DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's preliminary amendments and remarks, filed 11/14/24, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending with claims 16-20 new, and claims 1-15 amended. The following is a complete response to the 11/14/24 communication.
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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 5,433,252) in view of Hluchy (US 2019/0053844).
Regarding claim 1, Wolf teaches an inner shaft (2), the inner shaft comprising:
a distal end portion (shafts with two ends, one of which would be distal); and
at least three spacer elements which are arranged on an outer surface of the inner shaft (spacer elements 3 on the outer surface 5 of inner shaft 2 as in at least Fig. 2), wherein the spacer elements are distributed at different positions in a region of the distal end portion (as in Fig. 2 with 3 spaced radially around 5) such that the inner shaft can be guided and/or placed within an outer shaft at a distance from the outer shaft in a predefined way at least in the distal end portion (spacer 3 allows the inner and outer tube to be displaceable relative to each other as in the abstract).
Wolf is not explicit regarding the inner shaft for a working element of a resectoscope.Hluchy teaches an inner shaft (30) with a working element (3) of a resectoscope (1).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to be used in a resectoscope as in Hluchy, to have a structure for an inner shaft and outer shaft that work together.
Regarding claim 2, Wolf teaches wherein the spacer elements are arranged on the outer surface of the inner shaft at different peripheral positions with a mutual offset of at least 90 degrees (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Wolf teaches that the spacer elements are arranged at different positions along a longitudinal axis of the inner shaft (Fig. 3 with spacers 3 at different axial positions as in col. 4 lines 50-61).
Regarding claim 4, Wolf teaches wherein the spacer elements are formed integrally with the inner shaft as a one piece configuration (integral as in col. 2, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 7, Wolf is not explicit regarding wherein the inner shaft is formed, in at least one region, for contacting at least one working tool, wherein the at least one region is configured to guide the working tool so that the working tool can be guided at a distance from the outer shaft due to the shape configuration of the cross section at a predefined position.However, Hluchy teaches an inner shaft (30) with a working element (3) of a resectoscope (1).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to be used in a resectoscope as in Hluchy, to have a structure for an inner shaft and outer shaft that work together.
Regarding claim 8, Wolf teaches wherein the inner shaft forms a working channel (shaft 2 with channel therethrough), the working channel being arranged within a cross section of the inner shaft (at least Fig. 2 with shaft 2 within a cross section). Wolf is not explicit regarding the working channel configured for guiding and/or fixing a working tool.However, Hluchy teaches an inner shaft (30) with a working element (3) of a resectoscope (1).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to be used in a resectoscope as in Hluchy, to have a structure for an inner shaft and outer shaft that work together.
Regarding claim 9, Wolf teaches wherein the spacer elements and the at least one region for contacting the at least one working tool are arranged adjacent to each other on the inner shaft (spacer elements and distal end of the shaft are adjacent each other).
Regarding claim 10, Wolf teaches wherein the outer surface is concave in portions and convex in portions in different peripheral regions (convex in portions without spacers and concave portions with spacers).
Regarding claim 14, Wolf teaches a resectoscope comprising:
an outer shaft (1);
an inner shaft comprising (2):
a distal end portion (shaft with a proximal and distal end); and
at least three spacer elements (3) which are arranged on an outer surface (5) of the inner shaft, wherein the spacer elements are distributed at different positions in a region of the distal end portion (3 on different potions of 2 as in at least Fig. 2) such that the inner shaft can be guided and/or placed within the outer shaft at a distance from the outer shaft in a predefined way at least in the distal end portion, wherein the inner shaft is guided in the outer shaft in such that, in the region of a distal end portion, a lowering of a working tool, disposed adjacent to the inner shaft, relative to the outer shaft is prevented by the spacer elements (spacer 3 allows the inner and outer tube to be displaceable relative to each other as in the abstract).Wolf is not explicit regarding the inner shaft for a working element of a resectoscope.Hluchy teaches an inner shaft (30) with a working element (3) of a resectoscope (1).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to be used in a resectoscope as in Hluchy, to have a structure for an inner shaft and outer shaft that work together.
Regarding claim 15, Wolf teaches further comprising the working tool, wherein the inner shaft is configured such that the working tool can be is positioned and guided so as to be returned after moving out, without contact with the outer shaft.However, Hluchy teaches an inner shaft (30) with a working element (3) of a resectoscope (1).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to be used in a resectoscope as in Hluchy, to have a structure for an inner shaft and outer shaft that work together.
Regarding claim 16, Wolf teaches wherein the inner shaft is configured with an inner surface and the outer surface (Fig. 2) and the outer surface is configured to be guided in the outer shaft such that, in the region of a distal end portion, a lowering of a working tool, disposed adjacent to the inner shaft, relative to the outer shaft is prevented by the spacer elements (spacers 3 space inner shaft 2 from outer shaft 1 such that anything carried in inner shaft 2 would not lower to outer shaft 1).
Regarding claim 18, Wolf is not explicit wherein the inner shaft is configured, in at least one region, for contacting the at least one working tool, wherein the at least one region is configured to guide the working tool so that the working tool can be guided at a distance from the outer shaft due to the shape configuration of the cross section at a predefined position.However, Hluchy teaches an inner shaft (30) with a working element (3) of a resectoscope (1).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to be used in a resectoscope as in Hluchy, to have a structure for an inner shaft and outer shaft that work together.
Regarding claim 19, Wolf teaches wherein the inner surface of the inner shaft forms a working channel (shaft 2 with channel therethrough), the working channel being arranged within a cross section of the inner shaft (working channel within a cross section of 2 as in Fig. 2). Wolf is not explicit regarding the working channel configured for guiding and/or fixing another working tool.However, Hluchy teaches an inner shaft (30) with a working element (3) of a resectoscope (1).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to be used in a resectoscope as in Hluchy, to have a structure for an inner shaft and outer shaft that work together.
Regarding claim 20, Wolf teaches wherein the spacer elements and the at least one region for contacting the at least one working tool are arranged adjacent to each other on the inner shaft (spacer elements and distal end of the shaft are adjacent each other).
Claim(s) 5-6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Hluchy, in further view of Flatt (US 2018/0110572).
Regarding claim 5, Wolf is not explicit wherein at least one spacer element is dome-shaped and at least one spacer element is bead-shaped, wherein the bead-shaped spacer element extends over a larger longitudinal portion along the inner shaft in comparison with the dome-shaped spacer element, but teaches an embodiment with dome-shaped spacer elements that are spaced longitudinally (Fig. 3).However, Flatt teaches bearings over a longitudinal portion along the inner shaft to space the inner shaft relative to the outer shaft (engagement members 138 spaced about a shaft to space the inner from the outer shaft as in Fig. 4 and par. [0072]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf with the spacer shape of Flatt as a known way to space an inner from outer shaft while allowing for mobility of the inner from outer shaft.
Regarding claim 6, Wolf is not explicit wherein two bead-shaped spacer elements located opposite in the cross section are provided, wherein the dome-shaped spacer element is arranged centrally with respect thereto.However, Flatt teaches bearings over a longitudinal portion along the inner shaft to space the inner shaft relative to the outer shaft (engagement members 138 spaced about a shaft to space the inner from the outer shaft as in Fig. 4 and par. [0072]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf with the spacer shape of Flatt as a known way to space an inner from outer shaft while allowing for mobility of the inner from outer shaft.
Regarding claim 17, Wolf teaches wherein the spacer elements are arranged on the outer surface of the inner shaft at different peripheral positions and/or at different positions along a longitudinal axis of the inner shaft and are formed integrally with the inner shaft as a one piece configuration (at least Fig. 3 with spacers 3 integrally formed on 2 at different positions) and wherein at least one spacer element is dome-shaped (Fig. 3), but is not explicit wherein at least one spacer element is bead-shaped, wherein the bead-shaped spacer element extends over a larger longitudinal portion along the inner shaft in comparison with the dome-shaped spacer element.However, Flatt teaches bearings over a longitudinal portion along the inner shaft to space the inner shaft relative to the outer shaft (engagement members 138 spaced about a shaft to space the inner from the outer shaft as in Fig. 4 and par. [0072]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf with the spacer shape of Flatt as a known way to space an inner from outer shaft while allowing for mobility of the inner from outer shaft.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Hluchy, in further view of Sartor (US 2019/0231417).
Regarding claim 11, Wolf is not explicit wherein a wall thickness of the inner shaft is, at least in portions, 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm.However, Sartor teaches a wall thickness of 0.2 mm for tubes (par. [0047]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Hluchy, in further view of Worrell (US 2017/0238991).
Regarding claim 12, Wolf teaches a method for producing an inner shaft for a working
element of a resectoscope, the method comprising:
forming the inner shaft with an inner surface and an outer surface to comprise: a distal end portion (shafts with two ends, one of which would be distal); and at least three spacer elements which are arranged on the outer surface of the inner shaft (spacers 3 arranged on the outer surface of inner shaft 2), wherein the spacer elements are distributed at different positions in a region of the distal end portion such that the inner shaft can be guided and/or placed within an outer shaft at a distance from the outer shaft in a predefined way at least in the distal end portion (2 can be placed in outer shaft 1 that is spaced by spacer 3).
Wolf is not explicit regarding wherein the configuration of the inner shaft is produced by erosion.However, Worrell teaches forming spacers via etching away material (at least par. [0346]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf with the construction of the spacers via eroding or etching, as taught by Worrell, as a known way of producing spacers and shapes via subtractive manufacturing.Wolf is not explicit regarding the inner shaft for a working element of a resectoscope.Hluchy teaches an inner shaft (30) with a working element (3) of a resectoscope (1).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to be used in a resectoscope as in Hluchy, to have a structure for an inner shaft and outer shaft that work together.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Hluchy, in further view of Worrell, in further view of Cunningham (US 2010/0179547).
Regarding claim 13, Wolf is not explicit wherein at least one spacer element of the at least three spacer elements is formed by an embossing process.However, Cunningham teaches forming spacers via stamping (at least par. [0040]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf with the construction of the spacers via stamping or embossing, as taught by Cunningham, as a known way of producing spacers and shapes mechanically.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights