DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 04/28/2023, No Claims have been cancelled, and Claims 1-18 are pending.
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:
A first transmission mechanism in claim 6. The examiner notes that sufficient structure is recited in Claims 7-9 to obviate a 112f interpretation of Claims 7-9).
A limit mechanism in claim 10. The examiner notes that sufficient structure is recited in Claim 11 to obviate a 112f interpretation of Claim 11.
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 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 15 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.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitation “wherein the tubular component is a flexible hose”, renders the claim indefinite because the claim appears to be further defining the tubular component of Claim 1, however the tubular component is only functionally recited in Claim 1 and thus is not being treated as a material part of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 15 is indefinite because it appears Applicant is further defining a non-positively recited element and it is unclear whether Applicant is attempting to positively recite the tubular component as a material part in the claims or whether Applicant is attempting to further define a functional part of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhat (US PGPub 2012/0232476).
Regarding Claim 1, teaches a feeding device for tubular component, comprising:
a first driver (21) and a first wheel set (1) driven by the first driver (21; Figures 1-2; Paragraph 0030-0031); and
a second driver (21) and a second wheel set (3) driven by the second driver (21; Figures 1-2; Paragraph 0030-0031);
wherein, the tubular component (5) can be clamped between the first wheel set (1) and the second wheel set (3) (Paragraph 0030), and be driven to move under the friction action of the first wheel set (1) and the second wheel set (3) (the Examiner notes that tubular component 5 is not positively recited in the claims and thus the claim language is only positively reciting the feeding device for the tubular component, and not positively reciting the tubular component itself);
the first wheel set (1) has a plurality of first driving wheels (7), travelling directions of which are parallel to each other (the wheels (7) travel parallel along tubular portion (5)), and form an angle (as evidenced by wheel rotation axis 44; Figure 1) with an extension direction (z direction; Figure 1) of a clamped portion of the tubular component (5; Figure 1), the angle being an acute angle (see Paragraph 0033 in which this angle is less than 90 degrees for the purpose of best gripping the tubular object 5);
the second wheel set (3) has a plurality of second driving wheels (7), travelling directions of which are parallel to each other (the wheels (7) travel parallel along tubular portion (5)).
Regarding Claim 2, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 1, wherein the angle is in a range of 15° to 75° (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 3, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 1, wherein the first driving wheels (1, 7) are arranged at equal intervals in the extension direction (z) of the clamped portion of the tubular component (5) (Paragraph 0030; Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 1, wherein the first driving wheels (1,7) and the second driving wheels (2,7) are equal in the number (the examiner notes that Bhat discloses drive wheels 1 and 3 in the same manner and thus can be inferred that they are identical. There is no disclosure that one wheel has a different number of rollers than the other wheel and thus the amount of rollers in both the first and second wheel are deemed to be equal in number).
Regarding Claim 5, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 1, wherein:
the first driving wheels (7) in the first wheel (1) set synchronously rotate at the same first speed, and the second driving wheels (7) in the second wheel set (3) synchronously rotate at the same second speed, wherein the first speed is equal to the second speed (Paragraph 0031-0032);
an axle direction (40) of the first driving wheels (1) is consistent (in the examiner’s position, parallel) with an axle direction (42) of the second driving wheels (3) (Figure 1; Paragraph 0030-0032);
a rotation direction (R1) of the first driving wheels (1; Figure 1) is the same as or opposite to a rotation direction (R2) of the second driving wheels (3; Figure 1; Paragraph 0030-0032).
Regarding Claim 10, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 1, further comprising a limit mechanism (concave smooth surface of rollers 7 which form the outer drive face (58); see Paragraph 0030), which is arranged in pairs on both sides of the tubular component (the concave smooth surfaces of the rollers are arranged on both sides of tubular component 5; see Figures 1-2) so as to restrict the tubular component (5) between the first wheel set (1) and the second wheel set (3) (Paragraph 0030).
Regarding Claim 11, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 10, wherein the limit mechanism comprises:
several pairs of guide wheels arranged at intervals in the extension direction of the clamped portion of the tubular component; or,
several pairs of rolling balls protruding toward the clamped portion of the tubular component; or,
several pairs of smooth faces protruding toward the clamped portion of the tubular component (see Paragraph 0030 in which the concavely vaulted surfaces protrude at its ends to center the tubular component in the medial section).
Regarding Claim 13, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first bracket (50/52) in which the first wheel set (1) is disposed (Figure 1);
a second bracket (50/52) in which the second wheel set (3) is disposed (Figure 1); and,
a guide bar on which the first bracket and the second bracket are both arranged (drive control device 60; Paragraph 0034), the second bracket (of 2) being movable in a direction toward or away from the first bracket (1) along the guide bar, so as to clamp the tubular component between the first wheel set and the second wheel set (Paragraph 0034 discloses a drive wheel control device to bring the wheels from a first position in which the wheels grasp the tubular component to a second position in which the wheels are separated such that the tubular component can be removed from the wheels).
Regarding Claim 15, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 1, wherein the tubular component (5) is a flexible hose (Paragraph 0034 discloses a catheter and the examiner notes that the tubular component is not positively recited in the claims. The examiner notes that the feeding device of Bhat would be able to actuate a flexible or rigid hose along the wheels).
Regarding Claim 16, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 1, further comprising a sensing module (tracking means), which is arranged next to the tubular component (5), and sends the monitored motion state information of the clamped portion of the tubular component to an external host computer (Paragraph 0037).
Regarding Claim 17, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 16, wherein the motion state information includes insertion depth, rotation angles, translation velocity or rotation velocity (Paragraph 0037).
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) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US PGPub 2012/0232476) as applied to claims 5 and 10 above, and further in view of Lewis (US PGPub 2014/0277333).
Regarding Claim 6, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 5, wherein the first driver (1) comprises a first driving motor (21; Paragraph 0031), each of the first driving wheels (7) being drivingly connected with the first driving motor (21; Figure 31) but fails to explicitly disclose a first transmission mechanism coupled to the first driving motor, each of the first driving wheels being drivingly connected with the first driving motor via the first transmission mechanism, so as to be driven by the first driving motor.
Lewis teaches a feeding device (300; Figure 27) for a tubular component (50) comprising a motor (390; Figure 27; Paragraph 0185), the first driving wheels (314; Figures 27-28) being drivingly connected with the first driving motor (390), a first transmission mechanism (Figure 27-28; Paragraph 0185-0186; Figures39, 40, 42-46) coupled to the first driving motor (390), each of the first driving wheels (314) being drivingly connected with the first driving motor 390) via the first transmission mechanism (Paragraph 0186), so as to be driven by the first driving motor (390).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Bhat to include a transmission mechanism between the motor and the first driver, in order to use the mechanical advantage of transmissions to deliver the power from the motor in a controlled manner to each of the drivers.
Regarding Claim 12, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 10, further comprising a housing, but fails to disclose which comprises:
a support platform arranged between the first wheel set and the second wheel set , the limit mechanism at one side being located on the support platform; and
a movable platform on which the limit mechanism at the other side is located, the movable platform being movable relative to the support platform to a location opposite to the support platform, so as to restrict the tubular component between the first wheel set and the second wheel set with the limit mechanism.
Lewis teaches a feeding device (300; Figure 27) for a tubular component (50) comprising a housing (Figure 1), which comprises (See Figure 32):
a support platform (316/324) arranged between the first wheel set (314) and the second wheel set (314), the limit mechanism at one side being located on the support platform (the limit mechanism is the smooth surface of the wheel 314); and
a movable platform (316/330) on which the limit mechanism (the limit mechanism is the smooth surface of wheel 314) at the other side is located (Figure 32), the movable platform (330; Figure 32) being movable relative to the support platform (324) to a location opposite to the support platform (see Figures 31 and 32), so as to restrict the tubular component (5) between the first wheel set (314) and the second wheel set (314) with the limit mechanism (as seen in Figure 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Bhat to include the movable platform teachings of Lewis for the advantage of being able to control the grip on the tubular component. Furthermore, Bhat does teach moving the wheels from a first position to a second position to open and close the grip on the tubular component (Paragraph 0034), however does not disclose particular structure, rather just generically discloses this limitation. It would have been obvious to apply the structure taught by Lewis to the teachings disclosed by Bhat, such that the device of Bhat has the structure to open and close the distal between the two drive wheels.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US PGPub 2012/0232476) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (UG PGPub 2016/0135662).
Regarding Claim 18, Bhat teaches the feeding device for tubular component according to claim 16, further comprising a processing module (Paragraph 0020), which is in communication with the sensing module (tracking means), the first driver and the second driver, respectively but fails to disclose wherein, the sensing module sends the monitored motion state information of the clamped portion of the tubular component to the processing module; the processing module generates a drive compensation signal according to the motion state information, and sends it to the first driver and/or the second driver, to avoid the helical movement or distortion of the tubular component.
Hatakeyama teaches a manipulation system comprising a processing module (3; Figure 3; Paragraph 0044), which is in communication with the sensing module (22; Figure 3; “detecting part”), the first driver (13A) and the second driver (13A; Figure 3), wherein, the sensing module sends the monitored motion state information of the clamped portion of the tubular component to the processing module; the processing module generates a drive compensation signal according to the motion state information, and sends it to the first driver and/or the second driver, to avoid the helical movement or distortion of the tubular component (Paragraph 0044-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Bhat to include a processing and sensing module as taught by Hatakeyama, for the advantage of preventing damage to the system or unintended movement from the drivers while in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the first transmission mechanism comprises: a main transmission rod connected with the first driving motor, a plurality of first transmission wheels being mounted to the main transmission rod; and a plurality of sub transmission rods coaxially connected with each of the first driving wheels respectively, a second driving wheel being mounted to the sub transmission rod; wherein, the first transmission wheel is drivingly connected to the second transmission wheel in one-to-one correspondence.
Regarding Claims 8-9, the prior art fails to disclose the subject matter of Claim 7 and thus claims 8-9 by dependency.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose a third driving motor and a transmission belt, wherein, the guide bar is a lead screw connected with the third driving motor via the transmission belt; the third driving motor drives the guide bar to rotate via the transmission belt, so that the second bracket is movable in a direction toward or away from the first bracket along the guide bar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED GAMIL GABR whose telephone number is (571)272-0569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 270-5953. 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.
MOHAMED GAMIL GABR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771