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 June 30, 2026.
Claims 1-13 and 15-24 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 15-20 are 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.
Claim 1 fails to include a transitional phrase (comprising, consisting of, or consisting essentially of) rendering the open or closed nature of the claim indeterminate. The claim could be either. Furthermore, the claim does not clearly set forth the structural limitations of the targeting device. Without a transitional phrase and without clearly setting forth the structural features of the targeting device, the Examiner asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. The targeting device is being treated as comprising a plurality of needle guides with the claimed features. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5, 7-13, 18-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Bunch et al. (US 2014/0358087).
Regarding Claim 1, Bunch discloses:
A targeting device for a targeted guidance of a hollow needle with an endoscopic-surgical operation, wherein the targeting device is fastened or can be fastened to an endoscopy unit which extends essentially in an endoscopy longitudinal axis and defines a viewing region (functional language, Bunch’s device can attach to an endoscopy unit at 540),
wherein the targeting device defines a plurality of hollow needle guides (538a, 538c, and 538e),
wherein each of the hollow needle guides each extends towards the viewing region along a different polar angle with respect to the endoscopy longitudinal axis (see Fig. 10C showing the guide directing the needle to the end of 510; each guide is at a different location and has a different polar angle),
wherein each of the hollow needle guides is open towards one of its two azimuthal sides over its entire length (see Figs. 9-14C showing the opening of the guides for receiving the needle),
wherein the targeting device is azimuthally open between the hollow needle guides (as seen in Figs. 9-14C, there are openings between each guide; these openings include space for buttons 571 and because there are five guides, guides 538b and 538d are openings that are between guides 538a, 538c, and 538e).
Regarding Claim 2, Bunch further discloses wherein each hollow needle guide comprises a proximal guide end and a distal guide end, wherein the proximal guide end of each of the hollow needle guides essentially have the same distance to the viewing region (see Figs. 9-10C, for example, showing the curved nature of the proximal end such that the distance to the viewing region is essentially the same).
Regarding Claim 5, Bunch further discloses wherein adjacent hollow needle guides are connected to one another each at the proximal guide end and at the distal guide end (see Fig. 9, for example, showing the adjacent guides connected to one another).
Regarding Claim 7, Bunch further discloses a fastening element (540) for a tool-free releasable fastening to the endoscopy unit.
Regarding Claim 8, Bunch further discloses wherein the fastening element is configured to at least partly embrace an access tube of the endoscopy unit in a designated manner and to be clamped onto the access tube (see Fig. 10B, for example, showing the tube 510 clamped to 540).
Regarding Claim 9, Bunch further discloses wherein the fastening element is arranged at a distal end region of the targeting device (see Fig. 9 showing the location at the distal end).
Regarding Claim 10, Bunch further discloses wherein the fastening element comprises a quick release lever or clamping lever (592).
Regarding Claim 11, Bunch further discloses wherein the fastening element comprises a positive-fit element configured to form a positive fit with a corresponding positive-fit element provided on the endoscopy unit at a defined position along the endoscopy longitudinal axis (see Fig. 10A, for example, showing the positive fit elements that correspond to one another, see Paragraph 0064 (the Examiner notes that the endoscopy unit is only functionally recited and is not part of the targeting device)).
Regarding Claim 12, Bunch further discloses wherein the hollow needle guides are formed by a single-piece guide element (see Fig. 9, for example, showing the guides as a single piece).
Regarding Claim 13, Bunch further discloses wherein the hollow needle guides are additively manufactured as a single-piece unit (product-by-process limitation that does not produce a structure different from the reference; Bunch’s guides are a single-piece unit as seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Bunch further discloses wherein the targeting device is azimuthally broken through between the hollow needle guides (Bunch’s targeting device can be broken as desired).
Regarding Claim 18, Bunch further discloses wherein each of the hollow needle guides has an inner diameter for axially receiving the hollow needle and at its open azimuthal side comprise an opening slot with a clear slot width, wherein the clear slot width is smaller than the inner diameter (see Figs. 11A-11C showing the slot width in 11B being smaller than the inner diameter).
Regarding Claim 19, Bunch further discloses wherein apart from the hollow needle guides, the targeting device comprises open and/or closed hollow chambers (see Figs. 11A-11C showing the hollow chambers allowing for 571 to extend therein).
Regarding Claim 20, Bunch further discloses wherein the hollow needle guides are arranged in a meridionally rowed manner (see Figs. 9-14C showing the guides extending along the meridionally along the arc).
Regarding Claim 24, Bunch discloses:
A targeting device for a targeted guidance of a hollow needle with an endoscopic-surgical operation, wherein the targeting device is fastened or can be fastened to an endoscopy unit which extends essentially in an endoscopy longitudinal axis and defines a viewing region (functional language, Bunch’s device can attach to an endoscopy unit at 540), the targeting device comprising:
a targeting device structure (see Fig. 9, for example, showing 500), wherein the targeting device structure comprises
a plurality of needle guide structures (538), each of the needle guide structures defining a hollow needle guide, wherein each hollow needle guide extends towards the viewing region along a different polar angle with respect to the endoscopy longitudinal axis (see Fig. 10C showing the guide directing the needle to the end of 510; each guide is at a different location and has a different polar angle), wherein each hollow needle guide is open towards one of its two azimuthal sides over its entire length (see Figs. 9-12B showing the guides being open along their lengths to receive a needle),
the targeting device structure further comprising a plurality of openings, each of said openings being defined at least by one of the needle guide structures and another one of the needle guide structures (see Fig. 10C and Figs. 11A-11C showing an opening for button 571; part of this opening is formed by one side of one needle guide structure and the other part is formed by one side of a different needle guide structure; see marked up figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, 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.
Claims 3, 15-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunch et al. (US 2014/0358087) in view of Torrie (US 2010/0241106).
Bunch discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 3, Bunch does not explicitly disclose wherein for every pair which is selected from the hollow needle guides, the distal guide end of a first hollow needle guide of a pair extends along a first polar angle and has a first distance to the viewing region and the distal guide end of a second hollow needle guide of the pair extends along a second polar angle and has a second distance to the viewing region, wherein the first polar angle is smaller than the second polar angle and the first distance is smaller than the second distance.
Torrie discloses a configuration where the relative distances of the distal end of the guide decreases as the angle relative to the endoscopy unit decreases (see Fig. 7 showing guide 80). This configuration provides a larger attachment area for attachment to the endoscopy unit while maintaining a smaller profile for the needle guides to reduce weight, bulk, and unnecessary material. Therefore, 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 Bunch’s device to include Torrie’s profile. Such a modification provides a large attachment area for securing the guide to the endoscopy unit while reducing the size of the guide without changing the function of the device.
Regarding Claim 15, Bunch does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the hollow needle guides comprises a distal guide section and a proximal guide section, wherein the targeting device between the distal guide section and the proximal guide section comprises at least one free section, in which the hollow needle is not guided.
Torrie teaches placing openings (67) in a needle guide to make the guide lightweight. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bunch’s guide to include Torrie’s openings. Such a modification reduces the weight of the guide making it easier to handle and helping it cool after autoclaving.
Regarding Claim 16, Bunch does not explicitly disclose wherein for each pair selected from the hollow needle guides, a first hollow needle guide of a pair extends along a first polar angle and a second hollow needle guide of the pair extends along a second polar angle, wherein the at least one free section of the first hollow needle guide is longer than the at least one free section of the second hollow needle guide and the first polar angle is smaller than the second polar angle.
Torrie discloses a configuration where the relative distances of the distal end of the guide decreases as the angle relative to the endoscopy unit decreases (see Fig. 7 showing guide 80). This configuration provides a larger attachment area for attachment to the endoscopy unit while maintaining a smaller profile for the needle guides to reduce weight, bulk, and unnecessary material. When combined with the embodiment in Fig. 5, these free spaces would conform to the shape of the guide. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand from Torrie’s teaching that reducing weight is beneficial, and that elongating the free spaces 67 of Torrie would further achieve that goal. Therefore, 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 Bunch’s device to include Torrie’s profile. Such a modification provides a large attachment area for securing the guide to the endoscopy unit while reducing the size of the guide without changing the function of the device.
Regarding Claim 17, Bunch does not explicitly disclose wherein for each pair selected from the hollow needle guides, a first hollow needle guide of a pair extends along a first polar angle and a second hollow needle guide of the pair extends along a second polar angle, wherein a length of the first hollow needle guide is larger than a length of the second hollow needle guide and the first polar angle is smaller than the second polar angle.
Torrie discloses a configuration where the relative distances of the distal end of the guide decreases as the angle relative to the endoscopy unit decreases (see Fig. 7 showing guide 80). This configuration provides a larger attachment area for attachment to the endoscopy unit while maintaining a smaller profile for the needle guides to reduce weight, bulk, and unnecessary material. Therefore, 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 Bunch’s device to include Torrie’s profile. Such a modification provides a large attachment area for securing the guide to the endoscopy unit while reducing the size of the guide without changing the function of the device.
Regarding Claim 21, Bunch discloses:
An endoscopy system for an endoscopic-surgical operation, the endoscopy system comprising:
at least one hollow needle (561); and
a targeting device (500) for a targeted guidance of the at least one hollow needle towards the viewing region along a selectable polar angle with respect to the endoscopy longitudinal axis, wherein the targeting device is fastened or can be fastened to the unit (using 540), wherein the targeting device defines a plurality of hollow needle guides (538a-e), wherein each of the hollow needle guides extends towards the viewing region along a different polar angle with respect to the endoscopy longitudinal axis (see Fig. 10C showing the guide directing the needle to the end of 510; each guide is at a different location and has a different polar angle), wherein each of the hollow needle guides is open towards one of its two azimuthal sides over its entire length (see Figs. 9-14C showing the opening of the guides for receiving the needle),
wherein the targeting device is azimuthally open between the hollow needle guides (as seen in Figs. 9-14C, there are openings between each guide; these openings include space for buttons 571 and because there are five guides, guides 538b and 538d are openings that are between guides 538a, 538c, and 538e).
Bunch does not explicitly disclose an endoscopy unit extending essentially in an endoscopy longitudinal axis and defines defining a viewing region. Torrie teaches using an endoscopy unit (20) to visualize insertion of the needle. Therefore, 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 Bunch’s device to include Torrie’s endoscopy unit. Such a modification provides a means to visualize the needle as it is being introduced to the target.
Regarding Claim 22, Bunch as modified further discloses wherein the endoscopy unit comprises an access tube extending essentially in the endoscopy longitudinal axis and an endoscope which can be inserted into the access tube from a proximal side (see Torrie – cannula 40 with endoscope 20 inserted therein in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Bunch as modified further discloses wherein the targeting device is releasably fastened to a proximal end section of the access tube in a tool-free manner (see Bunch element 540 includes 592 to releasably fasten the tube to the targeting device without a tool).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunch et al. (US 2014/0358087) in view of Henalla (US 6,071,230).
Bunch discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the proximal guide end of each of the hollow needle guides widen proximally in a funnel-like manner and each forms a defined stop for the hollow needle. Funnels are well-known structure for facilitating entry into the guide, and a stop prevents over insertion into the patient. Henalla teaches a funnel-shaped opening for 28 and a stop 32 to facilitate insertion into the guide. Therefore, 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 Bunch’s guides to include Henalla’s funnel and stop. Such a modification facilitates insertion into the guide and prevents the needle from being over inserted.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunch et al. (US 2014/0358087) in view of Kamler (US 2019/0328210).
Bunch discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the hollow needle guides are open towards different ones of their two azimuthal sides in an alternating manner. Kamler teaches a holding device with alternating open and closed sides (see Figs. 5A-5D). The Examiner also notes that the difference between the prior art and the claim is nothing more than a minor rearrangement of parts that would not change the operation of the device. Therefore, 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 Bunch to include Kamler’s alternating open guides. Such a modification allows for tools to be inserted and attached to the guide from either side and does not change the function of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant fails to make an argument against the Examiner’s objection to the claim indentation being improper. The Examiner cited the MPEP, and given that there is no indentation at all, the Examiner does not see how the claims have been properly indented. Applicant’s assertion is merely a conclusion that the claims are proper, but this does not amount to an argument. The objection stands.
The same can be said of Applicant’s treatment of the 112b rejection of claim 1. A conclusory statement is made that the claims are not indefinite without providing any reasoning or argumentation. The record has not been clarified, and the scope of the claims is still considered indefinite as set forth above.
The prior art is discussed, but only to say that it fails to read on the claims. Applicant does not consider Bunch to be azimuthally open between the channels, but the Examiner considers the space for the buttons to be open for receiving the button. As an alternative view of the reference, the Examiner notes that because there are five channels shown, only two or three need to be considered the plurality of guides leaving the others to be the azimuthally open space between the guides. The claim is not at so precise to overcome the prior art. More specificity as to the nature of the opening is required, and could include that the opening extends through the entire thickness of the body of the targeting device (as noted above in the 112b rejection, claim 1 lacks a transitional phrase and does not clearly set forth the structural elements of the claim, but claiming something like “the targeting device comprises a body having a thickness and then that the opening extends through the entire thickness of the body” would be more clearly aligned with US claiming norms). The Examiner considers the prior art to anticipate or render the claims obvious as discussed above.
The application is not in condition for allowance at this time.
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 TIMOTHY JAY NEAL whose telephone number is (313)446-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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.
/TIMOTHY J NEAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights