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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 4, 5, 17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation no less than 10 degrees, and the claim also recites no less than 20 degrees which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation less than 25%, and the claim also recites less than 15% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation ""the first and second straight portions"" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng (CN 113729604 B).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches A tube for use in an endoscope, wherein the tube comprises
a plurality of elements (fig. 2, element 100, p. 5, para. 2, bone segments 100) that are arranged along a center line of said tube and pivotably connected to each other by a plurality of joints, said joints allowing for bending the tube with respect to a default configuration of the tube, wherein each of the joints comprises:
a joint head (fig. 2, element 120, p. 5, para. 2, connecting convex tooth 120) on a respective first element of the plurality of elements; and
a joint socket (fig. 2, element 130, p. 5, para. 2, tooth groove 130) on a respective second element of the plurality of elements, the joint socket being configured to receive the joint head,
wherein the joint socket and the joint head are shaped such that, when the first element is pivoted with respect to the second element from a default articulation angle of the joint associated with said default configuration to a target articulation angle:
a first contact surface on the joint head engages a second contact surface on the joint socket to cause the joint head to be pushed outwards out of the joint socket such that a displacement of the joint head along said center line of the tube relative to its position at the default articulation angle is greater than zero for any target articulation angle (fig. 3, rotation of one joint relative to another causes a contact point of the tooth 120 to shift to the side of groove 130 and for a portion of the tooth 120 to lose contact with the groove 130).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1, wherein:
the first contact surface comprises a protruding portion (p. 5, para. 2, convex teeth have protrusions acting as teeth of gears) that protrudes from an inscribed circle of the first contact surface and the second contact surface comprises a recessed portion that is recessed from an inscribed circle of the second contact surface (connecting grooves 130 have engagement teeth for the convex teeth);
the protruding portion of the first contact surface faces the recessed portion of the second contact surface when the first element is at the default articulation angle; and
when the first element is pivoted from the default articulation angle to the target articulation angle, the protruding portion engages the second contact surface to cause the joint head to be pushed outwards out of the joint socket (fig. 3, rotation of one joint relative to another causes a contact point of the tooth 120 to shift to the side of groove 130 and for a portion of the tooth 120 to lose contact with the groove 130).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1,
wherein the first contact surface comprises a first straight portion and a second straight portion extending at an angle to the first straight portion, the first and second straight portions being arranged such that, when the first element is at the default articulation angle, the first and second straight portions each are in contact with a respective straight portion of the second contact surface (fig. 2, element 120, tooth 120 is shaped to come to a point between two slanted surfaces).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 2,
wherein the first and second straight portions of the first contact surface are tangential to the inscribed circle of the first contact surface and the protruding portion of the first contact surface is arranged between the first and second straight portions (fig. 2, element 120, tooth 120 is shaped to come to a point between two slanted surfaces).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1,
wherein the joint socket and the joint head are shaped such that the displacement of the joint head along said center line of the tube relative to its position at the default articulation angle increases monotonically when the first element is pivoted from the default articulation angle to a target articulation angle that differs from the default articulation angle by no less than 10°, preferably by no less than 20° (fig. 3, element 120, the tooth when shifted at an angle has increasing displacement along the center line).
Regarding claim 6, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1,
wherein the joint socket and the joint head are shaped such that a tip of the joint head is separated from the joint socket by a gap when the first element is at the default articulation angle (fig. 2, element 120/130, a gap exists between the rounded groove 130 and the angular tooth 120).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1,
wherein the joint socket is configured such that the joint head can be removed from the joint socket along the center line of the tube (p. 5, para. 2, gear engagement of teeth and grooves, which is a reversible connection).
Regarding claim 8, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1,
wherein the joint socket and/or the joint head comprises a lateral mechanical stop configured to limit a movement of the joint head relative to the joint socket in a direction parallel to an articulation axis of the joint (fig. 4, element 113, p. 7, para. 2, limiting boss 113).
Regarding claim 13, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1,
wherein some or all of the elements comprise a guiding element configured to guide a control wire for actuating the plurality of joints (fig. 4, element 116, p. 9, para. 2, traction rope 200 passes through connecting holes 115, 116).
Regarding claim 14, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 13,
wherein the guiding element is arranged at an outer circumference of the respective element (fig. 4, element 116, the connecting hole 116 is disposed on the outer circumference of the block 100).
Regarding claim 15, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 13,
wherein the guiding element is configured to guide the control wire such that the control wire is arranged adjacent to an inner or outer sideface of a joint head on the respective element or on an adjacent element (fig. 4, element 116, the connecting hole 116 is disposed on the outer circumference of the block 100).
Regarding claim 16, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 13,
wherein at least some of the elements each:
are pivotably connected to a respective first adjacent element by a respective first pair of joints arranged on opposite sides of the tube and to a respective second adjacent element by a respective second pair of joints arranged on opposite sides of the tube, the first and second pairs of joints being displaced with respect to each other by between 75° and 105° along a circumferential direction of the tube (fig. 4, element 120/130, 90 degree separation between teeth and grooves); and
comprise four guiding elements (fig. 1, element 200, p. 9, para. 2, traction rope 200) arranged along a circumference of the respective element, each of said four guiding elements being displaced by between 35° and 55° from adjacent joints along the circumferential direction of the tube (fig. 1, element 200, ropes are roughly equidistant between teeth, hence being roughly 45°, within the range of the limitation).
Regarding claim 17, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1,
wherein each of the elements extends around a respective channel opening (fig. 4, element 117, p. 9, para. 5, through hole 117) and a diameter of said channel opening varies by less than 25%, preferably by less than 15% along the circumference of the respective element (no variance in through hole diameter disclosed).
Regarding claim 18, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1
wherein the tube is an insertion tube or a hypotube for use in said endoscope (p. 2, para. 2, the tube is used in 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakaji (WO 2018029917 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng teaches The tube of claim 1,
Zheng does not explicitly teach wherein one or more joints of the plurality of joints have a maximum articulation angle that is different from a maximum articulation angle of the other joints of the plurality of joints.
However, Nakaji teaches wherein one or more joints (fig. 6c, element 33x, p. 6, para. 2, first intermediate joint ring 33x) of the plurality of joints (fig. 6c, element 30, p. 6, para. 1, node ring group 30) have a maximum articulation angle that is different from a maximum articulation angle of the other joints of the plurality of joints (p. 6, para. 2, first intermediate joint ring 33x are configured to be rotatable and the angle theta1 is set to another angle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the joint of Zheng to include differently bending end segments as taught in Nakaji in order to restrict twisting of the insertion portion (Nakaji p. 5, para. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Zheng in view of Nakaji teaches The tube of claim 9,
Further, Nakaji teaches wherein the elements are arranged in a chain and an outermost joint at one or both ends of the chain has a smaller maximum articulation angle than the other joints in the chain (p. 6, para. 2, first intermediate joint ring 33x are configured to be rotatable and the angle theta1 is set to another angle).
Regarding claim 11, Zheng in view of Nakaji teaches The tube of claim 10,
Further, Zheng teaches wherein the maximum articulation angle of the outermost joint at one or both ends of the chain is between 10% and 70% of the maximum articulation angle of the other joints in the chain (p. 7, para. 1, angle between first and second planes may be 45, 60 degrees, etc. which is 50 and 66% of 90 taught in Nakaji).
Regarding claim 12, Zheng in view of Nakaji teaches The tube of claim 10, wherein:
Further, Zheng teaches for each of the joints, the first element comprises a first angled end face and the second element comprises a second angled end face facing the first angled end face, the first and second end faces being configured to come in contact with each other when the joint reaches its maximum articulation angle to prevent further articulation of the joint (fig. 3, rotation of one joint relative to another causes a contact point of the tooth 120 to shift to the side of groove 130 and for a portion of the tooth 120 to lose contact with the groove 130); and
Further, Nakaji teaches an angle between the first and second end faces associated with the outermost joint at one or both ends of the chain is smaller than an angle between the first and second end faces associated with the other joints in the chain when the respective joints are at the default articulation angle (p. 6, para. 2, first intermediate joint ring 33x are configured to be rotatable and the angle theta1 is set to another angle).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY TUAN LUU whose telephone number is (703)756-4592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Friday.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at 5712707235. 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 TUAN LUU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights