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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04 Mar 2026. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, claims 4 and 21-68 have been canceled, and claims 80-93 have been added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-20, and 69-93 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Cited Art Fails to Demonstrate Prima Facie Case of Anticipation
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04 Mar 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn.
No Rationale to Combine or Modify Art
Applicant's arguments filed 04 Mar 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Yi uses two different units for longitudinal motion and rotational motion, respectively, not a single one as the Examiner proposes. The Examiner provides no rationale regarding replacing the two different units of Yi with a single one. There is no suggestion or motivation from the cited art to apply a collet, moreso one that would yield predictable results and result in an improved system” (Remarks, page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Y-connector disclosed by Yi is capable of moving translationally because of its connection with transfer unit 300. Therefore, Yi discloses an on-device adapter (Y-connector) that is configured to move translationally.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained below.
Claim Objections
Claims 72, 80, 89, and 93 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 72: “wherein on-device adapter” in line 6 should read “wherein the on-device adapter”
Claim 80: “as” in line 1 should be omitted
Claim 89: “each plunger collet of” should be omitted
Claim 93: “an” in line 2 should read “a”
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.
Claim 89 is 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.
The term “about” in claim 89 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The angle between each plunger collet is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the word “about” will be omitted from claim 89.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15 ,17-19, 69-77, 79, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt.
Regarding claim 1, Yi teaches an EMD drive system (vascular intervention robot) comprising:
a drive module (catheter driver 110); and
a cassette removably secured to the drive module (transfer unit 300), the cassette configured to removably receive an on-device adapter (Y-connector), the on-device adapter configured to be removably fixed to a shaft of an EMD (Y-connector may be detached from the catheter rotor);
wherein the drive module is operatively coupled to the on-device adapter to move the on-device adapter and the EMD together ([0084]).
Yi fails to teach a collet. Flatt teaches the on-device adapter is configured to move translationally ([0108] the illustrated tool assembly 187 likewise employs the release member and the lock collar 158 of the collet assembly 157 to facilitate movement of the axial connector assembly 92 between the locked state (see FIGS. 22, 24A, and 25A) and the unlocked state (see FIGS. 23, 24C, and 25C). However, in this embodiment, the lock collar 158 is slidably movable relative to the support structure 94) , the on-device adapter is configured to rotate about the longitudinal axis of the on-device adaptor ([0078] It should be appreciated that the lock collar 158 may be rotated relative to the support sleeve 96 of the support structure 94) , and the on-device adapter includes a collet (collet assembly 157). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Flatt because it constitutes use of a known technique to a known device (rationale D). Using a collet is well-known to provide pressure to hold an elongated object whether it is translated or rotated.
Regarding claim 2, Yi further teaches the drive module is configured to move the on-device adapter in translation ([0096]).
Regarding claim 3, Yi further teaches the drive module is configured to move the on-device adapter is moved in rotation about a longitudinal axis of the on-device adapter ([0098]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 3. Flatt further teaches the collet includes a first member configured to move along and/or or about a longitudinal axis of a second member to pinch the EMD (gripping member 166).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 3. Flatt further teaches the on-device adapter includes an engagement portion (engagement members 148) engaged with and driven by a drive member in the cassette to rotate the on-device adapter ([0084]), the engagement portion is arranged on the on-device adapter in a first orientation (engagement members 148) and the drive member is arranged on the cassette in a second orientation. Flatt fails to teach that the first orientation is perpendicular to the second orientation however. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Flatt to make the first orientation different than the second orientation because it constitutes rearrangement of parts and is a simple matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)). Shifting the orientation of the drive member relative to the engagement portion doesn’t affect the functioning of the device as it still achieves the same purpose of driving the elongate instrument forward.
Regarding claim 7, Yi teaches the system of claim 1. Yi further teaches the on-device adapter includes a surface (fixing plate 933) that is supported by a bearing member (mount part 950) in the cassette.
Regarding claim 8, Yi teaches the system of claim 7. Yi further teaches the on-device adapter includes a thrust bearing surface preventing translational movement relative to a portion of the cassette (fig 26a, the plate 970 prevents translational movement).
Regarding claim 10, Yi teaches the system of claim 2. Yi fails to teach the collet. Flatt teaches the on-device adapter includes a quick clamp (lock collar 158) releasably engaging a collet (collet assembly 157) ([0077] collet assembly includes a lock collar). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Flatt because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Flatt teaches that the collet cooperates with the support structure 94 to move the axial connector assembly 92 between locked and unlocked states ([0077]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 10. Flatt further teaches the quick clamp is configured to connect or release the collet ([0083]-[0084] describes how the lock collar can connect and disconnect energy applicator - can be done quickly).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 10. Flatt further teaches the quick clamp is configured to releasably engage the collet ([0083] user grasps the gripping member – no tools are mentioned).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 10. Flatt further teaches the quick clamp includes a lever (engagement members 148) movable from a first engagement members moving in and out of the slots).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 3. Flatt further teaches the EMD is removably received in the collet in an axial direction ([0040] released position implies that it is removeable) and the collet is removably received in the cassette ([0077] collet assembly is moveable relative to support structure).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 3. Flatt further teaches that the EMD is removably received in the collet in an axial direction ([0054] removably attaching the tool).
Regarding claim 18, Yi teaches the system of claim 1. Yi further teaches that the drive module is operatively coupled to a rail or linear member (guide rail 1210). Yi fails to teach an actuator. Flatt teaches the drive module (drive assembly 200) includes an actuator (actuator 250) operatively coupled to a drive coupler ([0098] torque applied to the driven member);
a drive member in the cassette being operatively coupled to the drive coupler ([0098]); and including an actuator that translates the drive module along the rail or linear member ([0101] actuator coupled to drive assembly). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Flatt because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Flatt teaches that using an actuator allows for more precise control and variable rotation and can be "configured in a number of different ways sufficient to facilitate operation of the tool assembly" ([0012]). The combination of Yi and Flatt fails to explicitly teach a second actuator, however duplication of parts to achieve the same purpose is obvious and not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 19, Yi further teaches the EMD is a guidewire ([0013]).
Regarding claim 69, Yi teaches an EMD drive system (vascular intervention robot) comprising:
an on-device adapter removably fixed to a shaft of an EMD (Y-connector may be detached from the catheter rotor);
the on-device adapter received in a cassette (transfer unit 300);
the cassette removably secured to a drive module (catheter driver 110);
and the drive module operatively coupled to the on-device adapter to move the on-device adapter and EMD together ([0084]).
Yi fails to teach that the on-device adaptor includes a collet. Flatt teaches the on-device adaptor includes a collet (collet assembly 157). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Flatt because it constitutes use of a known technique to a known device (rationale D). Using a collet is well-known to provide pressure to hold an elongated object whether it is translated or rotated.
Regarding claim 70, Yi teaches the system of claim 69. Yi further teaches the EMD drive system of claim 69, wherein the on-device adapter is moved in translation ([0096]) , wherein the on-device adapter is moved in rotation about a longitudinal axis of the on-device adapter ([0098]).
Regarding claim 71, Yi teaches the system of claim 69. Yi further teaches that the drive module is operatively coupled to a rail or linear member (guide rail 1210). Yi fails to teach an actuator. Flatt teaches the drive module (drive assembly 200) includes an actuator (actuator 250) operatively coupled to a drive coupler ([0098] torque applied to the driven member); a drive member in the cassette being operatively coupled to the drive coupler ([0098]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Flatt because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Flatt teaches that using an actuator allows for more precise control and variable rotation and can be "configured in a number of different ways sufficient to facilitate operation of the tool assembly" ([0012]). The combination of Yi and Flatt fails to explicitly teach a second actuator, however duplication of parts to achieve the same purpose is obvious and not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 72, Yi teaches an EMD drive system comprising:
a robotic drive comprising a drive module (catheter driver 110), the drive module configured to receive a cassette (transfer unit 300), the cassette configured to receive an on-device adapter (Y-connector) , the on- device adapter configured to be fixed to a shaft of an EMD (Y-connector may be detached from the catheter rotor);
wherein the drive module is operatively coupled to the on-device adapter to move the on-device adapter and EMD ([0084]).
Yi fails to teach that the on-device adaptor includes a collet. Flatt teaches the on-device adaptor includes a collet (collet assembly 157). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Flatt because it constitutes use of a known technique to a known device (rationale D). Using a collet is well-known to provide pressure to hold an elongated object whether it is translated or rotated, so using it to hold and move an elongate medical device is obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 73, Yi teaches the EMD drive system of claim 72, further comprising a linear member, wherein the drive module is moveably coupled to the linear member ([0070]-[0071] the mechanism for moving the drive module described is linear).
Regarding claim 74, Yi teaches the cassette is configured to be coupled to the drive module in a vertical orientation (fig 11 - cassettes are on top of the drive mechanism).
Regarding claim 75, Yi teaches the drive module comprises a coupler to provide a drive interface to a mechanism in the cassette to provide an additional degree of freedom ([0158]-[0161] describes alternative mechanisms by which additional degrees of freedom can be achieved).
Regarding claim 76, Yi teaches the on-device adapter comprises a longitudinal side configured to receive the EMD ([0013], fig 11).
Regarding claim 77, Yi teaches the system of claim 72. Yi fails to teach a collet. Flatt teaches the robotic drive comprises a drive coupler configured to drive the on-device adapter ([0084],[0098] torque applied to the driven member). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Flatt because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Flatt teaches that collet cooperates with the support structure 94 to move the axial connector assembly 92 between locked and unlocked states ([0077]).
Regarding claim 79, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 77. Flatt further teaches the on-device adapter includes a driven member, wherein the drive coupler is configured to drive the driven member of the on-device adapter ([0098]).
Regarding claim 91, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Yi further discloses that the drive system comprises a second drive module (Fig. 10, paragraph [0082], guide wire driver 225).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second drive module, for the purpose of increasing rotational drive power, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 9, 20, 78, and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Blacker (US 20140066900 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Yi fails to teach a Luer connector. Blacker teaches the on-device adapter includes a Luer connector ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Yi and Flatt with Blacker because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Blacker teaches that Luer connectors are known in the art and provide a fluid tight connection between a guide catheter and a hemostasis valve. Luer connectors are covered by standards such as ISO 594 (including sections 594-1 and 594-2) and EN 1707 ([0036]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Yi fails to teach the EMD is a catheter having a hub.
Blacker teaches the EMD is a catheter ([0042]) having a hub at a proximal end of the catheter ([0054] guide catheter hub) and the shaft extending from the hub toward a distal portion of the catheter, wherein the shaft is a flexible shaft ([0054] the guide catheter hub must be stiff enough to accommodate all the connections and the shaft has to be flexible enough to be steered through tortuous pathways in the body – this limitation regarding flexibility must be true for the invention to function as intended).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Blacker because it constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve similar results. Yi already specifies that the elongated medical device is a guidewire and replacing it with a catheter system (that may include a guidewire anyway as is well-known in the art) would be obvious since they both achieve the same purpose of performing minimally invasive surgeries through blood vessels and have a similar form factor to fit in the drive system.
Regarding claim 78, Yi and Flatt teach the system of claim 73. Yi fails to teach an offset bracket. Blacker teaches the drive module is coupled to the linear member via a bracket (bracket 190, 192).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yi with Blacker as there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Blacker teaches that the bracket can provide stability to the longitudinal axis ([0065]).
Regarding claim 93, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 3. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses the on-device adapter includes a bevel gear configured to move the on-device adapter in rotation about the longitudinal axis of the on-device adapter.
However, Blacker teaches a system for the advancement or retraction of a guide catheter (Abstract) wherein the on-device adapter includes a bevel gear configured to move the on-device adapter in rotation about the longitudinal axis of the on-device adapter (Fig. 5, paragraph [0037], "Gear 56 may be integrally formed with rotating luer connector 48 and coupled with a drive gear 58 for rotational movement of the rotating connector"; paragraph [0039], "Gears 56 and 58 may be beveled gears ... Referring to FIG. 1, gear 56 is beveled such that gear teeth 64 extend in a direction toward proximal end 42 and away from distal end 40 of first leg 38").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with the teachings of Blacker so that the on-device adapter includes a bevel gear configured to move the on-device adapter in rotation about the longitudinal axis of the on-device adapter, because doing so allows for controlled rotation in a clockwise and counterclockwise direction (Blacker, paragraph [0062]).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Tavallaei et al. (US 20170304015 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Tavallaei.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 3. Flatt further teaches the collet is removably received and positioned in the cassette ([0077] collet assembly is moveable relative to support structure) and that the EMD is removably received ([0040] released position implies removable).
The combination of Yi and Flatt fails to explicitly teach that the EMD is received in the collet in a radial direction.
Tavallaei teaches the EMD is received in the collet in a radial direction ([0010] radially).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Yi and Flatt with Tavallaei because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Tavallaei teaches that most catheter systems are unable to accept catheters of various sizes ([0006]), therefore allowing radial loading of catheters would solve this issue by accommodating many sizes of catheters.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 3. Flatt further teaches that the EMD is removably received in the collet ([0054] removably attaching the tool).
The combination of Yi and Flatt fails to explicitly teach the collet receives the EMD in a radial direction.
Tavallaei teaches the EMD is received in the collet in a radial direction ([0010] radially).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Yi and Flatt with Tavallaei because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Tavallaei teaches that most catheter systems are unable to accept catheters of various sizes ([0006]), therefore allowing radial loading of catheters would solve this issue by accommodating many sizes of catheters.
The combination of Yi, Flatt, and Tavallaei fails to explicitly teach that the collet is non-removably positioned within the cassette, however it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Yi and Flatt to make the collet non-removeable because it is obvious to try in that it is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The collet can only ever be removable or non-removable so switching the removable embodiment for a non-removable one would be obvious.
Claims 80 and 82-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Shelton et al. (US 20190038283 A1), hereinafter Shelton.
Regarding claim 80, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses that the collet is a double-gear collet drive assembly.
However, Shelton teaches a surgical instrument assembly (Abstract) wherein the collet is a double-gear collet drive assembly (Figs. 54-56, paragraph [0463]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with Shelton so that the collet is a double-gear collet drive assembly, because doing so allows a clinician to remove the surgical instrument from the surgical site (Shelton, paragraph [0388]).
Regarding claim 82, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses that the collet is a double-gear sliding collet.
However, Shelton teaches a surgical instrument assembly (Abstract) wherein the collet is a double-gear sliding collet (Figs. 54-56, paragraph [0463]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with Shelton so that the collet is a double-gear sliding collet, because doing so allows a clinician to remove the surgical instrument from the surgical site (Shelton, paragraph [0388]).
Regarding claim 83, the combination of Yi, Flatt, and Shelton teaches the system of claim 1. Shelton further teaches that the collet includes a reset mechanism (paragraph [0463]).
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Xie et al. (US 20170340374 A1), hereinafter Xie.
Regarding claim 81, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses that the collet is a flexure-activated collet.
However, Xie teaches a wire driver for driving a wire or pin into living tissue (Abstract) wherein the collet is a flexure-activated collet (Figs. 35A-B, paragraphs [0151]-[0152]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with Xie so that the collet is a flexure-activated collet, because doing so reduces the amount of force needed to hold the EDM, even when the diameter of the EDM increases (Xie, paragraph [0153]).
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Nierenberger et al. (US 20180344977 A1), hereinafter Nierenberger.
Regarding claim 84, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses that the drive module includes a flexible bellows collet.
However, Nierenberger teaches a pneumatic device for holding and moving an elongate object (Abstract) wherein the drive module includes a flexible bellows collet (Figs. 17B-C, paragraphs [0134]-[0135], portions 29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with Nierenberger so that the drive module includes a flexible bellows collet, because doing so allows increased radial or axial compliance (Nierenberger, paragraph [0135]).
Claim 85 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Walker (US 20140276389 A1).
Regarding claim 85, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses that the collet is a compression collet.
However, Walker teaches a gripping device (Abstract) wherein the collet is a compression collet (Figs. 5A-B, paragraph [0037], "flexible diameter of the lumen wall 160, 162 may constitute a donut or washer shaped structure abutting each actuator 116, 138 that may bulge upon depression of the actuator 116, 138").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with Walker so that the collet is a compression collet, because doing so allows the balance between grip friction and force exerted on the instrument to be customized to avoid crushing or flattening of the instrument (Walker, paragraph [0038]).
Claims 86-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Dees et al. (US 20090204115 A1), hereinafter Dees.
Regarding claim 86, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses that the collet includes at least one plunger collet.
However, Dees teaches a locking instrument assembly (Abstract) wherein the collet includes at least one plunger collet (Fig. 15, paragraph [0121], plungers 151, 155).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with Dees so that the collet includes at least one plunger collet, because doing so prevents rotation or axial movement of the device (Dees, paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 87, the combination of Yi, Flatt, and Dees teaches the system of claim 86. Dees further teaches that the at least one plunger collet comprises a plurality of plunger collets (Fig. 15, paragraph [0121], plungers 151, 155).
Regarding claim 88, the combination of Yi, Flatt, and Dees teaches the system of claim 87. Dees further teaches that the plurality of plunger collets are oriented axially symmetrically (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 89, the combination of Yi, Flatt, and Dees teaches the system of claim 87. Although Dees does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of plunger collets are oriented about 60 degrees apart from each other, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so, for the purpose of distributing forces exerted by the plungers onto the device evenly, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Kokish et al. (US 20140276939 A1), hereinafter Kokish.
Regarding claim 90, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses that the collet is an opposing pad collet.
However, Kokish teaches drive apparatuses and associated methods for driving an elongated member (Abstract) wherein the collet is an opposing pad collet (Fig. 4, paragraph [0032], opposing pads 444a, 444b and 446a, 446b).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with Kokish so that that the collet is an opposing pad collet, because doing so allows top loading of the elongated member, e.g., a guidewire, thereby increasing the speed with which the guidewire may be loaded into the drive apparatus (Kokish, paragraph [0046]).
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20180168751 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Yi, in view of Flatt et al. (US 20180110572 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Flatt, and further in view of Zirps et al. (US 20130274657 A1), hereinafter Zirps.
Regarding claim 92, the combination of Yi and Flatt teaches the system of claim 1. Neither Yi nor Flatt explicitly discloses that the drive module further comprises a pair of tires.
However, Zirps teaches a drive mechanism for a robotic catheter system (Abstract) wherein the drive module further comprises a pair of tires (Fig. 10, paragraph [0075], drive wheel 410 and roller 418; paragraphs [0111]-[0122]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yi and Flatt with Zirps so that the drive module further comprises a pair of tires, because doing so provides support of the guide wire while still allowing the guide wire to be moved axially by the drive wheel (Zirps, paragraph [0078]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights