DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 11 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-10 and newly added claims 11-20.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
-Examiner recommends replacement of device A and device B with –a first device— and –a second device— to maintain consistency with the claim language.
-The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “according to Claim 1,” in line 2. Examiner recommends deletion of this recitation.
-Claim 1 recites “a first device and second device” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –a first device and a second device—
-Claim 1 recites “an movable” in line 9. Examiner recommends amending to –a movable—
-Claim 11 recites “an movable” in line 7. Examiner recommends amending to –a movable—
-Claim 13 recites “handle s arranged” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –handle is arranged—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-13 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 14-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 4-10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claims 1 and 2 recites “control part I” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to extends into the abdominal cavity through a minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity. According to the specification the control part I includes [Pg. 2, lines 17-18; “the control part I comprises a control handle I and a
connecting rod III.”] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 1 and 3 recites “control part II” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to extends into the abdominal cavity through a minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity. According to the specification the control part I includes [Pg. 5, lines 11-12; “The control part II 9 comprises a control handle II 12 and a connecting rod IV 13.”] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 11 and 12 recites “first controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to extends into the abdominal cavity through a minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity. According to the specification the control part I includes [Pg. 2, lines 17-18; “the control part I comprises a control handle I and a
connecting rod III.”] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 11 and 13 recites “second controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to extends into the abdominal cavity through a minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity. According to the specification the control part I includes [Pg. 5, lines 11-12; “The control part II 9 comprises a control handle II 12 and a connecting rod IV 13.”] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to claims 5-7, the in vivo large organ turnover and fixing device contains an electric joint structure including handles, joint rotation control buttons, electrical connections “connected electrically with the joint part”, electric clamping head and clamping slots, and a clamping control button “electrically connected with the electric clamping head.” The specification does not provide explanation of what these items are, the function of these elements and how these elements are integrated in respect to one another.
The electric joint structure does not include a function or purpose as to the corresponding electrical components. It’s unclear whether the components are used to manipulate the joints of the structure, the movement of the entire structure, or the operation of the clamping heads and clamping slots. Further, the specification does not provide a description of necessary electrical components that would be understood to be essential for an “electric structure” by one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a power source, wiring, circuitry, are not disclosed and therefore, do not provide sufficient written description for the described electric joint structure.
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 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 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 4 recites “a unidirectional anti-slip hook” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by the recitation of a unidirectional anti-slip hook and how this relates to the normal understanding of a hook mechanism. Further clarification should be provided to define exactly what structure is claimed by the recitation of a unidirectional anti-slip hook.
-Claim 4 recites “a hook connecting ring” in line 4. It is unclear what is meant by the recitation of a hook connecting ring since this structural description includes both a hook, a connection mechanism and a ring. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether all of these structures are included within this limitation and whether and how these structures are inter-related.
-Claim 4 recites “the one-way anti-off hook” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 4 recites “an outside to an inside” in line 5. It is unclear what outside and inside this limitation is referring to. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 6 recites “an end” in line 3. It is unclear what structure this end corresponds to. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 6 recites “the inner end of the fourth connecting rod” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 9 recites “the first connector and the first connecting rod are curved at an angle of 150-170 degrees” in lines 2-4. It is unclear from this recitation whether this limitation is referring to the curvature of the combined structure of the recited elements or whether these structures have individual curvatures that fall within the 150–170-degree limitation. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 10 recites “the second connecting head” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “wherein diameters… are less than 5mm in diameter” in lines 2-6. It is unclear from this recitation whether the limitation is citing the fact that all of the recited elements are less than 5mm in diameter, individually or in combination. Further clarification should be provided to identify which elements this diametrical limitation is in reference to.
-Claim 11 recites “a first device and second device” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same as the “first device and second device” originally introduced in claim 1, line 3. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “a first connector, a first connecting rod, a joint part and a first controller” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same as the “first connector, first connecting rod, joint part and a first control part” originally introduced in claim 1, lines 4-5. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “an inner end of the first connecting rod” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same as the “an inner end of the first connecting rod” originally introduced in claim 1, line 6. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “an inner end of the first controller” in line 7. It is unclear whether this is the same as the “an inner end of the first control part” originally introduced in claim 1, line 8-9. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “an moveable end of the joint part” in line 7-8. It is unclear whether this is the same as the “an moveable end of the joint part” originally introduced in claim 1, line 9. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “a second connector, a second connecting rod, and a second controller” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether this is the same as the “second connector, second connecting rod, and a second control part” originally introduced in claim 1, lines 10-11. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “an inner end of the second controller” in line 11. It is unclear whether this is the same as the “an inner end of the second control part” originally introduced in claim 1, lines 13-14. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 12 recites “the first controller” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 13 recites “the second controller” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 14 recites “a unidirectional anti-slip hook” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by the recitation of a unidirectional anti-slip hook and how this relates to the normal understanding of a hook mechanism. Further clarification should be provided to define exactly what structure is claimed by the recitation of a unidirectional anti-slip hook.
-Claim 14 recites “a hook connecting ring” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by the recitation of a hook connecting ring since this structural description includes both a hook, a connection mechanism and a ring. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether all of these structures are included within this limitation and whether and how these structures are inter-related.
-Claim 14 recites “the one-way anti-off hook” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 14 recites “an outside to an inside” in line 4. It is unclear what outside and inside this limitation is referring to. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 16 recites “an end” in line 2. It is unclear what structure this end corresponds to. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 16 recites “the inner end of the fourth connecting rod” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 19 recites “the first connector and the first connecting rod are curved at an angle of 150-170 degrees” in lines 2-3. It is unclear from this recitation whether this limitation is referring to the curvature of the combined structure of the recited elements or whether these structures have individual curvatures that fall within the 150–170-degree limitation. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 20 recites “the second connecting head” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 20 recites “wherein diameters… are less than 5mm in diameter” in lines 2-5. It is unclear from this recitation whether the limitation is citing the fact that all of the recited elements are less than 5mm in diameter, individually or in combination. Further clarification should be provided to identify which elements this diametrical limitation is in reference to.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 11-20 are essentially duplicates of claims 1-10 except for the recitation of first and second controller compared to first and second control part. Since these structures are close in content and appear to cover the same embodiment with no indication in the specification as to the differences between these structures, these claims are found to be duplicates of one another and therefore fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Radl (U.S. 11246580) in view of Lau (U.S. 20050010197).
Regarding Claim 1, Radl teaches an in vivo large organ turnover and fixing device applied in minimally invasive surgery according to Claim 1 [Col 10, lines 9-18; “the device 20 is configured to be collapsed …opened so that the patient's liver 8 can be disposed on a portion of it for lifting or otherwise retracting to provide access to some other anatomical structure, …cavity.”], wherein the in vivo large organ turnover and fixing device comprises a first device and second device which can be connected detachably [Fig. 1, elements 22 (first device) and 24 (second device)] and [Fig. 6 and 7, elements 38, 40, 38A, 38B, and 42] and [Col 7, lines 29-30; “The first and second sections are secured together at a first pivotable joint.”], the first device comprises a first connector, a first connecting rod, a joint part and a first control part [Fig. 1, elements 28B (first connector), 28 (first connecting rod), 44 (first joint part), 32 (first control part)], the first connector is fixedly connected with an inner end of the first connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 28B, 28], the first control part is configured to extend into an abdominal cavity through a minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity [Col 14, lines 26-27; “Thus the device 20 can be passed through the passageway of a conventional trocar.”], the joint part is fixedly connected to an inner end of the first control part [Fig. 1, element 28A]. In this embodiment, the joint part, 44, is connected to the inner end of 32 via elongated portion 28 (also embodied as first connecting rod), and an movable end of the joint part is connected with the first connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 44 (joint part) and 28 (first connecting rod)].; the second device comprises a second connector, a second connecting rod and a second control part [Fig. 1, elements 40 (second connector), 24A (second connecting rod), 24B (second control part)], the second control part is configured to extend into the abdominal cavity through the minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity [Col 10, lines 9-11; “the device 20 is configured to be collapsed and linearized so that it can be readily introduced through a conventional trocar 2 (FIG. 8).”], the second connecting rod is connected with an inner end of the second control part, and the second connector is fixedly connected with the second connecting rod and configured to detachably hook with the first connector in the abdominal cavity [Fig. 1, element 6, specifically, elements 24A (second connecting rod), 24B (second control part, 28B (second connector)] and [Fig. 6]—showing parts 24B and 24A, and 28B configured and arranged to detach by means of a screw spring engagement mechanism that includes curvature that hook and interface the recited components, wherein surfaces of the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod have curvatures [Fig. 6, elements 28B (curvature of first connecting rod) and 36A, 34, and 24D (curvature and contours of fitting mechanisms)],
Radl is silent on and wherein the surfaces are configured to closely conform to an organ, allowing the organ to rotate or move. Lau teaches and wherein the surfaces are configured to closely conform to an organ, allowing the organ to rotate or move [Fig. 12D]—where first connecting rod is interpreted as element 25, second connect rod as element 20, and the surfaces of each connecting rod as elements 25z and 25p, [0182]—containing description of these components conforming with a heart and [0188]—referencing suction member being configured to suspend and allow for rotation and translation of any organ it is attached to.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include surface features of the various components that conform with shapes of the organ to allow for movement of an organ as taught by Lau to form a support surface as suggested by Radl, as Radl discusses the components of the device designed to form a support surface to be disposed under the liver to lift the liver during operation [Col 5, lines 57-62] with Lau because Lau teaches these surfaces providing an effective seal during suction and vacuum between the device and the organ [0149].
Regarding Claim 2, Radl further teaches wherein the first control part comprises a first control handle and a third connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 32 (first control part ), 32A (first control handle), 30 (third connecting rod)], the third connecting rod is configured to extend into the abdominal cavity through the minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity and is fixedly connected with the joint part, and the first control handle is arranged on an outer end of the third connecting rod [Col 10, lines 9-11] and [Fig. 1, element 30]. In this embodiment, the joint part, 44, is fixedly connected with 30, third connecting rod, via elongated portion 28 (also embodied as first connecting rod).
Regarding Claim 3, Radl further teaches wherein the second control part comprises a second control handle, a fourth connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 24B (second control part), 34 (second control handle), 24C (fourth connecting rod)], the fourth connecting rod is configured to pass through the minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity [Col 10, lines 9-11] and is clamped with the second connecting rod, and the second control handle is arranged on an outer end of the fourth connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 24A (second connecting rod), 34 (second control handle), 24C (fourth connecting rod)]—where the outer end of the fourth connecting rod is best shown in circular section (6) represented by the interface between elements 24C and 34.
Regarding Claim 11, Radl teaches wherein the in vivo large organ turnover and fixing device [Col 10, lines 9-18; “the device 20 is configured to be collapsed …opened so that the patient's liver 8 can be disposed on a portion of it for lifting or otherwise retracting to provide access to some other anatomical structure, …cavity.”] comprises a first device and second device which can be connected detachably [Fig. 1, elements 22 (first device) and 24 (second device)] and [Fig. 6 and 7, elements 38, 40, 38A, 38B, and 42] and [Col 7, lines 29-30; “The first and second sections are secured together at a first pivotable joint.”], the first device comprises a first connector, a first connecting rod, a joint part and a first controller [Fig. 1, elements 28B (first connector), 28 (first connecting rod), 44 (first joint part), 32 (first controller)], the first connector is fixedly connected with an inner end of the first connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 28B, 28], the first controller is configured to extend into an abdominal cavity through a minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity [Col 14, lines 26-27; “Thus the device 20 can be passed through the passageway of a conventional trocar.”], the joint part is fixedly connected to an inner end of the first controller [Fig. 1, element 28A] In this embodiment, the joint part, 44, is connected to the inner end of 32 via elongated portion 28 (also embodied as first connecting rod), and an movable end of the joint part is connected with the first connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 44 (joint part) and 28 (first connecting rod)]; the second device comprises a second connector, a second connecting rod and a second controller [Fig. 1, elements 40 (second connector), 24A (second connecting rod), 24B (second controller)], the second controller is configured to extend into the abdominal cavity through the minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity [Col 10, lines 9-11; “the device 20 is configured to be collapsed and linearized so that it can be readily introduced through a conventional trocar 2 (FIG. 8).”], the second connecting rod is connected with an inner end of the second controller, and the second connector is fixedly connected with the second connecting rod and configured to detachably hook with the first connector while in the abdominal cavity [Fig. 1, element 6, specifically, elements 24A (second connecting rod), 24B (second controller), 28B (second connector)] and [Fig. 6]—showing parts 24B and 24A, and 28B configured and arranged to detach by means of a screw spring engagement mechanism that includes curvature that hook and interface the recited components, wherein surfaces of the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod have curvatures [Fig. 6, elements 28B (curvature of first connecting rod) and 36A, 34, and 24D (curvature and contours of fitting mechanisms)], Radl is silent on and wherein the surfaces are configured to closely conform to an organ, allowing the organ to rotate or move. Lau teaches and wherein the surfaces are configured to closely conform to an organ, allowing the organ to rotate or move [Fig. 12D]—where first connecting rod is interpreted as element 25, second connect rod as element 20, and the surfaces of each connecting rod as elements 25z and 25p, [0182]—containing description of these components conforming with a heart and [0188]—referencing suction member being configured to suspend and allow for rotation and translation of any organ it is attached to.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include surface features of the various components that conform with shapes of the organ to allow for movement of an organ as taught by Lau to form a support surface as suggested by Radl, as Radl discusses the components of the device designed to form a support surface to be disposed under the liver to lift the liver during operation [Col 5, lines 57-62] with Lau because Lau teaches these surfaces providing an effective seal during suction and vacuum between the device and the organ [0149].
Regarding Claim 12, Radl further teaches wherein the first controller comprises a first control handle and a third connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 32 (first controller), 32A (first control handle), 30 (third connecting rod)], the third connecting rod is configured to extend into the abdominal cavity through the minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity and is fixedly connected with the joint part, and the first control handle is arranged on an outer end of the third connecting rod [Col 10, lines 9-11] and [Fig. 1, element 30]. In this embodiment, the joint part, 44, is fixedly connected with 30, third connecting rod, via elongated portion 28 (also embodied as first connecting rod).
Regarding Claim 13, Radl further teaches wherein the second controller comprises a second control handle, a fourth connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 24B (second controller), 34 (second control handle), 24C (fourth connecting rod)], the fourth connecting rod is configured to pass through the minimally invasive hole on the abdominal cavity [Col 10, lines 9-11] and is clamped with the second connecting rod, and the second control handle is arranged on an outer end of the fourth connecting rod [Fig. 1, elements 24A (second connecting rod), 34 (second control handle), 24C (fourth connecting rod)]—where the outer end of the fourth connecting rod is best shown in circular section (6) represented by the interface between elements 24C and 34.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Radl (U.S. 11246580) in view of Lau (U.S. 20050010197) and in further view of Scott (U.S. 11224416).
Regarding Claim 4, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein the first connector is provided with a unidirectional anti-slip hook, the second connector is provided with a hook connecting ring, and the one-way anti-off hook is unidirectionally open from an outside to an inside. Scott teaches wherein the first connector is provided with a unidirectional anti-slip hook, the second connector is provided with a hook connecting ring, and the one-way anti-off hook is unidirectionally open from an outside to an inside [Col 20, lines 62-65] In this embodiment, the hook is interpreted to be unidirectionally open from the outside to the inside in reference to Fig. 56A, element 518. Due to the indefinite nature of the recitations: unidirectional anti-slip hook, hook connecting ring and one-way anti-off hook; these terms are broadly interpreted to include any hook-like structure connecting various device structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hook structures connecting various aspects of the device as taught by Scott to allow for disconnection and detachability as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses the use of a hook structure [Fig. 1, element 30] and an O-ring [Fig. 11, element 130] within an exemplary intra-abdominal liver retraction device, and Lau which discloses retention hooks and O-rings [0194 and 0208] with Scott because Scott teaches the use of various tissue connector mechanisms to allow for manually manipulation of the device within the body and removal from the body tissue without leaving significant damage [Col 2, lines 36-40].
Regarding Claim 14, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein the first connector is provided with a unidirectional anti-slip hook, the second connector is provided with a hook connecting ring, and the one-way anti-off hook is unidirectionally open from an outside to an inside. Scott teaches wherein the first connector is provided with a unidirectional anti-slip hook, the second connector is provided with a hook connecting ring, and the one-way anti-off hook is unidirectionally open from an outside to an inside [Col 20, lines 62-65] In this embodiment, the hook is interpreted to be unidirectionally open from the outside to the inside in reference to Fig. 56A, element 518. Due to the indefinite nature of the recitations: unidirectional anti-slip hook, hook connecting ring and one-way anti-off hook; these terms are broadly interpreted to include any hook-like structure connecting various device structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hook structures connecting various aspects of the device as taught by Scott to allow for disconnection and detachability as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses the use of a hook structure [Fig. 1, element 30] and an O-ring [Fig. 11, element 130] within an exemplary intra-abdominal liver retraction device, and Lau which discloses retention hooks and O-rings [0194 and 0208] with Scott because Scott teaches the use of various tissue connector mechanisms to allow for manually manipulation of the device within the body and removal from the body tissue without leaving significant damage [Col 2, lines 36-40].
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Radl (U.S. 11246580) in view of Lau (U.S. 20050010197) and in further view of Deodhar (WO 2015044865).
Regarding Claim 5, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein the joint part is an electric joint structure, and the first control handle is provided with a joint rotation control button, which is connected electrically with the joint part. Deodhar teaches wherein the joint part is an electric joint structure [115; “In yet other embodiments, this wheel or bobbin may be motorized such that the control link can be wound up or released using electronic controls and a power source such as electrical power or pneumatic power.”], and the first control handle is provided with a joint rotation control button [24; “In yet another embodiment, such an applicator housing may contain motorized components …controlled electronically from a console.”] and [121; “By implementing a push-button 'click ball-pen' like mechanism to actuate the grasper, …actuate the push button, and hence may be used to manipulate the endo-clamp.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electronic components and buttons as taught by Deodhar to automate and control the device as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses organ susceptibility to damage during these procedures [Col 1, lines 33-37] and Lau which discloses manipulating and maintaining organs in desired positions [0202] with Deodhar because Deodhar teaches ease of insertion and removal of the applicator in a safe and convenient manner [24].
Regarding Claim 6, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein a clamping slot is arranged at an end where the second connecting rod is away from the second connector, and an electric clamping head is fixedly arranged on the inner end of the fourth connecting rod and is clamped with the clamping slot. Deodhar teaches wherein a clamping slot is arranged at an end where the second connecting rod is away from the second connector [Fig. 39 and 40, elements 134 (clamping slot), 131/132 (second connecting rod), 133 (second connector)], and an electric clamping head is fixedly arranged on the inner end of the fourth connecting rod and is clamped with the clamping slot [Fig. 39 and 40, elements 136 (electric clamping head), 139 (connecting rod IV), 134 (clamping slot).] In this embodiment the electric clamping head is shown by element 136 and is arranged on the inner end of 139, interpreted as the inner portion of 139, and is clamped interpreted as directly connected to 134 and [24; “In yet another embodiment, such an applicator housing may contain motorized components for motion of the applicator as well as the control link, such that these motions may be controlled electronically from a console.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a clamping slot and electric clamping head as taught by Deodhar to provide clamping and attachment mechanisms as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses mimicking conventional surgical clamps to secure the device to patient anatomy [Col 13, lines 20-26] and Lau which discloses clamping, bolting and attaching sections of the device together [0207] with Deodhar because Deodhar teaches using clamping techniques to ensure atraumatic organ retraction [6].
Regarding Claim 7, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein a clamping control button is arranged on the second control handle and is electrically connected with the electric clamping head. Deodhar teaches wherein a clamping control button is arranged on the second control handle and is electrically connected with the electric clamping head [Fig. 39 and 40, elements 135 (clamping control button), 139 (second control handle), 136 (electric clamping head).] and [24; “In yet another embodiment, such an applicator housing may contain motorized components for motion of the applicator as well as the control link, such that these motions may be controlled electronically from a console.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a clamping control mechanisms, buttons and electric control means of these elements as taught by Deodhar to provide clamping and attachment control mechanisms as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses ensuring clamps are locked in place to hold the liver in the original elevated position [Col 19, lines 37-40] and Lau which discloses designing certain clamp support mechanisms to prevent certain free motions [0207] with Deodhar because Deodhar teaches using clamping techniques to ensure atraumatic organ retraction [6].
Regarding Claim 15, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein the joint part is an electric joint structure, and the first control handle is provided with a joint rotation control button, which is connected electrically with the joint part. Deodhar teaches wherein the joint part is an electric joint structure [115; “In yet other embodiments, this wheel or bobbin may be motorized such that the control link can be wound up or released using electronic controls and a power source such as electrical power or pneumatic power.”], and the first control handle is provided with a joint rotation control button, which is connected electrically with the joint part [24; “In yet another embodiment, such an applicator housing may contain motorized components …controlled electronically from a console.”] and [121; “By implementing a push-button 'click ball-pen' like mechanism to actuate the grasper, …actuate the push button, and hence may be used to manipulate the endo-clamp.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electronic components and buttons as taught by Deodhar to automate and control the device as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses organ susceptibility to damage during these procedures [Col 1, lines 33-37] and Lau which discloses manipulating and maintaining organs in desired positions [0202] with Deodhar because Deodhar teaches ease of insertion and removal of the applicator in a safe and convenient manner [24].
Regarding Claim 16, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein a clamping slot is arranged at an end where the second connecting rod is away from the second connector, and an electric clamping head is fixedly arranged on the inner end of the fourth connecting rod and is clamped with the clamping slot. Deodhar teaches wherein a clamping slot is arranged at an end where the second connecting rod is away from the second connector [Fig. 39 and 40, elements 134 (clamping slot), 131/132 (second connecting rod), 133 (second connector)], and an electric clamping head is fixedly arranged on the inner end of the fourth connecting rod and is clamped with the clamping slot [Fig. 39 and 40, elements 136 (electric clamping head), 139 (connecting rod IV), 134 (clamping slot).] In this embodiment the electric clamping head is shown by element 136 and is arranged on the inner end of 139, interpreted as the inner portion of 139, and is clamped interpreted as directly connected to 134 and [24; “In yet another embodiment, such an applicator housing may contain motorized components for motion of the applicator as well as the control link, such that these motions may be controlled electronically from a console.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a clamping slot and electric clamping head as taught by Deodhar to provide clamping and attachment mechanisms as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses mimicking conventional surgical clamps to secure the device to patient anatomy [Col 13, lines 20-26] and Lau which discloses clamping, bolting and attaching sections of the device together [0207] with Deodhar because Deodhar teaches using clamping techniques to ensure atraumatic organ retraction [6].
Regarding Claim 17, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein a clamping control button is arranged on the second control handle and is electrically connected with the electric clamping head. Deodhar teaches wherein a clamping control button is arranged on the second control handle and is electrically connected with the electric clamping head [Fig. 39 and 40, elements 135 (clamping control button), 139 (second control handle), 136 (electric clamping head).] and [24; “In yet another embodiment, such an applicator housing may contain motorized components for motion of the applicator as well as the control link, such that these motions may be controlled electronically from a console.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a clamping control mechanisms, buttons and electric control means of these elements as taught by Deodhar to provide clamping and attachment control mechanisms as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses ensuring clamps are locked in place to hold the liver in the original elevated position [Col 19, lines 37-40] and Lau which discloses designing certain clamp support mechanisms to prevent certain free motions [0207] with Deodhar because Deodhar teaches using clamping techniques to ensure atraumatic organ retraction [6].
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Radl (U.S. 11246580) in view of Lau (U.S. 20050010197) and in further view of Livne (WO 2013144959).
Regarding Claim 8, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod are medical silicone rods, and the first connecting rod is 3-5cm long. Livne teaches wherein the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod are medical silicone rods [Pg. 14, lines 14-18]—reference to silicone material that makes up each strut structure, and the first connecting rod is 3-5cm long [Pg. 31, lines 17-19; “The device with 3 cm fingers was more effective in penetrating the intestine (top down).”] In the disclosed embodiment the fingers are interpreted as the first connecting rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include use medical silicone material and include the dimensions of 3 cm for the connecting rod structures as taught by Livne to provide connection means as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses which discusses the use of a 12mm trocar and design considerations for the device to fit within and be introduced through a conventional trocar size [Col 14, lines 44-50] and Lau which discloses conventional technologies demonstrating the use of silicone rubber for the suction cup with Livne because Livne teaches introducing the prototypes through a 10mm trocar as was similarly discussed in Radl [Pg. 30, lines 27-28].
Regarding Claim 18, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod are medical silicone rods, and the first connecting rod is 3-5cm long. Livne teaches wherein the first connecting rod and the second connecting rod are medical silicone rods [Pg. 14, lines 14-18]—reference to silicone material that makes up each strut structure, and the first connecting rod is 3-5cm long [Pg. 31, lines 17-19; “The device with 3 cm fingers was more effective in penetrating the intestine (top down).”] In the disclosed embodiment the fingers are interpreted as the first connecting rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include use medical silicone material and include the dimensions of 3 cm for the connecting rod structures as taught by Livne to provide connection means as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses which discusses the use of a 12mm trocar and design considerations for the device to fit within and be introduced through a conventional trocar size [Col 14, lines 44-50] and Lau which discloses conventional technologies demonstrating the use of silicone rubber for the suction cup with Livne because Livne teaches introducing the prototypes through a 10mm trocar as was similarly discussed in Radl [Pg. 30, lines 27-28].
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Radl (U.S. 11246580) in view of Lau (U.S. 20050010197) and in further view of Chapman (U.S. 20110112357).
Regarding Claim 9, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein the first connector and the first connecting rod are curved at an angle of 150-170 degrees. Chapman teaches wherein the first connector and the first connecting rod are curved at an angle of 150-170 degrees [0036; The angle between tangents at the ends of the curved shaft is in the range from 120 to 150 degrees. The bend has an angle in the range from 120 to 150 degrees.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the components of the device at the range of 120 to 150 degrees as taught by Chapman to create an overall shape of the device as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses sections of the device being approximately 60 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the elongated sections of the device [Col 10, lines 44-50] and Lau which discloses an angle of a wedge defining the swing associated with the device to allow for rotation of the suction member [0208] with Chapman because Chapman teaches the advantage of having adjustability of the structure to accommodate different positions [0102].
Regarding Claim 19, Radl and Lau are silent on wherein the first connector and the first connecting rod are curved at an angle of 150-170 degrees. Chapman teaches wherein the first connector and the first connecting rod are curved at an angle of 150-170 degrees [0036; The angle between tangents at the ends of the curved shaft is in the range from 120 to 150 degrees. The bend has an angle in the range from 120 to 150 degrees.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the components of the device at the range of 120 to 150 degrees as taught by Chapman to create an overall shape of the device as suggested by Radl and Lau, as Radl discusses sections of the device being approximately 60 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the elongated sections of the device [Col 10, lines 44-50] and Lau which discloses an angle of a wedge defining the swing associated with the device to allow for rotation of the suction member [0208] with Chapman because Chapman teaches the advantage of having adjustability of the structure to accommodate different positions [0102].
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Radl (U.S. 11246580) in view of Lau (U.S. 20050010197) and in further view of Scott (U.S. 11224416) and in even further view of Deodhar (WO 2015044865).
Regarding Claim 10, Radl, Lau and Scott are silent on wherein diameters of the first connector, the first connecting rod, the joint part, the second connecting head, the second connecting rod, the third connecting rod, the fourth connecting rod, the one-way anti-off hook and the hook connecting ring are less than 5mm. Deodhar teaches wherein diameters of the first connector, the first connecting rod, the joint part, the second connecting head, the second connecting rod, the third connecting rod, the fourth connecting rod, the one-way anti-off hook and the hook connecting ring are less than 5mm [70; “It may be noted that in this entire procedure, extremely thin punctures are sufficient, just enough to let the applicator and suture pass. This may typically be less than 0.75 mm, although other dimensions are also possible.”]—if the applicator is small enough to pass through the puncture, then it can be understood that the entire device and all components are smaller than 0.75 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select these dimensions for the device at the as taught by Deodhar to allow for the device to be inserted into the body of the patient as suggested by Radl, Lau and Scott, as Radl discusses introducing the device through 12 mm trocar [Col 14, lines 45-50] and Lau which discloses inserting the device through a sub-xyphoid incision [0209] and Scott which discusses introducing the device though incision or cannula with Deodhar because Deodhar teaches the use of small incisions in laparoscopic surgery [2].
Regarding Claim 20, Radl, Lau and Scott are silent on wherein diameters of the first connector, the first connecting rod, the joint part, the second connecting head, the second connecting rod, the third connecting rod, the fourth connecting rod, the one-way anti-off hook and the hook connecting ring are less than 5mm. Deodhar teaches wherein diameters of the first connector, the first connecting rod, the joint part, the second connecting head, the second connecting rod, the third connecting rod, the fourth connecting rod, the one-way anti-off hook and the hook connecting ring are less than 5mm [70; “It may be noted that in this entire procedure, extremely thin punctures are sufficient, just enough to let the applicator and suture pass. This may typically be less than 0.75 mm, although other dimensions are also possible.”]—if the applicator is small enough to pass through the puncture, then it can be understood that the entire device and all components are smaller than 0.75 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select these dimensions for the device at the as taught by Deodhar to allow for the device to be inserted into the body of the patient as suggested by Radl, Lau and Scott, as Radl discusses introducing the device through 12 mm trocar [Col 14, lines 45-50] and Lau which discloses inserting the device through a sub-xyphoid incision [0209] and Scott which discusses introducing the device though incision or cannula with Deodhar because Deodhar teaches the use of small incisions in laparoscopic surgery [2].
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 with respect to the drawing specification and abstract objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. An additional amendment is recommended for the abstract.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered however new objections are presented in light of the amendments for claims 1, 11, 13.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
rejections have been fully considered and but are not persuasive. It is not obvious what is meant by an electric joint structure in terms of the limitations set forth by the claim. When referencing the specification in search of further information on this electronic joint structure, limited information is available. While the applicant mentions power source, wiring, circuitry in the arguments, these elements are not found within the specification to support the limitations requiring electric joint structures, therefore the 112(a) rejection is maintained. Additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are also presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 September 2025 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C.102 have been fully considered and are persuasive,
however, new rejections are presented under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of the amendments for claims 1-10 and newly added claims 11-20. While the applicant traverses the rejection regarding “the second connector is…configured to detachably hook with the first connector in the abdominal cavity” for claim 1, the examiner maintains the rejection and included additional reference to Fig. 6 in support of the original rejection and in relation to applicant arguments.
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791