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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contrary to the applicant’s argument, claim 16 inherits the limitations of claim 15 which is amended. Thus, finality is proper.
Claim Status
Drawing objections have been overcome.
Claims 1-20 are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 12 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: "the catheter tube in first state" should read "the catheter tube in a first state". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 13, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic (US 2019/0110848 A1) in view of Khajepour (US 2007/0113700 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Popovic teaches a device comprising:
a catheter (20, introducer, fig. 3);
a first stent (51, end-effector, fig. 7B, Merriam-Webster defines stent as “a short narrow metal or plastic tube,” the end-effector is short and cylindrical in shape and is interpreted as a stent);
a plurality of flexible links coupled to the first platform (43, rods, fig. 6A, since the rods are small enough to access the body, the rods would have at least some level of flexibility due to their smaller diameter);
a second stent coupled to the plurality of compliant links (31, shaft, fig. 7B, Merriam-Webster defines stent as “a short narrow metal or plastic tube,” the end-effector is short and cylindrical in shape and is interpreted as a stent),
configured to steer one or more of the first platform and the second platform in a plurality of degrees of freedom (¶ [0123]),
Popovic fails to teach a soft joint and a plurality of compliant links. However, Khajepour discloses a robot with manipulators for position devices with six degrees of freedom that teaches a soft joint (42, cables, fig. 4); a plurality of compliant links, each compliant link coupled to at least one of the flexible links (42, cables, fig. 4); and wherein at least one of the first platform or the second platform is coupled to at least one of the catheter or the soft joint (fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the rods of Popovic to include cables as taught by Khajepour in order to reduce the moving inertial and lower the manufacturing cost (¶ [0008], Khajepour).
Regarding claim 5, Popovic further teaches at least a portion of the device is sized to fit into a human heart (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 6, Popovic further teaches a joystick controller (135, controller, fig. 2, ¶ [0098])for controlling the motion of one or more of the first stent and the second stent in six degrees of freedom (¶ [0122).
Regarding claim 8, Popovic teaches a device comprising:
a catheter (20, introducer, fig. 3);
a first platform (51, end-effector, fig. 7B);
a plurality of flexible links coupled to the first platform (43, rods, fig. 6A, since the rods are small enough to access the body, the rods would have at least some level of flexibility due to their smaller diameter);
a second platform coupled to the plurality of compliant links (31, shaft, fig. 7B),
configured to steer one or more of the first platform and the second platform in a plurality of degrees of freedom (¶ [0123]),
Popovic fails to teach a soft joint and a plurality of compliant links. However, Khajepour discloses a robot with manipulators for position devices with six degrees of freedom that teaches a soft joint (42, cables, fig. 4); a plurality of compliant links, each compliant link coupled to at least one of the flexible links (42, cables, fig. 4); and wherein at least one of the first platform or the second platform is coupled to at least one of the catheter or the soft joint (fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the rods of Popovic to include cables as taught by Khajepour in order to reduce the moving inertial and lower the manufacturing cost (¶ [0008], Khajepour).
Regarding claim 13, Popovic further teaches at least a portion of the device is sized to fit into a human heart (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 15, Popovic teaches a method of making a device comprising:
providing a catheter (20, introducer, fig. 3);
providing a first stent (51, end-effector, fig. 7B, Merriam-Webster defines stent as “a short narrow metal or plastic tube,” the end-effector is short and cylindrical in shape and is interpreted as a stent);
providing a plurality of flexible links coupled to the first platform (43, rods, fig. 6A, since the rods are small enough to access the body, the rods would have at least some level of flexibility due to their smaller diameter);
providing a second stent coupled to the plurality of compliant links (31, shaft, fig. 7B, Merriam-Webster defines stent as “a short narrow metal or plastic tube,” the end-effector is short and cylindrical in shape and is interpreted as a stent),
configured to steer one or more of the first platform and the second platform in a plurality of degrees of freedom (¶ [0123]),
Popovic fails to teach providing a soft joint and a plurality of compliant links. However, Khajepour discloses a robot with manipulators for position devices with six degrees of freedom that teaches providing a soft joint (42, cables, fig. 4); providing a plurality of compliant links, each compliant link coupled to at least one of the flexible links (42, cables, fig. 4); and wherein at least one of the first platform or the second platform is coupled to at least one of the catheter or the soft joint (fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the rods of Popovic to include cables as taught by Khajepour in order to reduce the moving inertial and lower the manufacturing cost (¶ [0008], Khajepour).
Regarding claim 19, Popovic further teaches a joystick controller (135, controller, fig. 2, ¶ [0098]) for controlling the motion of one or more of the first stent and the second stent in six degrees of freedom (¶ [0122).
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic in view of Khajepour as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Yeung (US 2011/0098804 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16 Popovic in view of Khajepour fails to teach the flexible links are made from thermoplastic polyurethane. However, Yeung discloses a stent delivery system that includes materials comprising thermoplastic polyurethane (¶ [0061]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use thermoplastic polyurethane, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible links of Popovic and Khajepour to include being made from thermoplastic polyurethane as taught by Yeung due to its moderate strength, low elastic hysteresis and history of use in biomedical applications (¶ [0061], Yeung).
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic in view of Khajepour as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Simaan (US 2010/0331858 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Popovic in view of Khajepour fails to teach the compliant links comprise nitinol. However, Simaan discloses a device for robot-assisted stenting that includes the compliant links comprise nitinol (¶ [0022] and ¶ [0049]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use nitinol, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Popovic and Khajepour to include the compliant links comprise nitinol as taught by Simaan in order to set the preferred shape to be assumed at a given temperature (¶ [0049], Simaan).
Claim(s) 4, 12, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic in view of Khajepour as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Leonard (US 2009/0105642 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, Popovic in view of Khajepour fails to teach a catheter tube where the device is configured to pass through the catheter tube in a first state and expand outside the catheter tube in a second state. However, Leonard discloses a catheter for deliver to the body of a patient that teaches a catheter tube (17, outer sheath member, fig. 1), wherein the device is configured to pass through the catheter tube in first state (Fig. 1, ¶ [0023]) and to expand outside of the catheter tube in a second state (Fig. 2, ¶ [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the introducer of Popovic and Khajepour to include a catheter tube and the device is configured to expand outside of the catheter tube as taught by Leonard in order to in order to re-collapse the frames for repositioning or removal (¶ [0023], Leonard). For clarity the end-effector and shaft of Popovic are replaced with the frames (13, 14, fig. 2) of Leonard in order to adapt to the shape of the patients’ vessel.
Regarding claim 14, Popovic in view of Khajepour fails to teach the first and second platforms comprise a stent. However, Leonard further teaches the first platform and the second platform comprises a stent (13, 14, frames, fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the platforms of Popovic and Khajepour to include a stent as taught by Leonard since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predicable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 7, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic in view of Khajepour as applied to claim 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Amiri (Modelling and control of a SCARA robot using quantitative feedback theory).
Regarding claims 7, 11 and 20, Popovic further teaches providing a controller (130, control network, fig. 2) for controlling the motion of one or more of the first platform and the second platform in six degrees of freedom (¶ [0074] and ¶ [0123]).
Popovic in view of Khajepour fail to teach the controller used quantitative feedback theory. However, Amiri discloses a robot that teaches a controller uses quantitative feedback theory (pg. 919-920). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Popovic and Khajepour to include using quantitative feedback theory as taught by Amiri in order to all the direct design closed-loop robust performance and stability specification (pg. 919, col 2, Amiri).
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 TERESA M DUDDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (571) 272-4746. 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.
/T.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights