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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1-6, 10, 12-13, 17 of 7/22/2026 acknowledged and entered.
New claim 19 of 7/22/2026 acknowledged and entered.
Cancellation of claims 13-16 of 7/22/2026 acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding p. 7, para. 2, applicant asserts that a change to claim 4 reciting “wherein the first and second straight portions” would overcome the antecedent basis issue. Examiner is not in accordance. The term “a first/second straight portion” does not appear previously to “the first/second straight portion” in claim 4, or the claims it depends upon.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, para. 2, filed 7/22/2026, with respect to claim 5, 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 6/16/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 19 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 4 recites the limitation ""the first and second straight portions"" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “approximate 90 degree intervals” in claim 19is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Any number of angles could be considered approximate based upon the scale of precision.
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) 1-8, 13-18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 113729604 B) in view of Brunnen (ES 2273299 T3).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches A tube for use in an endoscope, the tube comprising:
a plurality of sections (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 section of the plurality of sections; and
a joint socket (fig. 2, element 130, p. 5, para. 2, tooth groove 130) on a respective second section of the plurality of sections, 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 section is pivoted with respect to the second section 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).
Zheng does not explicitly teach a plurality of guides configured to guide a control wire for actuating a respective said plurality of joints, wherein the plurality of guides is arranged at an outer circumference of a respective said section, the plurality of guides comprising:
A first pair of guides arranged adjacent to and aligned with a respective said joint socket along a circumferential direction
A second pair of guides arranged adjacent to and aligned with a respective said joint head along the circumferential direction,
However, Brunnen teaches a plurality of guides configured to guide a control wire for actuating a respective said plurality of joints (fig. 11d, element 123/124, p. 8, para. 8, axial extension 123 and 124 slots, opposite each other in 180º, destined to the control cables for the Flexible section movement in the foreground, there are two others slots 123 'and 124' displaced 90º, provided for the cables of control to flex the flexible section in the background.), wherein the plurality of guides is arranged at an outer circumference of a respective said section, the plurality of guides comprising:
A first pair of guides arranged adjacent to and aligned with a respective said joint socket along a circumferential direction (fig. 11d, element 123, fig. 11d shows axial slots 123/124 disposed upon the outer surface of the joints)
A second pair of guides arranged adjacent to and aligned with a respective said joint head along the circumferential direction (fig. 11d, element 124, fig. 11d shows axial slots 123/124 disposed upon the outer surface of the joints),
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 control wires of Zheng to be disposed upon the joints as taught in Brunnen in order to enhance the flex control of the flexible section (Brunnen p. 8, para. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1, wherein:
Further, Zheng teaches 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 section is at the default articulation angle; and
when the first section 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 in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1,
Further, Zheng teaches 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 section 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 in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 2,
Further, Zheng teaches wherein the first portion and the second straight portion 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 in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1,
Further, Zheng teaches 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 section is pivoted from the default articulation angle to a target articulation angle that differs from the default articulation angle by no less than 10°, (fig. 3, element 120, the tooth when shifted at an angle has increasing displacement along the center line).
Regarding claim 6, Zheng in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1,
Further, Zheng teaches 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 section 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 in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1,
Further, Zheng teaches 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 in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1,
Further, Zheng teaches 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 17, Zheng in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1,
Further, Zheng teaches wherein each of the sections 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%, along the circumference of the respective section (no variance in through hole diameter disclosed).
Regarding claim 18, Zheng in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1
Further, Zheng teaches 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).
Regarding claim 19, Zheng in view of Brunnen teaches the tube of claim 1,
Further, Brunnen teaches Wherein each guide of the plurality of guides is arranged at approximate 90 degree intervals about the outer circumference of the respective said section, alternating between a first guide of the first pair of guides and a second guide of the second pair of guides (fig. 11d, element 123/124, p. 8, para. 8, axial extension 123 and 124 slots, opposite each other in 180º, destined to the control cables for the Flexible section movement in the foreground, there are two others slots 123 'and 124' displaced 90º, provided for the cables of control to flex the flexible section in the background.).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Brunnen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakaji (WO 2018029917 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng in view of Brunnen teaches The tube of claim 1,
Zheng in view of Brunnen 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 Brunnen and Nakaji teaches The tube of claim 9,
Further, Nakaji teaches wherein the sections 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 Brunnen and 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 Brunnen and Nakaji teaches The tube of claim 10, wherein:
Further, Zheng teaches for each of the joints, the first section comprises a first angled end face and the second section 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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