DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 18/911,500 filed on October 10, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0318757) in view of Tanimura et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0081873).
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses a medical device tip (See Singh Fig. 1, tip 15, Fig. 14, item 35), comprising: a first viewing element (See Singh [0011], viewing instrument), and a fluid channeling component (See Singh [0047]), comprising: a proximal base having a first length and a first width (See Singh [0046]); a casing projecting distally from the proximal base (See Singh [0045] “the proximal end of the channel 18 to the distal end 14 and as shown in FIG. 9 for most purposes projects slightly beyond the tip 15 of the catheter 12”), wherein the casing has a second length and a second width, wherein the second length is less than the first length, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width; and a frame projecting from the casing (See Singh [0045], [0047]), wherein the frame is configured to hold the first viewing element (See Singh Fig. 14, viewing instrument, and [0039]).
It is noted that Singh is silent about wherein the casing has a second length and a second width, wherein the second length is less than the first length, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width.
However, Tanimura teaches a medical device wherein the casing has a second length and a second width, wherein the second length is less than the first length, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width (See Tanimura Figs. 1-2, item 20 and 40, Fig. 2B, [0039] and [0040] detailing the different claimed sizes).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Singh to incorporate Tanimura’s teachings wherein the casing has a second length and a second width, wherein the second length is less than the first length, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width. The motivation for performing such a modification in Singh is to provide an improved viewing capable of providing detailed images.
As per claim 2, the combination of Singh and Tanimura teaches wherein the first viewing element is positioned within a curved recess of the frame (See Singh [0049] “The visual element 35 and casing 33 also provides a degree of stiffness for the catheter 12 so that it can be reliably pushed through a tight passage and yet is able to flex freely around and through curved body openings and easily pass obstructions.”).
As per claim 3, the combination of Singh and Tanimura teaches wherein the first viewing element is positioned within a curved recess of the frame (See Singh [0043] and [0047]).
As per claim 9, the combination of Singh and Tanimura teaches a viewing element bridge configured to couple to the frame (See Singh [0037]).
As per claims 10-11, the combination of Singh and Tanimura teaches wherein the casing includes a first or second channel opening at a distal-facing surface of the casing (See Singh [0011], [0032]).
5. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0318757) in view of Tanimura et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0081873) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sonnenschein et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0015618).
Regarding claims 4-5, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claim 1.
It is noted that the combination of Singh and Tanimura is silent about wherein the first viewing element is a front-facing viewing element, and wherein the medical device tip further comprises a second viewing element, wherein the second viewing element is a side-facing viewing element.
However, Sonnenschein teaches wherein the first viewing element is a front- facing viewing element, and wherein the medical device tip further comprises a second viewing element, wherein the second viewing element is a side-facing viewing element (See Sonnenschein Fig. 7, [0095] “using the camera 62 on the distal face 36 for visualization until the hole in the tissue is viewed using the side facing camera 62.” , [0103]-[0106] in [0103] Sonnenschein “The overtubes 84 are pushed out of the channels 86 and the screws 82 are advanced and rotated until they penetrate and grab the tissue on opposite sides of the hole.”).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Singh and Tanimura to incorporate Sonnenschein’s teachings viewing element is a front- facing viewing element, and wherein the medical device tip further comprises a second viewing element, wherein the second viewing element is a side-facing viewing element. The motivation for performing such a modification in the combination of Singh and Tanimura is to provide an endoscope with two or more channels with distinct views to reveal details of the interior of the distal tip.
Note: The Examiner considers the side view to be perpendicular to the front view.
As per claims 6-7, the combination of Singh, Tanimura and Sonnenschien further teaches wherein a field of view of the front-facing viewing element is transverse to a field of view of the side-facing viewing element (See Singh Fig. 10 and [0024]-[0027]).
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0318757) in view of Tanimura et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0081873) and Sonnenschein et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0015618) and further in view of Yabe et al. (US Patent no. 5,702,347).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Singh, Taminura and Sonnenschien is silent about wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion configured to hold the first viewing element and a second U-shaped portion configured to hold the second viewing element.
However, Yabe teaches a medical device wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion configured to hold the first viewing element (See Yabe Fig. 10, U-shaped 73; col. 13, lines 40-65; col. 14, lines 1-4) and a second U-shaped portion configured to hold the second viewing element (See Yabe Fig. 23, items R1 and R2 and Fig. 24, items R1 and R2).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Singh to incorporate Yabe’s teachings wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion and second U-shaped portion as clamed. The motivation for performing such a modification in Singh in case of using a long protection cover, the distal end of the cover might be brought into contact with the floor. In order to avoid such a drawback, the discarding apparatus comprises the U-shaped tube as taught by Yabe (See Yabe col. 13, lines 48-54).
7. Claims 12-14, 18-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0318757) in view of Yabe et al. (US Patent no. 5,702,347).
As per claim 12, Singh discloses a medical device tip (See Singh Fig. 1, tip 15, Fig. 14, item 35), comprising: a first viewing element (See Singh [0011], viewing instrument), and a fluid channeling component (See Singh [0047]), comprising: a proximal base (See Singh [0046]); a casing projecting distally from the proximal base (See Singh [0045] “the proximal end of the channel 18 to the distal end 14 and as shown in FIG. 9 for most purposes projects slightly beyond the tip 15 of the catheter 12”); and a frame projecting from the casing (See Singh [0045], [0047]).
It is noted that Singh is silent about wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion configured to hold the first viewing element.
However, Yabe teaches a medical device wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion configured to hold the first viewing element (See Yabe Fig. 10, U-shaped 73; col. 13, lines 40-65; col. 14, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Singh to incorporate Yabe’s teachings wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion configured to hold the first viewing element. The motivation for performing such a modification in Singh in case of using a long protection cover, the distal end of the cover might be brought into contact with the floor. In order to avoid such a drawback, the discarding apparatus comprises the U-shaped tube as taught by Yabe (See Yabe col. 13, lines 48-54).
As per claim 13, the combination of Singh and Yabe further teaches wherein the frame includes a second U- shaped portion configured to receive a second viewing element (See Yabe Fig. 23, items R1 and R2 and Fig. 24, items R1 and R2).
As per claim 14, the combination of Singh and Yabe further teaches wherein the fluid channeling component further includes a side fluid injector opening adjacent to the frame (See Singh [0047]).
As per claim 18, the combination Singh and Yabe further teaches viewing element bridge configured to couple to the frame (See Singh [0037]).
As per claim 19, the combination of Singh and Yabe further teaches wherein the casing includes (i) a first channel opening at a distal-facing surface of the casing and (ii) a second channel opening at a side-facing surface of the casing (See Singh [0011], [0032]).
As per claim 20, Singh discloses a medical device tip (See Singh Fig. 1, tip 15, Fig. 14, item 35), comprising a fluid channeling component (See Singh [0047]) comprising a proximal base (See Singh [0046]); a casing projecting distally from the proximal base (See Singh [0045] “the proximal end of the channel 18 to the distal end 14 and as shown in FIG. 9 for most purposes projects slightly beyond the tip 15 of the catheter 12”); a plurality of channels extending through both the proximal base and the casing (See Singh [0032] and [0034]); and a frame projecting from the casing (See Singh [0045], [0047]).
It is noted that Singh is silent about wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion configured to hold the first electronic component.
However, Yabe teaches a medical device wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion configured to hold the first electronic component (See Yabe Fig. 10, U-shaped 73; col. 13, lines 40-65; col. 14, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Singh to incorporate Yabe’s teachings wherein the frame includes a first U-shaped portion configured to hold the first electronic component. The motivation for performing such a modification in Singh in case of using a long protection cover, the distal end of the cover might be brought into contact with the floor. In order to avoid such a drawback, the discarding apparatus comprises the U-shaped tube as taught by Yabe (See Yabe col. 13, lines 48-54).
8. Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Patent Application Publication no. 2009/0318757) in view of Yabe et al. (US Patent no. 5,702,347), and further in view of Sonnenschein et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0015618)
Regarding claims 15-16, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claim 12.
It is noted that the combination of Singh and Yabe is silent about wherein the first viewing element is a front-facing viewing element, and wherein the medical device tip further comprises a second viewing element, wherein the second viewing element is a side-facing viewing element.
However, Sonnenschein teaches wherein the first viewing element is a front- facing viewing element, and wherein the medical device tip further comprises a second viewing element, wherein the second viewing element is a side-facing viewing element (See Sonnenschein Fig. 7, [0095] “using the camera 62 on the distal face 36 for visualization until the hole in the tissue is viewed using the side facing camera 62.” , [0103]-[0106] in [0103] Sonnenschein “The overtubes 84 are pushed out of the channels 86 and the screws 82 are advanced and rotated until they penetrate and grab the tissue on opposite sides of the hole.”).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Singh and Yabe to incorporate Sonnenschein’s teachings viewing element is a front- facing viewing element, and wherein the medical device tip further comprises a second viewing element, wherein the second viewing element is a side-facing viewing element. The motivation for performing such a modification in the combination of Singh and Yabe is to provide an endoscope with two or more channels with distinct views to reveal details of the interior of the distal tip.
Note: The Examiner considers the side view to be perpendicular to the front view.
As per claim 17, the combination of Singh, Yabe and Sonnenschien further teaches wherein a field of view of the front-facing viewing element is transverse to a field of view of the side-facing viewing element (See Singh Fig. 10 and [0024]-[0027]).
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424