Hansen (US PGPUB 2021/0393113 – “Matthison-Hansen”) in view of Boulais et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0131279 – “Boulais”) and Flesch (US Patent 5,681,263 – “Flesch”).
Regarding Claim 1, Matthison-Hansen discloses:
An endoscope (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, endoscope 1) comprising:
a proximal handle (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, handle 2);
an insertion cord (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, insertion section of endoscope 1 extending distally from handle 2) extending distally from the handle, the insertion cord comprising an insertion tube (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, insertion tube 3), a bending section (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, bending section 4), and a distal tip (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 2, distal end segment 7);
a working channel tube (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, working channel 14’); and
an electrical cable extending from the handle and through the bending section (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, closed lumen 12’; Matthison-Hansen paragraph [0050], “Since no partitioning wall needs to be provided in the bending section body 5 itself between the bendable tubular member 14 forming the working channel and the closed lumen 12′, space is saved and more room is provided…the electrical cables”),
the inner surface forming a lumen including a major lumen portion (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, interior of bending section body 5), a cable lumen lobe (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, conduits 19; Matthison-Hansen paragraph [0052], “conduits 19…allows good control of individual cables 17, illumination light fibers etc.”), and opposite steering wire lumen lobes (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, pull-wire apertures 10), the major lumen portion receiving the working channel tube therethrough (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, tubular member 14; Matthison-Hansen paragraph [0057], “tubular member 14 forming the working channel in the assembled endoscope 1”), and
wherein the segments are alternatingly connected to each other by the first upper hinges and the second upper hinges, the first upper hinges and the second upper hinges forming a meandering spine (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, showing bending section body 5 having segments 8 connected by hinge parts 18a to form a meandering/bending spine), wherein the cable lumen lobe is offset from the longitudinal axis (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, showing conduits 19 offset from longitudinal axis C), a central plane traversing the cable lumen portion and the longitudinal axis (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, showing central plane traversing the conduits 19 and longitudinal axis C), the central plane being positioned between the first hinge axes and the second hinge axes (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, showing first upper hinge and second upper hinge separated by a central plane that is orthogonal to bending section body 5).
Matthison-Hansen does not explicitly disclose:
the bending section comprising a one-piece part including a longitudinal axis, segments, first upper hinges, and second upper hinges, the first upper hinges and the second upper hinges being configured to allow bending of the bending section in a bending plane, each of the first upper hinges comprising a first hinge axis, and each of the second upper hinges comprising a second hinge axis, the first hinge axes being parallel and transversely offset from the second hinge axes.
Boulais teaches:
the bending section (Examiner-annotated Boulais FIG. 13 shown below, articulation joint 750 of endoscope 20 shown in Boulais FIG. 2) comprising a one-piece part (Boulais FIG. 13, two segments/vertebrae in articulation joint 750) including a longitudinal axis (Boulais FIG. 13, longitudinal axis), segments (Boulais FIG. 13, first and second segments), first upper hinges (Boulais FIG. 13, first upper hinge), and second upper hinges (Boulais FIG. 13, second upper hinge), the first upper hinges and the second upper hinges being configured to allow bending of the bending section in a bending plane (Boulais paragraph [0175], “To facilitate bending of the articulation joint, the cylinder includes a number of living hinges 760 formed along its length”), each of the first upper hinges comprising a first hinge axis, and each of the second upper hinges comprising a second hinge axis, the first hinge axes being parallel and transversely offset from the second hinge axes (Boulais FIG. 13, showing first upper hinge 760 and second upper hinge 760 being parallel and transversely offset from one another; Examiner interprets first upper hinge 760 and second upper hinge 760 being capable of bending in the same direction, as described by hinge devices 8a,8b in the present patent application).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
490
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 Boulais’ living hinges with the endoscope disclosed by Matthison-Hansen. 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 that can be molded with the living hinges in place (see Boulais paragraph [0178]), thus reducing manufacturing costs.
Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais does not explicitly disclose each of the segments comprising a wall with a varying thickness between an outer surface and an inner surface thereof.
Flesch teaches each of the segments comprising a wall with a varying thickness between an outer surface and an inner surface thereof (Flesch FIG. 7, links 58 of steering coupler 20 shown in Flesch FIG. 4; Flesch col. 4, lines 21-24, “Depending on whether or not it is desired for the curvature of the coupler, when curved, to be constant or otherwise, the links are all of the same thickness, or else they are of differing thicknesses”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boulais’ segment to have varying thicknesses, as taught by Flesch. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of an endoscope having an insertion portion having a desired curvature (see Flesch col. 4, lines 21-24)
Regarding Claim 2, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein each of the first and second upper hinges comprises an inner upper hinge face (Matthison-Hansen FIGs. 3a-4, showing inner faces of first and second upper hinges 18a), wherein each of the cable lumen lobes comprises a first face opposite a second face, the first face and the second face being part of the lumen (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, showing conduits 19 having an upper inner face and a lower inner face within the lobe 16), wherein each of the inner upper hinge faces of the first upper hinges has a common edge, and extends co-extensively, with a respective one of the first faces (Mattison-Hansen FIG. 4, showing the interior of hinges 18a having a common edge with the interior of bending body section 5 that includes lumen 19), and wherein each of the inner upper hinge faces of the second upper hinges has a common edge, and extends co-extensively, with a respective one of the second faces (Mattison-Hansen FIG. 4, showing the interior of hinges 18b having a common edge with the interior of bending body section 5 that includes lumen 19).
Regarding Claim 3, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein the bending section (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, bending section body 5) further comprises first lower hinges (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, first lower hinge 18b) and second lower hinges (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, first lower hinge 18b), the first lower hinges and the second lower hinges being configured to allow bending of the bending section in the bending plane, each of the first lower hinges lying in the first hinge axis of a corresponding first upper hinge, and each of the second lower hinges lying in the second hinge axis of a corresponding second upper hinge, each of the first lower hinge and the corresponding first upper hinge forming a first hinge device, and each of the second lower hinge and the corresponding second upper hinge forming a second hinge device (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 12a, showing upper hinges 18a and lower hinges 18b in same respective planes to for multiple, including a second, hinge devices).
Regarding Claim 4, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein the first hinge device is offset from the central plane by at most 20% of an outer diameter of the bending section, and wherein the second hinge device is offset from the central plane by at most 20% of the outer diameter of the bending section (Matthison-Hansen FIGs. 3a-3c, 4, 12a-12c, and 13; showing upper hinges 18a and lower hinges 18b on a same axial plane, which is therefore less than a 20% offset).
Regarding Claim 5, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein the bending section (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, bending section body 5) further comprises first lower hinges (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, first lower hinge 18b) and second lower hinges (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, first lower hinge 18b), the first lower hinges and the second lower hinges being configured to allow bending of the bending section in the bending plane, each of the first lower hinges lying in the first hinge axis of a corresponding first upper hinge, and each of the second lower hinges lying in the second hinge axis of a corresponding second upper hinge, each of the first lower hinge and the corresponding first upper hinge forming a first hinge device, and each of the second lower hinge and the corresponding second upper hinge forming a second hinge device (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 12a, showing upper hinges 18a and lower hinges 18b in same respective planes to for multiple, including a second, hinge devices),
and wherein each of the first upper hinges and the second upper hinges is adjacent to a respective one of the cable lumen lobes (Examiner-annotated Matthison-Hansen Fig. 7 shown below, cable lumen conduit 19 adjacent to multiple upper hinges 18a).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Boulais further teaches wherein the major lumen portion comprises arcuate portions supporting the working channel tube, whose lengths, in aggregate, are larger than 50% of a circumferential length of the working channel tube (Boulais FIG. 6B, working channel 6B), and wherein an internal diameter of the working channel tube is at least 45% of the outer diameter of the bending section (Boulais FIG. 2, flexible articulation join 30). (Examiner notes that the present specification makes no mention of the claimed percentages being critical to the operation/function/configuration of the claimed endoscope. MPEP 2145.05(II)(A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endoscope taught by Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch to have a working channel of the claimed relative dimension(s). That is, it has been held that “where the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Incl, 725 F.2d 1338, USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instance case, the endoscope taught by Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch would not operate differently with the claimed internal diameters of the working channels, since Boulais’ working channel 32 would still provide a passage for suction, instruments, etc.)
Regarding Claim 8, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Boulais further teaches wherein the major lumen portion comprises arcuate portions supporting the working channel tube (Boulais FIG. 6B, working channel 6B), whose lengths, in aggregate, are larger than 50% of a circumferential length of the working channel tube, wherein the bending section (Boulais FIG. 2, flexible articulation join 30) has an outer diameter smaller than 3.2 mm, and wherein an internal diameter of the working channel tube is at least 45% of the outer diameter of the bending section. (Examiner notes that the present specification makes no mention of the claimed percentages or outer diameter of the bending section being critical to the operation/function/configuration of the claimed endoscope. MPEP 2145.05(II)(A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endoscope taught by Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch to have a working channel of the claimed relative dimension(s). That is, it has been held that “where the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Incl, 725 F.2d 1338, USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instance case, the endoscope taught by Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch would not operate differently with the claimed internal diameters of the working channels, since Boulais’ working channel 32 would still provide a passage for suction, instruments, etc.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthison-Hansen (US PGPUB 2021/0393113 – “Matthison-Hansen”) in view of Boulais et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0131279 – “Boulais”), Flesch (US Patent 5,681,263 – “Flesch”), and Hansen et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0117462 – “Hansen”).
Regarding Claim 6, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein each segment comprises an upper wall portion of the wall, the upper wall portion traversed by the central plane and adjacent to the cable lumen lobe (see Examiner-annotated Matthison-Hansen FIG. 7 above).
Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais and Flesch does not explicitly teach the upper wall portion being thinner than a thickness of the first or second upper hinges.
Hansen teaches the upper wall portion (Hansen FIG. 4b, upper wall portions of distal segment 11 and distal intermediate segment 13) being thinner than a thickness of the first or second upper hinges (Hansen FIG. 4b, bridges 14; Hansen paragraph [0043], “bridges 14 that provide the hinge members “).
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 Hansen’s bridge for one or more of Matthison-Hansen’s hinge parts 18a/18b. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a flexible endoscope having segments/vertebrae connected by thick hinges that are less likely to fail from metal fatigue caused by repetitive bending that thin hinges.
Claims 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthison-Hansen (US PGPUB 2021/0393113 – “Matthison-Hansen”) in view of Boulais et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0131279 – “Boulais”).
Regarding Claim 9, Mattison-Hansen discloses:
An endoscope (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, endoscope 1) comprising:
a proximal handle (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, handle 2)or interface; and
an insertion cord (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, insertion section of endoscope 1 extending distally from handle 2) extending distally from the handle or interface, the insertion cord comprising an insertion tube (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, insertion tube 3), a bending section (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, bending section 4) and a distal tip (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 2, distal end segment 7,
an electrical cable extending from the handle and through the bending section (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, closed lumen 12’; Matthison-Hansen paragraph [0050], “Since no partitioning wall needs to be provided in the bending section body 5 itself between the bendable tubular member 14 forming the working channel and the closed lumen 12′, space is saved and more room is provided…the electrical cables”),
wherein the bending section comprises a cable lumen portion (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, conduits 19; Matthison-Hansen paragraph [0052], “conduits 19…allows good control of individual cables 17, illumination light fibers etc.”) offset from the longitudinal axis (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, showing conduits 19 offset from longitudinal axis C), a central plane traversing the cable lumen portion and the longitudinal axis (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, showing central plane traversing the conduits 19 and longitudinal axis C), the electrical cable extending through the cable lumen portion (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, closed lumen 12’; Matthison-Hansen paragraph [0050], “Since no partitioning wall needs to be provided in the bending section body 5 itself between the bendable tubular member 14 forming the working channel and the closed lumen 12′, space is saved and more room is provided…the electrical cables”).
Matthison-Hansen does not explicitly disclose:
the bending section comprising a one-piece part including a longitudinal axis, segments, a first hinge device, and a second hinge device, the first hinge device and the second hinge device being configured to allow bending of the bending section in a first bending plane;
wherein one of the segments is connected to a respectively adjacent one of the segments by the first hinge device, a first hinge axis traversing the first hinge device and being offset from the central plane in a first direction,
wherein another one of the segments is connected to a respectively adjacent another one of the segments by the second hinge device, a second hinge axis traversing the second hinge device and being offset from the central plane in a second direction opposite to the first direction, and
wherein the first hinge axis does not traverse the second hinge device and the second hinge axis does not traverse the first hinge device.
Boulais teaches:
the bending section (Examiner-annotated Boulais FIG. 13 shown below, articulation joint 750 of endoscope 20 shown in Boulais FIG. 2) comprising a one-piece part (Boulais FIG. 13, two segments/vertebrae in articulation joint 750) including a longitudinal axis (Boulais FIG. 13, longitudinal axis), segments (Boulais FIG. 13, first and second segments), a first hinge device (Boulais FIG. 13, first upper hinge), and a second hinge device (Boulais FIG. 13, second upper hinge), the first hinge device and the second hinge device being configured to allow bending of the bending section in a first bending plane (Boulais paragraph [0175], “To facilitate bending of the articulation joint, the cylinder includes a number of living hinges 760 formed along its length”);
wherein one of the segments (Boulais FIG. 13, first segment) is connected to a respectively adjacent one of the segments (Boulais FIG. 13, second segment) by the first hinge device (Boulais FIG. 13, first upper hinge), a first hinge axis traversing the first hinge device and being offset from the central plane in a first direction (Boulais FIG. 13, a hinge axis of first upper hinge that is offset from a plane through the longitudinal axis),
PNG
media_image3.png
520
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein another one of the segments (Boulais FIG. 13, second segment) is connected to a respectively adjacent another one of the segments (Boulais FIG. 13, third segment) by the second hinge device (Boulais FIG. 13, second upper hinge), a second hinge axis traversing the second hinge device and being offset from the central plane in a second direction opposite to the first direction (Boulais FIG. 13, a hinge axis of second upper hinge that is offset from another plane through the longitudinal axis), and
wherein the first hinge axis does not traverse the second hinge device and the second hinge axis does not traverse the first hinge device (Boulais FIG. 13, showing offset positions of first upper hinge and second upper hinge, thus resulting in separate hinges axes that do not traverse one another).
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 Boulais’ living hinges with the endoscope disclosed by Matthison-Hansen. 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 that can be molded with the living hinges in place (see Boulais paragraph [0178]), thus reducing manufacturing costs.
Regarding Claim 10, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Boulais further teaches wherein the central axis is perpendicular to the first bending plane (Boulais paragraph [0175], “To facilitate bending of the articulation joint, the cylinder includes a number of living hinges 760 formed along its length”; thus the central axis becomes perpendicular with the bending plane of the endoscope) and parallel with the first hinge axis and the second hinge axis (Boulais FIG. 13, showing central axis parallel with the axes of the first upper hinge and the second upper hinge).
Regarding Claim 11, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein the first hinge device is offset from the central plane by at most 20% of a diameter of the bending section (Matthison-Hansen FIGs. 3a-3c, 4, 12a-12c, and 13; showing upper hinges 18a on a same, which is therefore less than a 20% offset). (Examiner notes that the present specification makes no mention of the claimed percentage being critical to the operation/function/configuration of the claimed endoscope. MPEP 2145.05(II)(A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endoscope taught by Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais to make the first hinge device offset from the central plant by less than (“by at most”) 20% of the diameter of the bending section. That is, it has been held that “where the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Incl, 725 F.2d 1338, USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instance case, the endoscope taught by Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais would not operate differently with the claimed internal offset, since Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais already provide a hinge device that is offset from the central plane.)
Regarding Claim 12, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Boulais further teaches wherein each of the first hinge device and the second hinge device respectively comprises two hinge elements, with one of said two hinge elements being arranged on one side of the first bending plane and the other of said two hinge elements being arranged on the other side of the first bending plane (Boulais FIG. 13 above, showing first upper hinge and second upper hinge arranged on different sides of a bending plane; see also Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, showing hinges 18a and hinges 18b being on opposite sides of bending section body 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein the two hinge elements of the first hinge device and of the second hinge device are arranged mirror symmetrically with respect to the first bending plane (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3A, showing pairs of hinges 18a mirroring pairs of hinges 18b).
Regarding Claim 15, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Boulais further teaches wherein each of the first hinge device and the second hinge device respectively comprises two hinge elements, with one of said two hinge elements being arranged on one side of the first bending plane and the other of said two hinge elements being arranged on the other side of the first bending plane (Boulais FIG. 13 above, showing first upper hinge and second upper hinge arranged on different sides of a bending plane; see also Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, showing hinges 18a and hinges 18b being on opposite sides of bending section body 5).
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein the two hinge elements of the first hinge device and/or the second hinge device are arranged mirror symmetrically with respect to the first bending plane (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3A, showing pairs of hinges 18a mirroring pairs of hinges 18b).
Regarding Claim 16, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein the segments form a major lumen portion (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, interior of bending section body 5), which has a larger cross-sectional area than the cable lumen portion and is connected to the cable lumen portion (Examiner-annotated Matthison-Hansen Fig. 7 shown above, cable lumen conduit 19 within bending section body 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses wherein the segments further form at least one steering wire lumen portion (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, pull-wire apertures 10) for accommodation of at least one steering wire, said steering wire lumen portion being arranged at one side of the central plane and connected to the major lumen portion and the cable lumen portion (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 5, showing pull-wire apertures 10 and conduits 19 as components of the interior of bending section body 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Boulais further teaches wherein the endoscope is a four-way bending endoscope, the distal tip being steerable in the first bending plane and in a second bending plane defined at least by third hinge devices (Boulais FIG. 13, third segment with hinges 760) connecting some of the segments (Boulais FIG. 15, showing four cable lumens; Boulais paragraph [0179], “lumens 786 used to route the control cables”).
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 Boulais’ four control cables with the joint 750 shown in Boulais FIG. 13. 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 that has a full 360° range of lateral motion.
Regarding Claim 19, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Boulais further teaches wherein the third hinge devices comprise hinge elements traversed by the second bending plane (Boulais FIG. 13, showing third segment having hinges 760 that traverse the second bending plane).
Regarding Claim 20, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of the endoscope described in Claim 9, as described above.
Matthison-Hansen further discloses a monitor (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, display device 100) connectable to the endoscope (Matthison-Hansen FIG. 1, endoscope 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthison-Hansen (US PGPUB 2021/0393113 – “Matthison-Hansen”) in view of Boulais et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0131279 – “Boulais”) and Hansen et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0117462 – “Hansen”).
Regarding Claim 14, Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Boulais further teaches wherein each of the first hinge device and the second hinge device respectively comprises two hinge elements, with one of said two hinge elements being arranged on one side of the first bending plane and the other of said two hinge elements being arranged on the other side of the first bending plane (Boulais FIG. 13 above, showing first upper hinge and second upper hinge arranged on different sides of a bending plane; see also Matthison-Hansen FIG. 3a, showing hinges 18a and hinges 18b being on opposite sides of bending section body 5).
Matthison-Hansen further discloses segments in the central plane and adjacent to the cable lumen portion (Examiner-annotated FIG. 7 above, showing segments in the central plane and adjacent to the cable conduit 19).
Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais does not explicitly teach wherein a wall thickness of the segments is thinner than a thickness of a hinge element of the first hinge device.
Hansen teaches wherein a wall thickness of the segments (Hansen FIG. 4b, upper wall portions of distal segment 11 and distal intermediate segment 13) is thinner than a thickness of a hinge element of the first hinge device (Hansen FIG. 4b, bridges 14; Hansen paragraph [0043], “bridges 14 that provide the hinge members “).
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 Hansen’s bridge for one or more of Matthison-Hansen’s hinge parts 18a/18b in the endoscope taught by Matthison-Hansen in view of Boulais. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a flexible endoscope having segments/vertebrae connected by thick hinges that are less likely to fail from metal fatigue caused by repetitive bending that thin hinges.
Conclusion
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
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/09/26