DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
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 “body” in line 1 of claim 1, the “hole” of the cap in line 6 of claim 1, “internal hole with tapered and end surfaces” in line 6 of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “30” has been used to designate both retainer lugs in Figs. 1-4 and another feature in Fig. 8. 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. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 includes excessive spaces between “internal” and “hole” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “the end face od” in line 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “smooth cylindrical portion” rather than “a smooth cylindrical portion” in line 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “to fix said halves of the rear portion of the body” in lines 33-34. This phrasing makes it seem as though the projections work to fix something wrong with the invention, rather than fixing the halves together. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recites “said bodyis” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 states “A body of the device suitable for positioning a coronary stent in coronary arteries or pulling a catheter transducer for intravascular ultrasound” in lines 1-2. It is generally unclear what “the device” is and how it is used in cooperation with the claimed “body”. The “device” could relate to various medical tools and instruments and therefore confuses the understanding of the claims. Further clarification is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
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 1-3 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “on one side” in line 6. It is unclear what side of the device body would meet this limitation (e.g., front or back side, left or right side, etc.). Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the threaded cap" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the opposite side” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what side this limitation is referring to. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the front and rear portions” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the front portion” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the opposite side” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites “…the front portion of the body is truncated on one side thereof and continuously extends on the opposite side thereof in the form of a cylindrical portion…” in lines 9-11. It is unclear how the truncation extends continuously and relates to the cylindrical portion, or if they are the same feature. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a smaller diameter” in line 12. It is unclear what thus diameter is in relation to in order to be considered “smaller”. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the guides” in line 13 rather than “the runner guides”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the rear portion” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the circumference” in lines 14, 15, 17, 30-31, 42, 44, and 48. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the end face” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the front portion” in line 18 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the end face” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the rear portion” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the front portion” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the truncated front portion” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the internal side” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said walls” in line 24 rather than “said rounded walls”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the mouth” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the input hole” in lines 25-26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the zone” in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the front portion” in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the front portion” in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the chamfered runner” in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ends thereof” in line 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the opposite directions” in line 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the external surface” in line 40-41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the zone” in line 41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the internal surface of a brace” in line 42. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the form” in line 43. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the internal surface” in line 44. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the internal surface” in line 44. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “longitudinal projections along the circumference of the internal surface to engage the longitudinal projections with having the ends curved in the opposite directions” in lines 44-45. It is unclear which longitudinal projections are being referred to and how their engagement causes the ends to be curved in opposite directions. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the external surface” in line 45-46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the zone” in line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the end face” in line 47. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the projections” in line 48. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the end face” in line 48. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the external surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the opposite direction” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the external surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “smoothly” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what qualifies as “smoothly curved” with regard to the longitudinal projections.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the end face” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the circumference” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the end face” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the circumference” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note Regarding Claims
Although no prior art has been applied in rejection of the claims, allowability cannot be determined at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA GISELLE B RIOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-6:00 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, JERRAH C EDWARDS can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/G.G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774