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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi (US 2022/0313356).
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi teaches an endoscope treatment tool, comprising:
a sheath (3);
a rod protruding from a distal end of the sheath, the rod being conductive (13a as a conductive electrode as in par. [0051]);
an electrode connected to a distal end of the rod (13b);
an insulator located distally relative to the electrode (insulator 15 as in par. [0055]); and
an insulating member covering at least part of an outer circumferential surface of the rod (as in at least Fig. 6 with 11 covering some of 13a).
Regarding claim 10, Higuchi teaches wherein a distal end of the insulating member coincides with a proximal end of the electrode, and wherein the proximal end of the insulating member is located within the sheath or at the distal end of the sheath (11 is where the proximal end of electrode 13 starts, and wherein the proximal end of 11 is within sheath 3 as in at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Higuchi teaches wherein a distal end of the insulating member is in contact with a proximal end of the electrode (11 in contact with 13 as in Fig. 2), and wherein the proximal end of the insulating member is located within the sheath or at the distal end of the sheath (proximal end of 11 is within sheath 3 as in at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Higuchi wherein the insulating member covers at least a portion of a proximal end side of the rod protruding from the sheath (11 covers a portion of the rode protruding from sheath 3).
Regarding claim 15, Higuchi teaches an endoscope treatment tool (1), comprising:
a sheath (sheath 3); and
a treatment portion protruding from a distal end of the sheath (5), wherein the treatment portion includes:
a first insulating member (insulating member 15);
a second insulating member arranged on a proximal end side of the first insulating member (insulating chip 11), the second insulating member having an outer diameter smaller than an outer diameter of at least part of the first insulating member (as in at least Fig. 6); and
an electrode located between the first insulating member and the second insulating member in a longitudinal direction of the treatment portion (electrode 13 between 15 and 11).
Regarding claim 20, Higuchi teaches an endoscope treatment tool, comprising:
a sheath (3);
a rod protruding from a distal end of the sheath (13a);
an electrode connected to a distal end of the rod (13b); and
an insulator located distally relative to the electrode (15 distal relative to 13b), wherein the endoscope treatment tool is configured so that electricity is not passed through tissue from at least part of an outer circumferential surface of the rod (part of 13 does not touch tissue to pass current as in Fig. 2 with some of 13 not exposed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 12, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in further view of Okada (US 2004/0210215).
Regarding claim 2, Higuchi is not explicit wherein the insulating member includes an insulating coating.However, Okada teaches an insulating coating on an electrode in a similar device (par. [0114]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the insulating coating of Okada in order to limit the exposed conductive area.
Regarding claim 3, Higuchi is not explicit wherein the insulating coating covers an entire surface of the outer circumferential surface of the rod.However, Okada teaches an insulating coating covering an entire surface of a rod (par. [0114] rod coated as in Fig. 13).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the insulating coating of Okada in order to limit the exposed conductive area.
Regarding claim 4, Higuchi is not explicit wherein the insulating coating covers a circumferential portion of the outer circumferential surface of the rod.However, Okada teaches an insulating coating covering an entire surface of a rod (par. [0114] rod coated as in Fig. 13).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the insulating coating of Okada in order to limit the exposed conductive area.
Regarding claim 5, Higuchi is silent wherein the insulating member includes an insulating tube.However, Okada teaches an insulating tube over an electrode rod (Fig. 13 and par. [0114]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the insulation of Okada in order to limit the exposed conductive area.
Regarding claim 6, Higuchi is silent wherein the insulating tube is fixed to the rod.However, Okada teaches an insulating tube fixed over an electrode rod (Fig. 13 and par. [0114]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the insulation of Okada in order to limit the exposed conductive area.
Regarding claim 12, Higuchi is silent wherein at least part of the insulating member extends from the electrode to the distal end of the sheath.However, Okada teaches an insulating member as an insulating tube 132 from the electrode to the sheath distal end as in Fig. 13.It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the insulation of Okada in order to limit the exposed conductive area.
Regarding claim 16, Higuchi is not explicit wherein the first insulating member includes an insulating coating.However, Okada teaches an insulating coating on an electrode in a similar device (par. [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the insulation of Okada in order to limit the exposed conductive area.
Regarding claim 17, Higuchi is not explicit wherein the first insulating member includes an insulating tube.However, Okada teaches an insulating member as an insulating tube 132 as in Fig. 13.It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the insulation of Okada in order to limit the exposed conductive area.
Claim(s) 7-9, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in further view of Tang (US 2019/0262068).
Regarding claim 7, Higuchi is not explicit wherein the insulating tube is configured to advance and retract relative to the rod.However, Tang teaches an insulating sheath over an electrode with a movable portion relative to the rod, allowing for position limiting the device (par. [0046] with movable part 13).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the position limiting insulating sheath of Tang, to set the desired extension/retraction of the end effector for use.
Regarding claim 8, Higuchi is not explicit wherein the insulating tube is configured to advance and retract between a position where a distal end of the insulating tube abuts against the electrode and a position between the electrode and the distal end of the sheath.However, Tang teaches an insulating sheath over an electrode with a movable portion relative to the rod, allowing for position limiting the device (par. [0046] with movable part 13).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the position limiting insulating sheath of Tang, to set the desired extension/retraction of the end effector for use.
Regarding claim 9, Higuchi is not explicit wherein the insulating tube is configured to move between a position where a distal end of the insulating tube abuts against the electrode and a position within the sheath.However, Tang teaches an insulating sheath over an electrode with a movable portion relative to the rod, allowing for position limiting the device (par. [0046] with movable part 13 within the sheath).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the position limiting insulating sheath of Tang, to set the desired extension/retraction of the end effector for use.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the first insulating member is configured to move between a position where a distal end of the first insulating member abuts against the electrode and a position between the electrode and a distal end of the sheath.However, Tang teaches an insulating sheath over an electrode with a movable portion relative to the rod, allowing for position limiting the device (par. [0046] with movable part 13).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the position limiting insulating sheath of Tang, to set the desired extension/retraction of the end effector for use.
Regarding claim 19, wherein the first insulating member is configured to move between a position where a distal end of the first insulating member abuts against the electrode and a position within the sheath.However, Tang teaches an insulating sheath over an electrode with a movable portion relative to the rod, allowing for position limiting the device (par. [0046] with movable part 13 within the sheath).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the position limiting insulating sheath of Tang, to set the desired extension/retraction of the end effector for use.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in further view of Xia (US 2021/0177501).
Regarding claim 14, Higuchi is not explicit wherein a proximal end of the insulator has a tapered surface narrowing toward the electrode, and wherein the tapered surface is spaced apart from the electrode in a longitudinal direction of the rod.However, Xia teaches a tapered section 78. While this is on electrode 30, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the insulator on the electrode would have the same tapered properties.It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Higuchi with the tapered portion as in Xia, allowing for limiting the extension of the electrode as in par. [0038].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wake (US 2014/0207134) teaches an electrode device with an electrode and insulator on a distal end and another insulator on a proximal end.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights