DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 10/18/2022.
Claims 1-10 are pending, and have been examined on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claimed components must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
the “turn-back channel” recited in claim 1.
No new matter should be entered.
4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1 & 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 1, line 7, the recitation of “two ends of which respectively extended along” should instead recite --two ends of which respectively extend along-- for grammatical reasons.
b. In claim 8, line 3, the recitation of “one end of the fixing rod provided with the operating handle” should instead recite --the one end of the fixing rod at which the operating handle is arranged-- so as to be consistent with the prior language in independent claim 1 (from which claim 8 depends).
c. In claim 9, lines 2-3, the recitation of “is ranged from 30 degree to 120 degree” should instead recite --ranges from 30 degrees to 120 degrees--.
d. In claim 10, line 2, the recitation of “is ranged from 0.5mm to 1.5 mm” should instead recite --ranges from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
8. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a support body that can swing to any end of the fixing rod” in lines 3-4. The recitation of “can” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention, or, whether it refers to a capability that is a mere possibility that is not required.
Additionally, the recitation of “any end” in the limitation “a support body that can swing to any end of the fixing rod” renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1 also recites that an operating handle is “arranged at one end of the fixing rod” in line 6. It is not clear how the claimed “support body” can swing all the way to the “one end” of the fixing rod where the operating handle is arranged, yet still be utilized within the confines of a uterine cavity. As such, the metes and bounds of “any end” is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
9. Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a traction wire, two ends of which respectively extended along a turn-back channel formed by the guide sliding sleeve at the other end of the fixing rod, and connected to the operating handle and the support body” in lines 7-9. This recitation of renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear how both ends of the traction wire can extend along the turn-back channel, yet still be connected to structures on opposite ends of the fixing rod (i.e., the operating handle (proximally) and the support body (distally)). As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
10. Claims 2-10 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 1) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
11. Claim 2 recites the limitation “on one end of the fixing rod” in lines 3-4. This recitation of renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited “one end” is the same “one end” recited in claim 1 (from which claim 2 depends), or a different end. As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required. NOTE: to avoid confusion, Examiner suggests using clearly-defined labels for the “one end” and “the other end” of the fixing rod through-out the pending claims, such as, e.g., “first end” and “second end,” or, “proximal end” and “distal end.”
12. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the tensioning wire is connected with one of the pair of handle bodies engaged on a corresponding end of the fixing rod” in lines 3-4. The recitation of “corresponding end” renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited “corresponding end” is intended to be the “one end” recited in claim 1 (from which claim 7 depends), or a different end. As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
13. NOTE: Due to the lack of clarity of independent claim 1 (for the reasons set forth above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)) concerning the swinging of the support body, the ends of the fixing rod, and the routing of the traction wire, prior art cannot be applied to these claims at this time. The lack of prior art rejections should not be interpreted as a comment on whether the claims would be allowable once the indefiniteness issues are corrected.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
14. While, as noted above, prior art cannot be applied to the claims at this time, a search was performed, in the interest of compact prosecution, to identify art relevant to the concepts that appear in independent claim 1, as best understood.
15. U.S. 2013/0103032 to Beaven (“Beaven”) is directed to a surgical instrument that includes a single articulating tip to apply energy to tissue within a body. The articulating tip travels in a semi-arc around an insulated hinge in such a way that the tip can articulate up or down less than 90 degrees from a central axis [Abstract].
PNG
media_image1.png
572
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beaven teaches a device comprising a bi-polar articulating tip, and a trigger that controls movement of the articulating tip [¶[0022]]. More particularly, the trigger controls movement of an articulating mechanism connected to the tip to effect mechanical movement of the tip in a desired manner [e.g., upwards or downwards] [¶’s [0023]-[0024]]. Bevan further teaches that the trigger and articulating mechanism can be connected in a variety of different ways to effect mechanical movement of the tip in a desired manner [e.g., ¶[0024]].
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571)272-5617. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bradford C. Blaise/Examiner, Art Unit 3794