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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species c in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending, claims 3 and 9-17 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 18-22 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 18, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (U.S. 2016/0029875).
With respect to claim 1, Okada et al. teaches an endoscopic tool comprising:
a cap (3) configured to be attached to a distal end of a flexible tubular member, the cap having a channel extending longitudinally to accept the distal end of the flexible tubular member;
a guide hole (11) having an opening on an outer peripheral surface of the cap; and
a filament (4) extending through the guide hole such that the filament and the outer peripheral surface of the cap contact each other.
With respect to claim 2, Okada et al. teaches a grasper (15a) connected to the filament at a distal end portion of the grasper (FIG. 3).
With respect to claim 4, Okada et al. teaches the filament extends through the guide hole without an additional element around the guide hole (FIG. 2, 3).
With respect to claim 6, Okada et al. teaches the flexible elongate tubular member is an endoscope (2).
With respect to claim 8, Okada et al. teaches the filament contacts the cap in a state in which the filament is withdrawn proximally (FIG. 3).
With respect to claim 18, Okada et al. teaches a system comprising:
a flexible tubular member (2);
a cap (3) configured to be attached to a distal end of the flexible tubular member, the cap having a channel extending longitudinally to accept the distal end of the flexible tubular member;
a guide hole (11) having an opening on an outer peripheral surface of the cap; and
a filament (4) extending through the guide hole such that the filament and the outer peripheral surface of the cap contact each other.
With respect to claim 19, Okada et al. teaches the filament extends through the guide hole without an additional element around the guide hole (FIG. 2, 3).
With respect to claim 21, Okada et al. teaches the flexible elongate tubular member is an endoscope (2).
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) 5, 7, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (U.S. 2016/0029875) in view of Kogiso et al. (U.S. 2016/0073859).
Okada et al. teaches an endoscope tool and system as set forth above. However, Okada et al. does not teach the filament extends outside the patient.
With respect to claim 5, Kogiso et al. teaches an analogous filament (138) wherein a proximal end of the filament outside the patient is configured to be withdrawn proximally by an operator (para [0154],[0156]-[0157]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Okada et al. to have the filaments extend outside the patient in the manner taught by Kogiso et al. in order to allow for multiple degrees of freedom of the grasper by decoupling the filament movement from the grasper longitudinal extension movement.
With respect to claim 7, Okada et al. as modified by Kogiso et al. teaches the grasper and the filament are movable longitudinally by pulling a proximal end of the filament extended outside the patient (para [0154],[0156]-[0157] of Kogiso et al.).
With respect to claim 20 Kogiso et al. teaches an analogous filament (138) wherein a proximal end of the filament outside the patient is configured to be withdrawn proximally by an operator (para [0154],[0156]-[0157]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Okada et al. to have the filaments extend outside the patient in the manner taught by Kogiso et al. in order to allow for multiple degrees of freedom of the grasper by decoupling the filament movement from the grasper longitudinal extension movement.
With respect to claim 22, Okada et al. as modified by Kogiso et al. teaches the grasper and the filament are movable longitudinally by pulling a proximal end of the filament extended outside the patient (para [0154],[0156]-[0157] of Kogiso et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandra Newton Surgan whose telephone number is (571)270-1618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm 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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/ALEXANDRA L NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights