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 .
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 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 limitation is: "introducer element configured to facilitate bending the laser fiber along the bend" in claim 11. This claim limitation finds structural recitation in paragraphs 52 and 53 of the specification, reading “The introducer element 278 is configured to facilitate insertion of the laser fiber through the fiber bend 244,” and “the introducer element 278 is forced in or integrally formed with the falls that define at least a portion of the fiber bend 244.” The “introducer” is hereby interpreted to describe an element formed with or in walls of a channel that promotes smoother passage of an object within.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2, 4, 5, and 20 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.
The term “about” in claims 2, 4, 5, and 20, is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In each of claims 2, 4, 5, and 20, the relative term “about” is used before a dimension, and as “about” is not explained within the specification to mean, for example, a certain % difference from the claimed dimension, these claims are rejected as being indefinite.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al (U.S. Patent 5199417, hereinafter “Muller”) in view of Altshuler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0248434, hereinafter “Altshuler”). Regarding claim 1, Muller teaches an endoscope (abstract) comprising:
a handpiece (figure 1 element 40) at least defining a working channel port (figure 1 element 50 pointed to by the left arrow below) and a laser fiber port (figure 1 element 48 pointed to by the right arrow below)
PNG
media_image1.png
474
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a catheter (figure 1 element 34) including a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the catheter at least defining:
a working channel extending from the proximal end to the distal end of the catheter, the working channel connected to the working channel port (columns 11-12 lines 65-7)
a laser fiber channel distinct from the working channel, the laser fiber channel extending from the proximal end to the distal end of the catheter, the laser fiber channel connected to the laser fiber port (column 12 lines 8-27)
and a laser fiber (column 12 line 26)
wherein at least one of
the laser fiber port includes a funnel structure exhibiting a lateral dimension that decreases with increasing distance from an exterior of the handpiece (figure 15 the funnel structure circled below)
PNG
media_image2.png
183
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an optional fiber conduit extending from the laser fiber port to the laser fiber channel includes a funnel structure exhibiting a lateral dimension that decreases with increasing distance from an exterior of the handpiece
or the laser fiber is pre-loaded into the laser fiber channel
Muller fails to teach an endoscope comprising:
a catheter including a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the catheter at least defining:
an optoelectronic module
wherein the working channel, a distal end of the optoelectronic module, and the laser fiber channel are aligned on an axis
Altshuler teaches an endoscope comprising:
a catheter (paragraph 23) including a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the catheter at least defining:
an optoelectronic module (paragraph 84 “The imaging receiver 142 may be an imaging device 144 (depicted), such as a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor (including a semiconductor chip, imaging optics, and supporting electronics) or a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera sensor”)
wherein the working channel (figure 2 element 102), a distal end of the optoelectronic module (figure 2 element 34a), and the laser fiber channel (figure 2 element 109) are aligned on an axis (shown with an arrow below)
PNG
media_image3.png
306
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Muller with the optoelectronic module and distal head configuration of Altshuler in order to create an unobscured line of sight between the imaging receiver and the treatment area (paragraph 11), allowing for shorter treatment times as operators have a clearer view of the in vitro procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claim 1, and Altshuler further teaches an endoscope wherein the laser fiber channel exhibits a diameter of about 50 μm to about 500 μm (paragraph 82 “inner diameter of the working port 103 may be in the range from 0.5 to 1.5 millimeters”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Muller with the laser fiber channel size of Altshuler in order to protect the laser fiber from damage by stone fragments being aspirated during the operation, as a smaller channel diameter means larger stone fragments will not be able to enter the channel and damage the laser fiber.
Regarding claim 3, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claim 1, and Altshuler further teaches an endoscope wherein the laser fiber includes a thulium laser fiber (paragraph 75 “the ablation laser system 46 includes, for example, a thulium… fiber”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Muller with the Thulium laser of Altshuler in order to minimize damage to tissue surrounding the target area within the patient, as a well-known advantage of thulium lasers are their high precision and low thermal diffusion.
Regarding claim 4, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claim 1, and Altshuler further teaches an endoscope wherein the laser fiber channel exhibits a diameter that is greater than a diameter of the laser fiber by about 50 μm to about 250 μm. Ashtuler fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laser fiber channel has a diameter that is greater than a diameter of the laser fiber by about 50 μm to about 250 μm.
Ashtuler, however, discloses wherein the diameter of the laser fiber channel is 450 μm larger than the laser fiber (paragraph 82 “the inner diameter of the working port 103 may be in the range from 0.5 to 1.5 millimeters inclusive for flexible catheters utilizing a 0.05 millimeter core laser fiber”). As such, the change in diameter of the laser fiber channel is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that diameter is dependent on removing components of the catheter to mitigate the need for general anesthesia during surgery, with smaller diameters being desirable to limit risk to the patient (paragraphs 16-17). Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to change the diameter to be 50 μm to about 250 μm larger than that of the laser fiber as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that it is just a disclosed value, see paragraph 34 with a list of possible values and no rationale for choosing a certain range over another.
Regarding claim 5, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claims 1 and 3, and Altshuler further teaches an endoscope wherein the laser fiber exhibits a diameter of about 150 μm or less (paragraph 82 “utilizing a 0.05 millimeter core laser fiber”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Muller with the .05 millimeter core laser fiber in order to make the fiber function in a flexible catheter shaft (paragraph 81 smaller diameters for flexible shafts and larger ones for rigid shafts) allowing the endoscope to follow natural curves within the patients body without having to reinsert/move the endoscope to reach a new target region, minimizing patient discomfort and operation length.
Regarding claim 6, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claims 1, and Altshuler further teaches an endoscope wherein the laser fiber includes a holmium laser fiber (paragraph 75 “the ablation laser system 46 includes, for example, a Thulium or Holmium fiber or solid state laser”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Muller with the Holmium laser of Altshuler in order to minimize damage to tissue surrounding the target area within the patient, as holmium lasers are known to have high water absorption, meaning that outside of the target region the energy outputted from the laser dissipates quickly in the water rich tissue.
Regarding claim 7, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claim 1, and Muller further teaches an endoscope wherein at least one of the laser fiber port or the optional conduit extending from the laser fiber port to the laser fiber channel includes the funnel structure exhibiting the lateral dimension that decreases with increasing distance from the exterior of the handpiece (figure 15 see funnel structure circled below).
PNG
media_image2.png
183
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claim 1, and Muller further teaches an endoscope wherein the laser fiber port, the laser fiber channel, or the optional conduit includes a fiber bend therein when the catheter is substantially straight (figure 15 see fiber bend circled below).
Regarding claim 9, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and Muller further teaches an endoscope wherein the fiber bend exhibits an average radius of curvature that is greater than about 10 cm. Muller fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fiber bend radius is greater than 10 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the radius of the fiber bend of Muller to be greater than 10 cm since it has been held that “where the only difference 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., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the fiber bend would not operate differently with the claimed radius. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that it is just a disclosed value, see paragraph 32, where it is said the radius may be a variety of sizes, ranging from 7.5 cm and greater up to 50 cm.
Regarding claim 10, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and Muller further teaches an endoscope wherein an average radius of curvature of the fiber bend is greater than a working bend formed in at least one of the working channel port, the working channel, or at least one optional working conduit extending between the working port and the working channel (figure 15 see fiber bend pointed to by the right arrow below, and working bend pointed to by the left arrow below).
PNG
media_image4.png
183
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and Muller further teaches an endoscope further comprising an introducer element configured to facilitate bending the laser fiber along the bend (column 7 lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 18, Muller teaches a method of using an endoscope (abstract), the method comprising: inserting a distal end of a catheter of the endoscope into an individual (column 1 lines 20-23), the endoscope including:
a handpiece (figure 1 element 40) at least defining a working channel port (figure 1 element 50 pointed to by the left arrow below) and a laser fiber port (figure 1 element 48 pointed to by the right arrow below)
PNG
media_image1.png
474
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the catheter (figure 1 element 34) including a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the catheter at least defining:
a working channel extending from the proximal end to the distal end of the catheter, the working channel connected to the working channel port (columns 11-12 lines 65-7)
a laser fiber channel distinct from the working channel, the laser fiber channel extending from the proximal end to the distal end of the catheter, the laser fiber channel connected to the laser fiber port (column 12 lines 8-27)
and a laser fiber (column 12 line 26)
wherein at least one of
the laser fiber port includes a funnel structure exhibiting a lateral dimension that decreases with increasing distance from an exterior of the handpiece (figure 15 the funnel structure circled below)
PNG
media_image2.png
183
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an optional fiber conduit extending from the laser fiber port to the laser fiber channel includes a funnel structure exhibiting a lateral dimension that decreases with increasing distance from an exterior of the handpiece
or the laser fiber is pre-loaded into the laser fiber channel
Muller fails to teach a method of using an endoscope, the method comprising: inserting a distal end of a catheter of the endoscope into an individual: the endoscope including:
the catheter including a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the catheter at least defining:
an optoelectronic module
wherein the working channel, a distal end of the optoelectronic module, and the laser fiber channel are aligned on an axis
Altshuler teaches teach a method of using an endoscope, the method comprising: inserting a distal end of a catheter of the endoscope into an individual: the endoscope including:
the catheter (paragraph 23) including a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, the catheter at least defining:
an optoelectronic module (paragraph 84 “The imaging receiver 142 may be an imaging device 144 (depicted), such as a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor (including a semiconductor chip, imaging optics, and supporting electronics) or a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera sensor”)
wherein the working channel (figure 2 element 102), a distal end of the optoelectronic module (figure 2 element 34a), and the laser fiber channel (figure 2 element 109) are aligned on an axis (shown with an arrow below)
PNG
media_image3.png
306
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Muller with the optoelectronic module and distal head configuration of Altshuler in order to create an unobscured line of sight between the imaging receiver and the treatment area (paragraph 11), allowing for shorter treatment times as operators have a clearing view of the in vitro procedure.
Regarding claim 23, Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claim 18, and Muller further teaches a method further comprising inserting the laser fiber into the laser fiber port and into the laser fiber channel until a distal portion of the laser fiber is at or near the distal end of the catheter (column 12 lines 8-27 laser fibers can be inserted into the working channel to be used at the distal end of the endoscope).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Altshuler in view of Snoke et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0299358, hereinafter “Snoke”). While Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 11, they fail to teach an endoscope wherein at least a portion of the introducer element is configured to rotate. Snoke teaches an endoscope wherein at least a portion of the introducer element is configured to rotate (paragraph 55 ”introducer 100 and rotating one or both of introducer”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope configuration of Muller and Altshuler with the rotating endoscope in order to reduce patient discomfort by allowing adjustment of the needle’s position without lateral motion of the catheter, as stated at the end of paragraph 55.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Altshuler in view of Rosenthal (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0077466). While Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 11, they fail to teach an endoscope wherein at least a portion of the introducer element is configured to move in a direction that is generally parallel to at least a portion of the bend. Rosenthal teaches an endoscope wherein at least a portion of the introducer element is configured to move in a direction that is generally parallel to at least a portion of the bend (paragraph 78 “introducer moves primarily by sliding coaxially through the conduit 40” with bend circled in figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
436
425
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope configuration of Muller and Altshuler with the coaxial intorucer-channel movement in order to improve time of intubation in patients where “neck mobility is an issue, an airway is difficult, or a subject is obese” as stated in the abstract and paragraph 26.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Altshuler in view of Shelton (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0130759). While Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claims 1, they fail to teach an endoscope wherein the laser fiber is pre-loaded in the laser fiber channel (paragraph 80 “laser fiber is fixedly attached at manufacture to the distal end of the scope.” and paragraph 26 “such as for passing an embedded or attached laser fiber(s) 110, which can also include passage via a sheath 111, such as a direct pathway for the laser fiber(s) 110”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope configuration of Muller and Altshuler with the at-manufacture pre-loading of the laser fiber within the fiber channel in order to negate common issues that can occur as a laser fiber is inserted into a working channel by a practitioner, such as the fiber catching on the channel walls (abstract).
Claim 15, 16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Altshuler in view of Wei et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0153381, hereinafter “Wei”). Regarding claim 15, Muller and Altshuler combined teach the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach an endoscope wherein: the handpiece includes an actuator, the actuator including a generally cylindrical portion disposed within the handpiece, the generally cylindrical portion configured to rotate, the generally cylindrical portion attached to the laser fiber such that rotating the generally cylindrical portion moves the laser fiber. Wei teaches an endoscope wherein: the handpiece includes an actuator (paragraph 95 “a soft rubber outer wheel (1830) in which a hard plastic inner wheel (1820)”), the actuator including a generally cylindrical portion (paragraph 95 “wheel”) disposed within the handpiece, the generally cylindrical portion configured to rotate (paragraph 95 “rotated by a human finger”), the generally cylindrical portion attached to the laser fiber such that rotating the generally cylindrical portion moves the laser fiber (paragraph 95 “If the drive wheel (1820 & 1830) is dialed or rotated by a human finger, the optical fiber moves in either Z or −Z direction accordingly”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope configuration of Muller and Altshuler with the actuator of Wei to allow for mid operational adjustments to the position of the laser fiber by just one hand of the surgeon in comparison to the usual two hands required as stated in the abstract and paragraph 9, freeing up the other hand to “operate with other medical tools” (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 16, while Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claim 1, they fail to teach an endoscope wherein: the handpiece includes an actuator including a first portion attached to the laser fiber and a second portion configured to be manipulated by a user, the second portion attached to the first portion such that manipulation of the second portion causes the first portion to move the laser fiber. Wei teaches an endoscope wherein: the handpiece includes an actuator including a first portion attached to the laser fiber (paragraph 95 “and a second portion configured to be manipulated by a user, the second portion attached to the first portion such that manipulation of the second portion causes the first portion to move the laser fiber”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope configuration of Muller and Altshuler with the actuator of Wei to allow for mid operational adjustments to the position of the laser fiber by just one hand of the surgeon in comparison to the usual two hands required as stated in the abstract and paragraph 9, freeing up the other hand to “operate with other medical tools” (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 19, while Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claim 18, they fail to teach a method further comprising moving the laser fiber within the laser fiber channel. Wei teaches a method further comprising moving the laser fiber within the laser fiber channel (paragraph 95 “the optical fiber moves in either Z or -Z direction accordingly”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope configuration of Muller and Altshuler with the actuator of Wei to allow for mid operational adjustments to the position of the laser fiber by just one hand of the surgeon in comparison to the usual two hands required as stated in the abstract and paragraph 9, freeing up the other hand to “operate with other medical tools” (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 20, while Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claim 18, they fail to teach a method wherein moving the laser fiber within the laser fiber channel includes moving the laser fiber about 5 mm or less. Wei teaches a method wherein moving the laser fiber within the laser fiber channel includes moving the laser fiber about 5 mm or less (paragraph 95 if drive wheel is not dialed/rotated by the operator the fiber does not move at all (0 mm), which is less than 5 mm). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope configuration of Muller and Altshuler with the actuator of Wei to allow for mid operational adjustments to the position of the laser fiber by just one hand of the surgeon in comparison to the usual two hands required as stated in the abstract and paragraph 9, freeing up the other hand to “operate with other medical tools” (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 21, while Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claim 18, they fail to teach a method wherein moving the laser fiber within the laser fiber channel includes manipulating an actuator. Wei teaches a method wherein moving the laser fiber within the laser fiber channel includes manipulating an actuator (paragraph 95 details use of actuator to move the laser fiber). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope configuration of Muller and Altshuler with the actuator of Wei to allow for mid operational adjustments to the position of the laser fiber by just one hand of the surgeon in comparison to the usual two hands required as stated in the abstract and paragraph 9, freeing up the other hand to “operate with other medical tools” (paragraph 11).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Altshuler in view of Plott et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0049952, hereinafter “Plott”). While Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claim 1, they fail to teach an endoscope further comprising a seal configured to at least one of at least partially cover or at least partially fit into at least the laser fiber port. Plott teaches an endoscope further comprising a seal configured to at least one of at least partially cover or at least partially fit into at least the laser fiber port (paragraph 84 “laser fiber seal”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope of Muller and Altshuler with the laser fiber seal of Plott in order to allow liquid or debris from the operation to “flow through the device without damaging any internal components of the device”, ensuring the operation can continue smoothly without damage to the device.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Altshuler in view of Altshuler et al (U.S. Patent Application publication 2022/0142463, hereinafter “Altshuler(2022)”). While Muller and Altshuler teach the limitations of claim 1, they fail to teach a method further comprising removing the laser fiber from the laser fiber channel. Altshuler(2022) teaches a method further comprising removing the laser fiber from the laser fiber channel (abstract “the laser fiber optic, for example, can be removed from an irrigation channel of the endoscopic system”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Muller and Altshuler with the removing of the laser fiber optic method of Altshuler(2022) in order to clear space in the working channel for a different tool to be used at the distal end of the endoscope, allowing for a wider range of treatments to be performed in one operation, minimizing risk of patient infection associated with multiple separate operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAYTON BARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0912. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00 and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday.
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 at 5712707235. 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.
/DAYTON HYUN JIN BARKER/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights