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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species A, readable on claims 1-10 and 18 in the reply filed on 6/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “With respect to the two groups of inventions, Applicant notes that the Unity of Invention Requirement cites 37 C.F.R. $1.475(b), which identifies various combinations of categories of invention in which Unity of Invention is considered to exist; however, the Unity of Invention Requirement makes no mention of how Applicant's claims do not have Unity of Invention in view of this rule, and as such, the claims pending in this U.S. National Stage application should be considered to have unity of invention. Applicant additionally submits that applicants are allowed, even encouraged, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to draft claims of varying scope. Merely because one claim does not require the details of another claim is not a proper basis for restriction. Otherwise, most independent claims would be restricted from their dependent claims”. This is not found persuasive because the examiner has shown although the inventions and species having the technical feature of a tube having a bendable segment with three central openings, three distal openings and three proximal openings, the technical feature is not a special technical feature since the cited prior art Ryu teaches a tube with the corresponding feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-10 and 28 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.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7, 9 and 10 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein at least some of the bendable segments are arranged in pairs along a longitudinal direction of the tube with a distance between the bendable segments of each pair being less than 50%, preferably less than 25% of a distance between the respective pair and an adjacent pair” in Lines 1-5, wherein the it’s unclear how the “distance” is being measured between the bendable segments of each pair and the respective pair and an adjacent pair. It appears additionally language is required to improve clarity of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snyder et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0255290, hereinafter Snyder).
In regard to claim 1, Snyder discloses a tube (100) for use in a surgical device that is to be inserted into the human or animal body at least in part (Par. 26), the tube extending from a proximal end to a distal end of the tube (Fig. 3), wherein the tube comprises a plurality of bendable segments (see annotated Fig. 4B below), each of the bendable segments comprising:
three central openings in a wall of the tube, the central openings being arranged along a circumference of the tube and separated from each other by central connecting portions (beams (402), Fib. 4B) of the wall (see annotated Fig. 4B below), wherein the central connecting portions are displaced from each other by between 105° and 135° along the circumference of the tube (the connecting portions are spaced approximately 120° apart, Fig. 4B);
three proximal openings in the wall arranged on a proximal side of the central openings with each of the proximal openings being adjacent to a respective one of the central connecting portions (see annotated Fig. 4B below); and
three distal openings in the wall arranged on a distal side of the central openings with each of the distal openings being adjacent to a respective one of the central connecting portions (see annotated Fig. 4B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Snyder teaches wherein at least some of the bendable segments are arranged in pairs along a longitudinal direction of the tube with a distance between the bendable segments of each pair being less than 50%, preferably less than 25% of a distance between the respective pair and an adjacent pair (via a distance between adjacent pairs of bendable segments at the proximal end of segment (112) or (110) of the tube is less than 50% of a distance between the adjacent pairs at the proximal end of the segment and adjacent pairs at a distal end of the segment, Figs. 3,4B).
In regard to claim 3, Snyder teaches wherein a distance between the distal openings of a proximal bendable segment and the proximal openings of a distal bendable segment of two adjacent bendable segments of the plurality of bendable segments is between 50% and 200%, preferably between 80% and 120% of a distance between the proximal openings and the central openings of the distal bendable segment and/or between 50% and 200%, preferably between 80% and 120% of a distance between the central openings and the distal openings of the proximal bendable segment (see annotated Fig. 4B above).
In regard to claim 4, Snyder teaches wherein the proximal openings of the distal bendable segment and the distal openings of the proximal bendable segment overlap along a circumferential direction of the tube forming spring segments therebetween, wherein preferably a width of one or more of said spring segments along the longitudinal direction at a center of the respective spring segment is smaller than a width of the respective spring segment at one or both ends of the respective spring segment (see annotated Fig. 4B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Snyder teaches wherein at least some of the bendable segments are arranged as a contiguous group of bendable segments with the distance between the distal openings of a proximal bendable segment and the proximal openings of a distal bendable segment of any two adjacent bendable segments in the contiguous group of bendable segments being between 50% and 200% of the distance between the proximal openings and the central openings of the distal bendable segment and/or between 50% and 200% of the distance between the central openings and the distal openings of the proximal bendable segment (see annotated Fig. 4B).
In regard to claim 6, Snyder teaches wherein adjacent bendable segments of the plurality of bendable segments are rotated with respect to each other along the circumferential direction with centers of the central openings of one of said adjacent bendable segments being aligned with the central connecting portions of another one of said adjacent segments (annotated Fig. 4B illustrates adjacent bendable segments being circumferentially rotated relative to each other).
In regard to claim 8, Synder teaches wherein the proximal openings are separated from each other by proximal connecting portions (beams (402)) of the wall and the distal openings are separated from each other by distal connecting portions (beams (402)) of the wall (see annotated Fig. 4B above).
In regard to claim 9, Snyder teaches wherein a length of the proximal connecting portions and/or a length of the distal connecting portions along the circumferential direction is between 25% and 200%, preferably between 30% and 100% of a length of the central connecting portions (the lengths of the proximal, distal and central connecting portions are equal).
In regard to claim 10, Snyder teaches wherein the length of the proximal connecting portions and/or the length of the distal connecting portions is no more than 10%, preferably no more than 5% of the circumference of the tube in the respective bendable segment (Fig. 4B).
In regard to claim 28, Snyder teaches wherein the surgical device is an endoscope (the surgical device is capable of being an endoscope) and the tube is an insertion tube or a hypotube for use in said endoscope (the catheter (100) is capable of insertion through a working channel of an endoscope).
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ness et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0338718, hereinafter Van Ness) in view of Snyder et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0255290, hereinafter Snyder).
In regard to claim 1, Van Ness discloses a tube (1, Fig. 1) for use in a surgical device that is to be inserted into the human or animal body (see abstract), the tube extending from a proximal end to a distal end of the tube (Fig. 1), wherein the tube comprises a plurality of bendable segments (section (108) contains a plurality of bendable segments), each of the bendable segments comprising:
central openings in a wall of the tube, the central openings being arranged along a circumference of the tube and separated from each other by central connecting portions of the wall (see annotated Fig. 2A below);
proximal openings in the wall arranged on a proximal side of the central openings with each of the proximal openings being adjacent to a respective one of the central connecting portions (see annotated Fig. 2A below); and
distal openings in the wall arranged on a distal side of the central openings with each of the distal openings being adjacent to a respective one of the central connecting portions (see annotated Fig. 2A below).
Van Ness teaches of two central openidoes not expressly teach three central openings, three proximal openings, three distal openings, wherein the central connecting portions are displaced from each other by between 105° and 135° along the circumference of the tube.
Snyder teaches an analogous tube (100, Fig. 3) comprising an elongate section (300,400) shown in Figs. 4A and 4B. In Fig. 4A, the elongate section (300) comprises two proximal openings, two central openings and two distal openings utilizing a two-beam configuration. Van Ness teaches an arrangement similar to the two-beam configuration in Fig. 4A in which openings are offset circumferentially 180° apart. Snyder teaches it’s also known to position the proximal, central and distal openings so that they’re offset circumferentially 120° apart in Fig. 4B utilizing a three-beam configuration (Par. 44).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tube of Van Ness with three proximal, central and distal openings as taught by Snyder as a matter of design choice since Snyder teaches the openings can be oriented in a plurality of configurations which include 180° offset openings and 120° offset openings. There being no unexpected results in modifying the bendable segment of Van Ness having two openings offset circumferentially 180° apart with three openings offset circumferentially 120° apart as taught by Snyder.
PNG
media_image3.png
582
829
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Van Ness teaches wherein the proximal openings and/or the distal openings are slits with a width of the central openings along the longitudinal direction being at least 5 times (the proximal and/or distal openings have a thickness of .003” and the central openings have a thickness of 0.015” which is at least 5 times as thick as the proximal and/or distal openings, Fig. 2B), preferably at least 10 times as large as a width of the slits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN N HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-5pm (PST).
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.
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights