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
The amendment filed 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 and 59-60 remain pending in the application and claims 20-58 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the drawing objection and the interpretation to the prior art rejection for claim 1, however has not overcome all claim objections, 112(b) rejections, and the interpretation of the prior art rejection with respect to claim 17 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/02/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claim 17. Claim 17 does not recite the specifics of the first interference fit connections, as opposed to claim 1. Therefore, Matlock is still applied to the rejection of claim 17 (see rejection below).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 17, and 59-60 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 17 repeats the term “user user” and is suggested to remove one instance of “user”
Claim 2 lines 3-4 “a thumbwheel axis” is suggested to read “the thumbwheel axis” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 2 line 8 “a first position” is suggested to read “the first position” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 3 line 7 “the first” is suggested to read “the first position” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 3 lines 9-10 “the second augmented grip second position” is suggested to read “the augmented second position” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 3 lines 10-11 “a first position to an augmented second grip position” is suggested to read “the first position to the augmented second position” for better antecedent basis and claim language consistency.
Claim 3 line 15 “the first interference connections” is suggested to read “the first interference fit connections” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 3 line 15 “the second interference connections” is suggested to read “the second interference fit connections” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 5 lines 18-19 “the pair of slotted thumbwheel rotation supports” is suggested to read “the pair thumbwheel slotted rotation supports” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 6 line 5 “the slotted thumbwheel rotation supports” is suggested to read “the thumbwheel slotted rotation supports” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 6 line 7 “the external thumb engagement surface” is suggested to read “the lateral thumb engagement surface” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 9 line 5 “support” is suggested to read “supports” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 10 line 2 is suggested to remove “first” from “a first pair” since there are no multiple pairs being claimed in relation to the pair of adjustable driver rotation supports.
Claim 10 lines 2-3 “a first pair of opposing, parallel slotted driver rotation supports” is suggested to read “a pair of opposing, parallel driver slotted rotation supports” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 10 lines 3, 4, and 5 each recite “the driver slotted rotation supports” and is suggested to read “the slotted driver rotation supports” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 10 lines 8-9 and 9-10 each recite “the driven slotted rotation supports” and is suggested to read “the slotted driven rotation supports ” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 11 lines 2-3, 4, and 5 each recite “the driver slotted rotation supports” and is suggested to read “the slotted driver rotation supports” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 11 lines 3, 4-5, and 5-6 each recite “the driven slotted rotation supports” and is suggested to read “the slotted driven rotation supports ” for better claim language consistency.
Claim 17 lines 6-7 “the distal thumb engagement region” is suggested to read “a distal thumb engagement region” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 17 lines 8-9 “distal thumb engagement region” is suggested to read “the distal thumb engagement region” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 17 line 11 “the distal thumb roll movements” is suggested to read “distal thumb roll movements” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 59 line 2 “the first interference grip connection” is suggested to read “a first interference grip connection” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 59 line 10 “the nip” is suggested to read “a nip” for better antecedent basis.
Claim 60 line 14 “the elongate device” is suggested to read “the elongate medical device” for better claim language consistency.
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 1-16 and 59-60 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 “interference grip connections” in line 26 and is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the second interference fit connections, the first grip force, or the second grip force. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first and second interference fit connections.” Claims 2-16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the interference grip connections” in lines 20-21 and is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the second interference fit connections, the first grip force, or the second grip force. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the drive force" in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if Applicant meant to introduce a drive force, or if this is another force previously introduced such as the grip force. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the grip force.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first interference grip" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the first grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the interference grip" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the second interference fit connections, the first grip force, or the second grip force. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.” For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the greater second interference grip connection" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the greater second interference fit connections, the second grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the greater second interference fit connections.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first interference grip" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the first grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.” Claims 6-9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the greater second interference grip connection" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the greater second interference fit connections, the second grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the greater second interference fit connections.” For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the greater second interference fit connection.” Claims 6-9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first position” and “the second position” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim with respect to the first roller. It is unclear if Applicant meant to introduce another first and second position with respect to the first roller, or if the claim is supposed to mean “the initial position” and “the augmented grip position” as already defined with respect to the first roller. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean the latter.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the pair of adjustable driver rotation supports” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is supposed to mean “the pair of adjustable driven rotation supports” as claimed in claim 4, or if these are another pair of adjustable driver rotation supports needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the pair of adjustable driven rotation supports.” Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the drive roller” in line 4 and is unclear if this is in reference to the first roller or the second roller, or another roller needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the drive roller to mean the second roller. Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the driven slotted pivot supports” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is supposed to mean “the slotted driven rotation supports” as previously introduced, or if this is another element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the slotted driven rotation supports”. Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the drive roller” in line 2 and is unclear if this is in reference to the first roller or the second roller, or another roller needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the drive roller to mean the first roller. Claims 13-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first interference grip" in lines 6 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the first grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.” Claims 13-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first drive roller” in line 7 and is unclear if this is in reference to the first roller, or another roller needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the first drive roller to mean the first roller. Claims 13-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first interference grip connection" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the first grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.” Claims 13-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second interference grip connection" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the greater second interference fit connections, the second grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the greater second interference fit connections.” Claims 13-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the second drive roller” in lines 2-3 and 8 and is unclear if this is in reference to the second roller, or another roller needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the second drive roller to mean the second roller. Claims 14-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first interference grip connection" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the first grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.” Claims 14-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the third compressed state” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is in reference to the third compressed portion, or if this is another configuration needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean the latter. Claims 14-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second interference grip connection" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the greater second interference fit connections, the second grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the greater second interference fit connections.” Claims 14-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the increased second interference grip connection" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the greater second interference fit connections, the second grip force, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the greater second interference fit connections.” Claims 15-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 14.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first interference grip connection" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the first grip, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.” Claims 15-16 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 14.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the first interference grip connections" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the first grip, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.”
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the interference grip connection" in line 7 and is unclear if this is meant to be both interference grip connections, the first interference fit connections, or the greater second interference fit connections. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean the first and second interference grip connections.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "the first interference grip connections" in lines 10-11, 13, and 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to be the first interference fit connections, the first grip, or a new element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “the first interference fit connections.”
Claim 60 recites “second interference connections” in line 12 and is unclear if this is meant to be the second interference grip connections, or another element needing to be introduced. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean the second interference grip connections.
Applicant needs to distinguish between the first interference fit connections, the second interference fit connections, the first grip force, the second grip force, and the respective positions throughout the entirety of the claims so there is consistency and clarity.
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.
Claims 17-18 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matlock et al. (US PGPub 2019/0015646), hereinafter known as “Matlock.”
With regards to claim 17, Matlock discloses (Figures 25-34) a handheld advancer 500 for advancing an elongate medical device 260 using a single hand (paragraph 195), the advancer 500 comprising:
an advancer body 502a/502b defining:
a pathway for the elongate medical device 260 extending between an inlet at a proximal end portion and an exit at an opposite distal end portion (see pathway that 260 travels in figures 32A-32D; paragraph 195);
an upper palm engagement surface having a proximal palm rest and the distal thumb engagement region at an obtuse angle from the palm rest (see annotated figure 33B below); and
a lower finger grip region opposite the upper palm engagement surface and distal thumb engagement region, the upper palm engagement surface and the lower finger grip region configured for enabling single hand grip of the advancer and user control of the advancer 500 through the distal thumb roll movements (paragraphs 206-208; see annotated figure 33B below);
a manual control thumbwheel 510 partially embedded in the advancer body distal end portion within the thumb engagement region, the thumbwheel 510 arranged to receive the distal thumb roll movements to advance the elongate medical device 260 distally and receive an inward application of thumb grip forces for enhancing advancer grip with the elongate medical device 260 (paragraphs 206-208; figures 27 and 34); and
a manual drive 520a/520b attached to the advancer body 502a/502b adapted to form first fit interference connections (figures 32A-32B) with the elongate medical device 260 when the elongate medical device 260 extends through the pathway, the manual drive 520a/520b operatively coupled with the thumbwheel 510 and configured for adjusting the first interference fit connections (figures 32A-32B) into second interference grip connections (figures 32C-32D) greater than the first interference fit connections (figures 32A-32B) and for transmitting the enhanced grip forces applied to the thumbwheel 510 into advancement forces applied to the elongate medical device 260 (paragraphs 206-208).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 18, Matlock discloses a pair of thumbwheel rotation slots (see annotated figure 28 below) rotatably supporting the thumbwheel 510 on the advancer body 502a/502b, the first pair of the thumbwheel rotation slots oriented in a grip direction substantially perpendicular with a thumb (slots are oriented horizontally which is perpendicular to the thumbwheel 510);
a pair of driver rotation slots (see annotated figure 29 below) rotatably supporting a first roller 520a of a nip 520a/520b on the advancer body 502a/502b, the pair of driver rotation slots oriented in a nip-tighten direction substantially perpendicular to the nip (slots are oriented horizontally which is perpendicular to the nip 520a/520b); and
a movement interface between the thumbwheel 510 and the first roller 520a (see drive gap in figure 34 between the thumbwheel 510 and the first roller 520a), the movement interface configured to move an axis 522 of the first roller 520a in the nip-tighten direction toward the nip 520a/520b when the thumbwheel 510 moves in the grip direction inward away from the thumb (paragraphs 206-208);
wherein the grip direction and the nip-tighten direction form an acute angle therebetween (see annotated figure 30C below).
PNG
media_image2.png
488
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
362
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
496
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 59, Matlock discloses wherein:
the manual drive 520a/520b comprises a reverse clutch (combination of the wheel 510 pressed downwardly into the nip 520a/520b) adapted for selectively increasing the first interference grip connections (figure 32B) into the greater second interference grip connections (figure 32C) with the elongate medical device 260 responsive to the thumbwheel 510 receiving an inward user-exerted grip increase movement for avoiding slip conditions and configured to transmit the grip forces and increase the interference grip connections responsive to the user-exerted inward application of grip forces to the thumbwheel 510 (paragraphs 206-208); and
the reverse clutch is configured to apply the inward application of grip forces received in a grip direction from the thumbwheel 510 to the nip 520a/520b at a nip-tighten direction angled away from a grip direction (paragraphs 206-208; see annotated figure 33C above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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.
Claim 60 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Matlock discloses in figures 25-34 a second interference fit connections, however there is no “first interference fit connections” when the user is not pressing down on the thumbwheel to form the contact between the nip and the elongate medical device (figures 32A-32B). Instead, the disclosure specifically states that when the thumbwheel is not being augmented/pressed down, there is no engagement between the nip and the elongate medical device. The interference fit connection where the nip is engaged with the elongate medical device is in figures 32C-32D when the thumbwheel is pressed down so that the rollers are also pressed down.
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 MOHAMMED S ADAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/MOHAMMED S ADAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 01/29/2026
/KATHERINE M SHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771