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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,185,912. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the elements of Claim 18 of the present patent application are claimed in Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,185,912, such that this is an anticipation-type nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
A comparison of Claim 1 of present US Patent Application 18/968,253 and US Patent No. 12,185,912 is shown in the chart below:
US Patent Application 18/968,253
US Patent 12,185,912
Claim 18.
Claim 1.
A method of manufacturing an elevator of a medical device, the method comprising:
A method of manufacturing an elevator of a medical device, the method comprising:
forming a pivot portion at a proximal end of the elevator, wherein the pivot portion tapers proximally, wherein a proximalmost end of the pivot portion forms a proximal-facing face or a proximal edge; and
using an additive manufacturing method, forming a pivot portion at a proximal end of the elevator, wherein the pivot portion tapers proximally such that a proximalmost end of the elevator is thinner than more distal portions of the pivot portion, wherein the proximalmost end forms a proximal-facing face or a proximal edge; and
forming (i) a body of the elevator that is distal to the pivot portion and (ii) a control arm of the elevator, the control arm having one or more hollow portions, wherein the control arm is configured to be connected to a control element for exerting a force on the elevator.
using the additive manufacturing method, forming (i) a body of the elevator that is distal to the pivot portion and (ii) a control arm of the elevator, the control arm having one or more hollow portions, wherein the body includes a surface configured to contact an instrument inserted in a working channel of the medical device, and wherein the control arm is configured to be connected to a control element for exerting a force on the elevator.
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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolberg et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0249894 – “Kolberg”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kolberg discloses:
An elevator for use with a medical device (Kolberg paragraphs [0001] and [0005], “The present invention relates to an endoscope head comprising an endoscope head body in which at least one working channel is formed, wherein an Albarran lever capable of being pivoted is provided on the distal side of the endoscope head body…the duodenoscope comprises an Albarran lever which, by pivoting, allows the tools that are being advanced through the working channel to be selectively redirected”), the elevator including:
an elevator body (Kolberg FIG. 1, distal portion of Albarran lever 2) having a surface (Kolberg FIG. 1, surface 24) for interacting with a medical instrument inserted through a working channel of the medical device (Kolberg FIG. 1, working channel 13; Kolberg paragraph [0061], “A tool, such as a guide wire, guided through the working channel 13 is lifted up by the curved portion 133 and comes into contact with the working channel surface 24 of the Albarran lever 2 when being further advanced in the proximal direction”);
a pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot yoke 22 and rotation shaft 451) proximal of the elevator body, wherein the pivot portion includes a tapered portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, surface 221 of pivot yoke 22) that tapers proximally such that a proximalmost end of the pivot portion is thinner than more distal portions of the pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing surface 221 tapering proximally to make the proximal end of pivot yoke 22 thinner than the distal portion of yoke 22); and
a control arm (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454) wherein the control arm includes one or more hollow portions (Kolberg FIG. 6, control wire receiving member 454).
Regarding Claim 2, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot yoke 22) further comprises a rounded portion proximal of the tapered portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing rounded portion of pivot yoke 22 proximal to the tapered surface 221), wherein the rounded portion has a rounded surface (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing rounded surface at proximal end of pivot yoke 22), and wherein the pivot portion is solid in all cross-sections (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing the solid structure of pivot yoke 22).
Regarding Claim 3, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the pivot portion further includes a rectangular portion (Examiner-annotated Kolberg FIG. 7 shown below, showing cross-section plane that defined a rectangular portion between the tapered portion 221 and the rounded portion of pivot yoke 22) , wherein the rectangular portion connects the rounded portion to the tapered portion, and wherein the rectangular portion includes a pair of parallel surfaces that are approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the control arm (Examiner interprets the cross-section plane to have a width, which runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the longitudinal axis of the lever 454 when connected to Albarran lever 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the tapered portion includes a first tapered surface and a second tapered surface, and wherein each of the first and the second tapered surfaces taper towards one another at a same angle (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing fork portion 22 with two parallel contact surfaces, each having similarly-angled proximal surfaces).
Regarding Claim 5, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the proximalmost end of the pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot yoke 22) forms a proximal-facing face (Kolberg FIG. 7, rounded proximal facing faces of pivot yoke 22) or a proximal edge of the elevator.
Regarding Claim 6, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the proximalmost end of the pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, rotation shaft 451 that is a component of the pivot portion) extends along the elevator body and the control arm (Kolberg FIG. 6, showing rotation shaft 451 extending from Albarran lever to activation lever 454).
Regarding Claim 7, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the proximalmost end of the pivot portion (Kolberg rotation shaft 451) extends along an entirety of a width of the elevator (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing pivot lever arm 452 aligned to mate with lever fork yoke 22, such that the rotation shaft 451 extends along the yoke 22 and the activation lever 454 shown in Kolberg FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the control arm (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454 having a control wire barrel receiving member 455) is configured to be connected to a control element for exerting a force on the elevator (Kolberg paragraph [0085], “activation lever 454 comprises a control wire barrel receiving member 455 into which a barrel of a control wire (not shown) is inserted. The control wire is activated from the proximal side of the endoscope head 1, for example by a control member, such as a joystick”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Kolberg further teaches wherein the control arm (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454) includes a receptacle (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454 having a control wire barrel receiving member 455) defined at the distal end of the control arm, and wherein the control element is received within the receptacle (Kolberg paragraph [0085], “activation lever 454 comprises a control wire barrel receiving member 455 into which a barrel of a control wire (not shown) is inserted.).
Regarding Claim 11, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the elevator body (Examiner-annotated Kolberg FIG. 6 shown below, Albarran lever 2) defines a first longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, first axis), wherein the control arm (Kolberg FIG. 6, pivot lever 45) defines a second longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, second axis), and wherein the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis extend in different directions (Kolberg FIG. 6, showing Albarran lever 2 and pivot lever 45 on different longitudinal axes in the endoscope head body 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Kolberg teaches wherein the proximalmost end of the pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot yoke 22 and rotation shaft 451) is approximately perpendicular to the second longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, showing rotation shaft 451 perpendicular to second axis).
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.
Claims 8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolberg et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0249894 – “Kolberg”) in view of Kitano et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0078041 – “Kitano”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kolberg discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses a junction (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot lever 45) disposed between the control arm (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454) and the elevator body (Kolberg FIG. 1, Albarran lever 2). Although it appears that the pivot lever 45 needs to be rigid enough so that it does not bend or fail when rotating the Albarran lever 2, Kolberg does not explicitly state that a yield strength of the junction is greater than a yield strength of at least a portion of the elevator body.
Kitano teaches a junction (Kitano FIG. 22, driving arm 211 having a polygonal shaft that connects to elevator base 210, shown in Kitano FIG. 17, which raises a treatment instrument) having a yield strength that is greater than a yield strength of at least a portion of the elevator body (Kitano paragraph [0128], “Because the treatment instrument is thick and hard, the strength of the driving arm 211 is required to raise the treatment instrument.” Examiner interprets this as teaching that the driving arm 211 and its connection to the elevator base 210 must be strong enough to support by the thick instrument as well as the elevator base 210, such that the polygonal connection between the driving arm 211 and the elevator base 210 is stronger than the elevator base 210 alone.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect Kolberg’s activation lever 454 to Kolberg’s Albarran lever 2 with Kitano’s strong polygonal connection. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope elevator that is capable of supported heavy/rigid medical instruments.
Regarding Claim 13, Kolberg discloses:
An elevator for use with a medical device (Kolberg paragraphs [0001] and [0005], “The present invention relates to an endoscope head comprising an endoscope head body in which at least one working channel is formed, wherein an Albarran lever capable of being pivoted is provided on the distal side of the endoscope head body…the duodenoscope comprises an Albarran lever which, by pivoting, allows the tools that are being advanced through the working channel to be selectively redirected”), the elevator including:
an elevator body (Kolberg FIG. 1, distal portion of Albarran lever 2) having a surface (Kolberg FIG. 1, surface 24) configured to contact a medical instrument inserted in a working channel of the medical device (Kolberg FIG. 1, working channel 13; Kolberg paragraph [0061], “A tool, such as a guide wire, guided through the working channel 13 is lifted up by the curved portion 133 and comes into contact with the working channel surface 24 of the Albarran lever 2 when being further advanced in the proximal direction”);
a pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot yoke 22 and rotation shaft 451) proximal of the elevator body and defining a proximalmost edge or face of the elevator (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing pivot yoke 22 proximal to the distal portion of Albarran lever 2 and having a proximal end that defines the proximalmost edge of the Albarran lever 2);
a control arm (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454 having a control wire barrel receiving member 455) configured to receive a distal end of a control element for exerting a force on the elevator (Kolberg paragraph [0085], “activation lever 454 comprises a control wire barrel receiving member 455 into which a barrel of a control wire (not shown) is inserted. The control wire is activated from the proximal side of the endoscope head 1, for example by a control member, such as a joystick”), wherein the control arm includes one or more hollow portions (Kolberg FIG. 6, control wire receiving member 454); and
Kolberg further discloses a junction (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot lever 45) disposed between the control arm (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454) and the elevator body (Kolberg FIG. 1, Albarran lever 2). Although it appears that the pivot lever 45 needs to be rigid enough so that it does not bend or fail when rotating the Albarran lever 2, Kolberg does not explicitly state that a yield strength of the junction is greater than a yield strength of at least a portion of the elevator body.
Kitano teaches a junction (Kitano FIG. 22, driving arm 211 having a polygonal shaft that connects to elevator base 210, shown in Kitano FIG. 17, which raises a treatment instrument) having a yield strength that is greater than a yield strength of at least a portion of the elevator body (Kitano paragraph [0128], “Because the treatment instrument is thick and hard, the strength of the driving arm 211 is required to raise the treatment instrument.” Examiner interprets this as teaching that the driving arm 211 and its connection to the elevator base 210 must be strong enough to support by the thick instrument as well as the elevator base 210, such that the polygonal connection between the driving arm 211 and the elevator base 210 is stronger than the elevator base 210 alone.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect Kolberg’s activation lever 454 to Kolberg’s Albarran lever 2 with Kitano’s strong polygonal connection. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope elevator that is capable of supported heavy/rigid medical instruments.
Regarding Claim 14, Kolberg in view of Kitano teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot yoke 22) further comprises a rounded portion proximal of the tapered portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing rounded portion of pivot yoke 22 proximal to the tapered surface 221), wherein the rounded portion has a rounded surface (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing rounded surface at proximal end of pivot yoke 22), and wherein the pivot portion is solid in all cross-sections (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing the solid structure of pivot yoke 22).
Regarding Claim 15, Kolberg in view of Kitano teaches the features of Claim 14, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the pivot portion further includes a rectangular portion (Examiner-annotated Kolberg FIG. 7 shown below, showing cross-section plane that defined a rectangular portion between the tapered portion 221 and the rounded portion of pivot yoke 22) , wherein the rectangular portion connects the rounded portion to the tapered portion, and wherein the rectangular portion includes a pair of parallel surfaces that are approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the control arm (Examiner interprets the cross-section plane to have a width, which runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the longitudinal axis of the lever 454 when connected to Albarran lever 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Kolberg in view of Kitano teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the proximalmost end of the pivot portion (Kolberg rotation shaft 451) extends along an entirety of a width of the elevator (Kolberg FIG. 2, showing pivot lever arm 452 aligned to mate with lever fork yoke 22, such that the rotation shaft 451 extends along the yoke 22 and the activation lever 454 shown in Kolberg FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Kolberg in view of Kitano teaches the features of Claim 13, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the elevator body (Examiner-annotated Kolberg FIG. 6 shown below, Albarran lever 2) defines a first longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, first axis), and wherein the control arm (Kolberg FIG. 6, pivot lever 45) defines a second longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, second axis), wherein the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis extend in different directions (Kolberg FIG. 6, showing Albarran lever 2 and pivot lever 45 on different longitudinal axes in the endoscope head body 11), and wherein the proximalmost edge (Kolberg FIG. 2, rotation shaft 451) or face is approximately perpendicular to the second longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, showing rotation shaft 451 perpendicular to second axis).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolberg et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0249894 – “Kolberg”) in view of Winburne et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0202128 – “Winburne”).
Regarding Claim 18, Kolberg discloses:
an elevator of a medical device (Kolberg paragraphs [0001] and [0005], “The present invention relates to an endoscope head comprising an endoscope head body in which at least one working channel is formed, wherein an Albarran lever capable of being pivoted is provided on the distal side of the endoscope head body…the duodenoscope comprises an Albarran lever which, by pivoting, allows the tools that are being advanced through the working channel to be selectively redirected”), comprising:
a pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot yoke 22 and rotation shaft 451) at a proximal end of the elevator (Kolberg FIG. 2, Albarran lever 2), wherein the pivot portion tapers proximally (Kolberg FIG. 2, surface 221 of pivot yoke 22), wherein a proximalmost end of the pivot portion (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot yoke 22) forms a proximal-facing face (Kolberg FIG. 7, rounded proximal facing faces of pivot yoke 22) or a proximal edge; and
(i) a body (Kolberg FIG. 1, distal portion of Albarran lever 2) of the elevator that is distal to the pivot portion and
(ii) a control arm (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454) of the elevator, the control arm having one or more hollow portions (Kolberg FIG. 6, control wire receiving member 454), wherein the control arm is configured to be connected to a control element for exerting a force on the elevator (Kolberg paragraph [0085], “activation lever 454 comprises a control wire barrel receiving member 455 into which a barrel of a control wire (not shown) is inserted. The control wire is activated from the proximal side of the endoscope head 1, for example by a control member, such as a joystick”).
Kolberg does not explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing by forming components.
Winburne teaches a method of manufacturing by forming components (Winburne paragraph [0006], “a 3D printer can create the 3D object utilizing powder bed fusion, among other types of 3D printing. For example, a 3D printer can utilize powder bed fusion by combining a fusing agent with the build material such that the fusing agent absorbs heat from a heat source in order to melt, fuse, and solidify the build material in order to create a 3D object”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Winburne’s powder bed fusion when forming the pivot portion, elevator, and control arm disclosed by Kolberg. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a 3D printing process that fuses together materials capable of forming components such as components of an elevator for a medical device.
Regarding Claim 20, Kolberg in view of Winburne teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses wherein the body (Examiner-annotated Kolberg FIG. 6 shown below, Albarran lever 2) defines a first longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, first axis), wherein the control arm (Kolberg FIG. 6, pivot lever 45) defines a second longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, second axis), wherein the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis extend in different directions (Kolberg FIG. 6, showing Albarran lever 2 and pivot lever 45 on different longitudinal axes in the endoscope head body 11), and wherein the proximal-facing face or the proximal edge is approximately perpendicular to the second longitudinal axis (Kolberg FIG. 6, showing rotation shaft 451 perpendicular to second axis).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolberg et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0249894 – “Kolberg”) in view of Winburne et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0202128 – “Winburne”) and Kitano et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0078041 – “Kitano”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kolberg in view of Winburne teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Kolberg further discloses a junction (Kolberg FIG. 2, pivot lever 45) of the control arm (Kolberg, FIG. 6, activation lever 454) and the body (Kolberg FIG. 1, Albarran lever 2). Although it appears that the pivot lever 45 needs to be rigid enough so that it does not bend or fail when rotating the Albarran lever 2, Kolberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the junction has a greater yield strength than at least a portion of the body.
Kitano teaches a junction (Kitano FIG. 22, driving arm 211 having a polygonal shaft that connects to elevator base 210, shown in Kitano FIG. 17, which raises a treatment instrument) that has a greater yield strength that at least a portion of the body (Kitano paragraph [0128], “Because the treatment instrument is thick and hard, the strength of the driving arm 211 is required to raise the treatment instrument.” Examiner interprets this as teaching that the driving arm 211 and its connection to the elevator base 210 must be strong enough to support by the thick instrument as well as the elevator base 210, such that the polygonal connection between the driving arm 211 and the elevator base 210 is stronger than the elevator base 210 alone.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect Kolberg’s activation lever 454 to Kolberg’s Albarran lever 2 with Kitano’s strong polygonal connection, as described in the method taught by Kolberg in view of Winburne. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope elevator being manufactured that is capable of supported heavy/rigid medical instruments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes, but is not limited to:
Ouchi et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0044570 – “Ouchi”), which teaches in Ouchi FIG. 4 a driving lever 21 connected to a control wire. The driving lever 21 is connected to a treating instrument erecting member 5 by an erecting member driving shaft 13.
Hiraoka (US PGPUB 2020/0359880 – “Hiraoka”), which teaches in Hiraoka FIG. 2 a control arm unit 14, a rotary shaft 13, and a forceps elevator 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights