DETAILED ACTION
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 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 2-3, 5-7, 11-14 and 17-19 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 2 recites the limitation "the at least one magnet arrangement" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the at least one magnet arrangement" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one magnet arrangement" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one magnet arrangement" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one magnet arrangement" in the second line of the claim, the limitation "the second magnet poles of the magnet pairs" in the third line of the claim, and the limitation "the movable locking element" in the third line of the claim. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the locking element" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the locking element is rotatable and released and securing positions alternate as defined”. The meaning of this phrase is unclear. Claim 12, from which claim 14 depends, recites a first securing position of the locking element, and a second released position of the locking element. Assuming claim 14 is referencing the released position and the securing position as recited in claim 12, claim 12 does not describe that the positions alternate as defined. It is not clear what “as defined” refers to as the claims do not define the recited language. Additionally, the lack of commas in the phrase further confuses its meaning. Moreover, claim 13, from which claim 14 depends, recites that the magnet arrangement defines magnetic latching points from the locking element. However, the magnetic latching points refer to the magnetic connection between the magnet pairs. The magnetic latching points are different from the securing and released positions between the stationary engagement element and the locking element. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the mechanical locking" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the locking element is rotatable and released and securing positions alternate as equally large annular steps”. The meaning of this phrase is unclear. Moreover, claim 19 depends from claim 14 which recites, “wherein the locking element is rotatable and released and securing positions alternate as defined”. Claim 12, from which claims 14 and 19 depend, recites a first securing position of the locking element, and a second released position of the locking element. Assuming claims 14 and 19 are referencing the released position and the securing position as recited in claim 12, claim 12 does not describe that the positions alternate as defined or as equally large annular steps. It is not clear what “as defined” refers to as the claims do not define the recited language. Additionally, the lack of commas in the phrase further confuses its meaning. Moreover, claim 13, from which claim 14 depends, recites that the magnet arrangement defines magnetic latching points from the locking element. However, the magnetic latching points refer to the magnetic connection between the magnet pairs. The magnetic latching points are different from the securing and released positions between the stationary engagement element and the locking element. Furthermore, claim 19 repeats the limitations of claim 14 and, as such, it is unclear how it further limits the claim. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehmann et al. (US 2006/0009677 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lehmann discloses an endoscopic instrument comprising: a hand-piece (Fig. 2 – proximal portion of 2 having a larger diameter; par. [0033]);, a shank (Fig. 2 – distal portion of 2 having diameter smaller than that of the proximal portion; par. [0033]) which coming from the hand-piece extends distally; an interface element (4; Fig. 2; par. [0033]) which is arranged on a proximal end of the hand-piece (Fig. 2) and a releasable coupling device (20/22; par. [0037]; Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the interface element (4) is connected to the hand-piece via the coupling device (20/22; par. [0039]-[0040]), and wherein the coupling device (20/22) comprises a magnet arrangement with at least one permanent magnet (20/22) which effects an attraction force between the interface element and the hand-piece (par. [0039]; Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 1, wherein the at least one magnet arrangement (20/22) is arranged such that the attraction force is directed along a joining axis (y-axis) of the hand-piece and the interface element (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 1, wherein the at least one magnet arrangement (20/22) is configured to set at least one defined angular position between the hand-piece and the interface element with respect to a hand-piece and interface element joining axis (y-axis), as a magnetic latching position (Figs. 1-4; par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 1, wherein the magnet arrangement (20/22) comprises at least one, magnet pairs (20/22) which has a first magnet pole on the hand-piece (22; Fig. 4; par. [0039]) and an opposite second magnet pole on the interface element (20; Fig. 4; par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 1, wherein the coupling device (20/22) additionally comprises at least one releasable mechanical locking (6/8/10; Figs. 1-4; par. [0033]) which permits a non-positive and/or positive connection between the hand-piece and the interface element (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 9, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 8, wherein the mechanical locking (6/8/10) comprises a movable locking element (6/8/10; par. [0033] and [0042]; Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 9, wherein the locking element (6/8/10) is configured as a ring element (Figs. 1 and 3) which is rotatably mounted about the joining axis (y-axis).
Regarding claim 11, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 8, wherein the at least one magnet arrangement (20/22) and the second magnet poles of the magnet pairs (20) are arranged in the movable locking element (6/8/10).
Regarding claim 12, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 8, wherein the locking comprises at least one stationary engagement element (guide grooves – par. [0033]) and the locking element (6/8/10) comprises at least one engagement section (6; par. [0033]) which in a first, securing position of the locking element, is in engagement with the at least one engagement element (par. [0033] – when 6/8/10 is connected to the proximal portion of 2, such that 8 is connected to 6 via screws) and in a second, released position of the locking element, is released from the engagement element (par. [0033] – when 6/8/10 is not connected to the proximal portion of 2, such that 8 is released from 6 via unscrewing the screws).
Regarding claim 13, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 12, wherein the magnet arrangement (20/22) is arranged in the locking element in a manner such that the magnet arrangement (20/22) defines magnetic latching points for the locking element (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 13, wherein the locking element (6/8/10) is rotatable (when separated from the proximal portion of 2) and released and securing positions alternate as defined (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 1, wherein the interface element (4) is an introduction funnel at the proximal end of a working channel (Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 18, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 13, wherein the magnet arrangement (20/22) is arranged in the locking element such that the magnet arrangement (20/22) defines magnetic latching points for the locking element in the securing and the released position (latching points remain the same in both the secured and released positions).
Regarding claim 1, Lehmann discloses the endoscopic instrument according to claim 14, wherein the locking element (6/8/10) is rotatable (when separated from the proximal portion of 2) and released and securing positions alternate as equally large angular steps (Figs. 1-4).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 2021/0259521 A1) in view of Ando (US 2015/0112143 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses an endoscopic instrument comprising: a hand-piece (200; Figs. 3A and 5A-5B; par. [0013]);, a shank (100; Figs. 3A and 5A-5B; par. [0013]) which coming from the hand-piece extends distally; an interface element (330; Figs. 5A-5B; par. [0060]) which is arranged on a proximal end of the hand-piece (200; Figs. 5A-5B) and a releasable coupling device (Figs. 5A-5B – unlabeled magnetic contacts on the outer surface of 203 and inner surface of 337; see par. [0060]), wherein the interface element (330) is connected to the hand-piece (200) via the coupling device (Figs. 5A-5B – unlabeled magnetic contacts on the outer surface of 203 and inner surface of 337; see par. [0060]), and wherein the coupling device comprises a magnet arrangement (par. [0060] – magnetic contacts) which effects an attraction force between the interface element and the hand-piece (par. [0060]; Figs. 5A-5B).
Although Hwang teaches the coupling device comprising magnetic contacts, it does not specifically disclose that it comprises at least one permanent magnet. Ando teaches an analogous releasable magnetic coupling (3/4/6/7/11/17/15/13; Figs. 2A-2C; par. [0029]-[0032]) for an endoscopic instrument wherein the releasable coupling comprises at least one permanent magnet (Figs. 2A-2C; par. [0029]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use permanent magnets in the magnet arrangement, as taught by Ando, in the coupling device of Hwang in order to easily and predictably couple the interface element and hand-piece.
Regarding claim 5, Hwang in view of Ando disclose the endoscopic instrument according to claim 1, wherein the at least one magnet arrangement (par. [0060] – magnetic contacts; Ando: par. [0029]-[0032] – permanent magnets) comprises several magnet pairs whose magnet poles are distributed on a circumferential line about the joining axis (Figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang in view of Ando disclose the endoscopic instrument according to claim 1, wherein the at least one magnet arrangement (par. [0060] – magnetic contacts on the outer surface of 203 and inner surface of 337) comprises several magnet pairs (par. [0060] – magnetic contacts on the outer surface of 203 and inner surface of 337), of which all first magnet poles with first pole magnetic fields are aligned parallel to one another and all second magnet poles with second pole magnetic fields are aligned parallel to one another (Ando: par. [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang in view of Ando disclose the endoscopic instrument according to claim 6, wherein the first magnet poles and the second magnet poles are aligned in the magnet pairs in a manner attracting one another (Ando: par. [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Hwang in view of Ando disclose the endoscopic instrument according to claim 5, wherein the at least one magnet arrangement comprises several magnet pairs (par. [0060] – magnetic contacts on the outer surface of 203 and inner surface of 337) whose magnet poles are distributed in a uniform manner (par. [0060]; Ando: par. [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 17, Hwang in view of Ando disclose the endoscopic instrument according to claim 7, wherein the mechanical locking comprises a movable locking element which is movably mounted on the interface element (Ando: 23; par. [0046]-[0047]; Figs. 5A-5B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYNAE E BOLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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.
/RYNAE E BOLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights