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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 21, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-19, and 35-41 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 states “the first component pivotable relative the second component” where the Examiner assumes that the first component is pivotable relative to the second component or the first component is configured to pivot relative to the second component. 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, 11, 13, 18, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Ramsey (US 2016/0296105).
Regarding Claim 1, Ramsey discloses:
A device (10), comprising:
a body (12) extending along a body axis from a first body end to a second body end (the body has two ends as shown in Fig. 1, for example), the body comprising:
a first component (18) defining a first outer surface (outer surface of 18) and first groove extending along the body axis (the first component 18 has a groove for receiving the device 14); and
a second component (20) coupled to the first component such that the first component pivotable relative the second component between an open configuration and a closed configuration (see Figs. 1 and 2 showing the open and closed configurations), the second component defining a second outer surface (outer surface of 20) and a second groove extending along the body axis (the second component 20 has a groove for receiving the device 14), wherein:
the first groove and the second groove cooperating to define a channel extending within the body proximate the first body end along the body axis when the first component and the second component are in the closed configuration (see Fig. 2 showing the channel with 14 therein), the channel having a channel height and a channel width (Fig. 2 shows the height and width of the channel being sufficient to receive the device 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramsey discloses wherein the first component is coupled to the second component via a hinge (see Figs. 1 and 2 and Paragraph 0080 describing the hinged connection of the two components).
Regarding Claim 13, Ramsey further discloses wherein the first component defines a first plurality of ridges extending from the first outer surface and the second component defines a second plurality of ridges extending from the second outer surface (see Figs. 7 and 8 showing grooves 462; in this embodiment, the device has the body 410 and first and second components 418/420 with grooves shown in Fig. 7 receiving scope 414 as claimed).
Regarding Claim 18, Ramsey further discloses wherein the first component and the second component define a curved body portion proximate the second body end (see Fig. 2 showing that the components come together to form a curved portion (near numerals 40 or 46) at the second end).
Regarding Claim 41, Ramsey further discloses wherein the first component is integrally formed with the second component (see Paragraph 0080 describing the natural or living hinge connecting 18 and 20).
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 2, 3, 16, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US 2016/0296105) in view of Secrest et al. (US 2009/0247827).
Ramsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claims 2, 3, and 35, Ramsey further discloses wherein the first outer surface and the second outer surface define an outer body surface having a body diameter when the first component and the second component are in the closed configuration (see Fig. 2), but does not explicitly disclose the body diameter being at least twice as large as the channel height and the body diameter being at least twice as large as the channel width; and wherein the body diameter is at least four times as large as at least one of the channel height and the channel width; wherein the body diameter is at least four times as large as the channel width. The Examiner notes that changes in relative dimensions is generally considered obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A). Secrest teaches a similar grip device (see Fig. 1), and explicitly discloses changing the thickness of the outer diameter based on the size of the user’s hand, for example (see Paragraph 0023). The relative diameters are result effective variables in that changing the relative diameters changes the grip comfort based on the user’s anatomy and preferences and the channel size based on the scope being used (pediatric vs. adult for example). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as this is simply adjusting a dimension without changing its function. 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 Ramsey’s body diameter as discussed in Secrest to have an outer diameter at least four times as large as the channel height and width. Such a modification provides a device that grips the underlying scope as appropriate while providing comfort for the user based on the user’s anatomy and preferences.
Regarding Claim 5, Secrest also discloses making the cross-sectional shape of the grip polygonal (see Paragraph 0034); however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the first groove includes a first sidewall, a second sidewall, and an end wall connecting the first sidewall and the second sidewall. Given Secrest’s discussion of different shapes, when combined with Ramsey’s two component device, a hexagon configuration would be symmetrical and reasonable given Secrest’s suggestion. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in that such a shape would still fit over an endoscope that has either a circular or polygonal cross-section. Also, changes in shape are generally considered obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B), and Applicant has supplied no criticality to the claimed shape. 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 Ramsey’s device to have a first, second, and end wall. Such a modification can be used to balance the need for contact area required to manipulate the scope while allowing room for lubricant.
Regarding Claim 16, Ramsey does not explicitly disclose wherein the first component and the second component are coupled to a biasing structure configured to bias the first component and the second component towards the closed configuration for the embodiment of Fig. 1. Secrest teaches using a biasing means to bias the two components together in the closed configuration (see Paragraph 0031) to keep the device from coming of the endoscope. 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 Ramsey’s device to include Secrest’s biasing structure. Such a modification helps ensure the device does not fall off during use.
Regarding Claims 36, 37, 39, and 40, Secrest also discloses making the cross-sectional shape of the grip polygonal (see Paragraph 0034); however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the first sidewall and the end wall define a first interior angle greater than 90 degrees and less than 120 degrees or wherein the first interior angle is between 95 degrees and 105 degrees; wherein the first groove includes a first sidewall and a second sidewall extending from the first sidewall, the first sidewall and the second sidewall defining a first interior angle between 110 degrees and 120 degrees; wherein the first groove includes a first sidewall and a second sidewall extending from the first sidewall, the first sidewall and the second sidewall defining a first interior angle between 100 degrees and 110 degrees.
As discussed above with respect to claim 5, making the cross-section shape a hexagon will result in angles of 120 degrees. Secrest explicitly mentions a pentagon shape, which would place the angles at 108 degrees. Making slight changes to the angles from 120 to 108 or 100 degrees does not change the function of the device such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the change. Applicant has also not provided any criticality to such a feature. 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 Ramsey and Secrest’s device to have an interior angle as claimed. Such a modification can be made to accommodate an endoscope with an oval cross-section, for example and does not change the function of the device.
Regarding Claim 38, Secrest also discloses making the cross-sectional shape of the grip polygonal (see Paragraph 0034); however, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the second sidewall and the end wall define a second interior angle greater than 90 degrees and less than 120 degrees. As discussed above with respect to claims 5 and 36, making the cross-section shape a hexagon will result in angles of 120 degrees. Secrest explicitly mentions a pentagon shape, which would place the angles at 108 degrees. Making slight changes to the angles from 120 to 108 or 100 degrees does not change the function of the device such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the change. Applicant has also not provided any criticality to such a feature. 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 Ramsey and Secrest’s device to have an interior angle as claimed. Such a modification can be made to accommodate an endoscope with an oval cross-section, for example and does not change the function of the device.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US 2016/0296105) in view of Cano (US 5,860,190).
Ramsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first groove and the second groove further define a conical portion proximate the second body end when the first component and the second component are in the closed configuration, the conical portion being in fluid communication with the channel; and wherein the first component defines a tapered outer portion proximate the second body end. Cano teaches a conical entrance (56 or 82) with a tapered outer portion (46; see Fig. 5) for making it easier for an implement to be inserted into the grip. 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 Ramsey’s device to include Cano’s conical entry and tapered end. Such a modification makes it easier for an implement to be inserted into the grip.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US 2016/0296105) in view of Gerry et al. (US 5,609,175).
Ramsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above but does not explicitly disclose a first loop coupled to the first outer surface of the first component; and a second loop coupled to the second outer surface of the second component. Gerry teaches a grip (10) to be attached to a cylindrical member with loops on two sides of the grip (see Fig. 6 and Col 4 Lines 24-25 stating that the thumb side may be a loop). 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 Ramsey’s device to include Gerry’s loops. Such a modification provides a means for the fingers to engage the grip and help the user form a secure grip on the device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US 2016/0296105) in view of Huang (US 5,355,552).
Ramsey discloses the invention substantially as claimed as stated above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first component includes a finger groove in the first outer surface, the finger groove extending in a direction parallel to the body axis. Huang teaches including multiple parallel grooves (11) for aiding in grip. 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 Ramsey’s device to include Huang’s grooves. Such a modification provides grip to keep the hand from sliding off.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grips: Anderson et al. (US 5,569,159); Sarvazyan et al. (US 6,981,945); Sarvazyan et al. (US 2011/0065991).
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