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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 May 2 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 21-22 are pending. Upon review of the claims new objections to the claims and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been applied as shown below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 9 “the first puller wire translatable” should be –the first puller wire is translatable--.
Claim 10, line 21 “second stop oF” should be –second stop [[oF]] of--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 10-16, and 21-22 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the puller wire being responsive to translation of the shuttle to deflect the elongated shaft” in lines 11-12 of the claim. It is unclear in the current claim construction if the claim is meant to refer to the puller wire being configured to deflect the elongated shaft in response to translation of the shuttle or if the limitation refers instead to the puller wire being responsive to translation of the shuttle, wherein translation of the shuttle serves to deflect the elongated shaft. The limitation is interpreted as the puller wire being configured to deflect the elongated shaft in response to translation of the shuttle.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the first puller wire being responsive to translation of the first shuttle to deflect the elongated shaft” and “the second puller wire being responsive to translation of the second shuttle to deflect the elongated shaft” in lines 12-13 and 20-21, respectively. It is unclear in the current claim construction if the claim is meant to refer to each puller wire being configured to deflect the elongated shaft in response to translation of the shuttle or if the limitation refers instead to the puller wire being responsive to translation of the shuttle, wherein translation of the shuttle serves to deflect the elongated shaft. The limitation is interpreted as the puller wire being configured to deflect the elongated shaft in response to translation of the shuttle.
Claims 2-7, 11-16, and 21-22 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence on claims 1 and 10, which have been rejected as indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of the record fails to teach and/or fairly suggest, in combination with all other recited limitations, “a deflection sensor situated within the control handle between the proximal end of the shuttle and the stop of the puller wire, the puller wire being longitudinally movable relative to the deflection sensor, the deflection sensor configured to generate a signal in response to compression between the proximal end of the shuttle and the stop of the puller wire then the elongated shaft is deflected”.
The most pertinent prior art of the record, Tang (US 20180154114 A1—previously cited), discloses an electrophysiology system which similarly includes an elongated shaft, a control handle having a shuttle and deflection control knob, and a puller wire extending along the shaft and through the shuttle, the puller wire having a stop at the proximal end of the puller wire and being response to translation of the shuttle to deflect the elongated shaft when the proximal end of the shuttle pushes against the stop of the puller wire. However, Tang fails to disclose a deflection sensor or a controller as claimed.
Kirschenman (US 20090248042 A1--previously cited) in the same field of endeavor discloses a device which includes a deflection sensor and a controller; however, the deflection sensor of Kirschenman generates a signal in response to tension or compression of the puller wire itself, rather than in response to compression between the proximal end of the shuttle and the stop of the puller wire when the elongated shaft is deflected (see paragraph 0046-0048 of Kirschenman—sensor 138 may detect a tension response in guide wire 30). Furthermore, even if the sensor of Kirschenman are positioned according to the disclosure as “about” the end of the wire, rather than at the end of the wire, the arrangement of Kirschenman fails to teach or suggest and instead teaches away from the puller wire being longitudinally movable relative to the deflection sensor as the sensor is instead coupled directly to the puller wire (see paragraph 0045 of Kirschenman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/ANNA ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights