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
This Office Action is a response to applicant’s arguments and amendment filed 10/01/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8 and 10 are amended. Claim 9 is cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are currently pending.
The objection of claims 6-7 has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
The objection of claims 4 and 8 is maintained; see below.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained; see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are definite and appears to agree with the rejection of the claims (Remarks, pgs. 8-9), however, the claims have not been amended to reflect changes consistent with applicant’s remarks. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because the claims have not been amended to necessitate removal of the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasady; and claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasady in view of Sanchez Lopez, have been fully considered and are persuasive, in combination with the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 on the ground of double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application 18/034,579 in view of Sasady have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been modified, necessitated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Applicant argues the incorporation of the features of dependent claim 9 into independent claim 1 requires withdrawal of the double patenting rejection (Remarks, pg. 11).
In response to applicant’s argument, it is respectfully submitted newly amended claim 1, incorporating the features of claim 9, are still claimed in copending Application 18/034,579. It is noted claim 9 was previously dependent on claim 8, which was previously indicated as free of prior art, however, newly amended claim 1 does not incorporate the features of claim 8, therefore, the claims remain rejected under double patenting as discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, lines 8-9, the phrase “an inner wall at the top thereof” should read “an inner wall at a top thereof”.
In claim 8, line 7, the phrase “as the center of circle” should read “as the center of a circle” or similar language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 10-11 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 1, the claim recites “the closed needle feeding channel” in lines 5-7. The claim previously introduces the needle grooved plate and the angle control plate forming closed needle feeding channels, such that it is unclear whether the closed needle feeding channels as a whole are being referred to, at least one of the closed needle feeding channels, or a different number of channels. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to at least one of the closed needle feeding channels previously introduced.
Further, the claim recites “the first plate surface of the second needle feeding plate” in lines 24-25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a second needle feeding plate has not been previously introduced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to a first plate surface of a second needle feeding plate.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a second needle feeding plate” in line 4. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to the second needle feeding plate previously introduced, or a new, separate needle feeding plate. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the second needle feeding plate previously introduced.
Further, the claim recites “the needle feeding channels” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to the plurality of semi-open needle feeding channels, the closed needle feeding channels, or separate channels previously introduced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the closed needle feeding channels previously introduced.
Further, the claim recites “a first plate surface of the second needle feeding plate”. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to the first plate surface previously introduced, or introducing a new, separate surface. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the first plate surface previously introduced.
Further, the claim recites “the needle feeding wall is fitted to the first plate surface of the second needle feeding plate to form closed needle feeding channels” in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether the closed needle feeding channels are referring to the closed needle feeding channels previously introduced, or introducing new, separate closed needle feeding channels. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the closed needle feeding channels previously introduced.
Further, the claim recites “wherein the first needle feeding plate and the second needle feeding plate are sector-shaped plates” in lines 9-10. The term “sector-shaped” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sector-shaped” 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. The instant spec. does not provide any further explanation of what the metes and bounds of the term “sector-shaped” are, such that it is unclear which shapes would fall within the scope of a sector-shaped structure. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to a shape formed by two radii and an arc of a circle.
Further, the claim recites “comprising an arc-shaped end” in line 10. The term “arc-shaped” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arc-shaped” 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. The instant spec. does not provide any further explanation of what the metes and bounds of the term “arc-shaped” are, such that it is unclear which shapes would fall within the scope of an arc-shaped structure. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to a shape formed by arced component.
Further, the claim recites “the arc-shaped ends of the first needle feeding plate and the second needle feeding plate” in lines 11-13. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to the arc-shaped end previously introduced, or introducing new, separate arc-shaped ends. Claim 3 has only previously recited a singular arc-shaped end, as opposed to each plate comprising an arc-shaped end, such that it is unclear what is being referred to by the arc-shaped ends. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the arc-shaped end previously introduced.
Further, the claim recites “the needle feeding ends” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since only a single needle feeding end has been previously introduced (see claim 1). Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the needle feeding end previously introduced, such that a needle feeding end of the angle control plate and the needle grooved plate would meet the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the arc-shaped end” and “the arc-shaped surface” in lines 10-11. The term “arc-shaped” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arc-shaped” 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. The instant spec. does not provide any further explanation of what the metes and bounds of the term “arc-shaped” are, such that it is unclear which shapes would fall within the scope of an arc-shaped structure. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to a shape formed by arced component.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the arc-shaped end” in lines 2-3. The term “arc-shaped” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arc-shaped” 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. The instant spec. does not provide any further explanation of what the metes and bounds of the term “arc-shaped” are, such that it is unclear which shapes would fall within the scope of an arc-shaped structure. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to a shape formed by arced component.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “a strip-shaped third chute” in line 15. The term “strip-shaped” 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. The instant spec. does not provide any further explanation of what the metes and bounds of the term “strip-shaped” are, such that it is unclear which shapes would fall within the scope of a strip-shaped structure. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to any elongated shape.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a ring-shaped body” in line 1. The term “ring-shaped” 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. The instant spec. does not provide any further explanation of what the metes and bounds of the term “ring-shaped” are, such that it is unclear which shapes would fall within the scope of a ring-shaped structure. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to any ring or circular shape.
Claims 2, 5-6 and 8 are indefinite due to their dependencies on indefinite base claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/034,579 in view of Sasady.
Regarding claim 1, 18/034,579 claims the needle support structure of claim 1 (claim 7), but fails to claim wherein the first clamping part comprises a driving hand position, which is located at the needle feeding end of the angle control plate; by pulling the driving hand position, the first clamping part can move between a first position and a second position, thereby enabling the clamping and unclamping of the first clamping part and the second clamping part.
Sasady teaches wherein the locking device comprises a first clamping part (rotatable handle 4) and a second clamping part (projecting pin 5a), the first clamping part being rotatably connected to the angle control plate (handle 4 rotatable relative to 1, paras. [0017]-[0018]), and the second clamping part being fixedly connected to the needle grooved plate (fixed to needle guide 5, para. [0017]; fig. 1), wherein the first clamping part comprises a driving hand position (position of grip 4c, para. [0018]), which is located at the needle feeding end of the angle control plate (figs. 2-3); by pulling the driving hand position (considered to be pulled when rotated, para. [0018]), the first clamping part can move between a first position (first position of handle 4, abstract) and a second position (second position, para. [0017]), thereby enabling the clamping and unclamping of the first clamping part and the second clamping part (via fixing of needle guide 5, para. [0017]), for the purpose of providing a grip for initiating fixation of the needle guide (para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim wherein the first clamping part comprises a driving hand position, which is located at the needle feeding end of the angle control plate; by pulling the driving hand position, the first clamping part can move between a first position and a second position, thereby enabling the clamping and unclamping of the first clamping part and the second clamping part, in order to provide a grip that initiates fixation of the plates relative to each other through movement of the grip’s positions, based on the teachings of Sasady (para. [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, 18/034,579 (as modified) claims the needle support structure of claim 2 (claim 7).
Regarding claim 3, 18/034,579 (as modified) claims the needle support structure of claim 3 (claim 7).
Regarding claim 4, 18/034,579 (as modified) claims the needle support structure of claim 4 (claim 7), but fails to claim wherein the first clamping part comprises a rocker, the rocker comprising a rocking arm, a first end of which is rotatably connected to the first needle feeding plate, and a second end of which is provided with the driving hand position; wherein the driving hand position comprises a rocking block, which is fixedly connected to a second end of the rocking arm; a side of the rocking block that is fitted to a second plate surface of the first needle feeding plate is provided with a clamping opening, in which a positioning snap is provided on an inner wall at the top thereof; wherein the arc-shaped end of the first needle feeding plate is provided with a first chute along the arc-shaped surface thereof, into which the positioning snap is clamped; wherein the rocking block slides in the first chute, so that the first clamping part can move between a first position and a second position.
Sasady teaches wherein the first clamping part comprises a rocker (4), the rocker comprising a rocking arm (arm of handle 4), a first end of which is rotatably connected to the first needle feeding plate (rotatably connected at 4b, para. [0018]), and a second end of which is provided with a driving hand position (4c); wherein the driving hand position comprises a rocking block (4c considered to be a rocking block), which is fixedly connected to a second end of the rocking arm (fig. 3); the side of the rocking block that is fitted to the second plate surface of the first needle feeding plate (annotated fig. 3, fitted via recesses 9, para. [0018]) is provided with a clamping opening (opening considered to house projecting spring pre-stressed ball, para. [0018]), in which a positioning snap (pre-stressed ball) is provided on the inner wall at the top thereof (considered to be formed within an opening considered to have an inner wall and a top); wherein the arc-shaped end of the first needle feeding plate is provided with a first chute (formed by recesses 9, annotated fig. 4) along the arc-shaped surface thereof (fig. 4), into which the positioning snap is clamped (para. [0018]); wherein the rocking block slides in the first chute (considered to slide between recesses 9), so that the first clamping part can move between a first position and a second position (movable between positions, para. [0018]), for the purpose of fixing the needle guide 5 (para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim wherein the first clamping part comprises a rocker, the rocker comprising a rocking arm, a first end of which is rotatably connected to the first needle feeding plate, and a second end of which is provided with the driving hand position; wherein the driving hand position comprises a rocking block, which is fixedly connected to a second end of the rocking arm; a side of the rocking block that is fitted to a second plate surface of the first needle feeding plate is provided with a clamping opening, in which a positioning snap is provided on an inner wall at the top thereof; wherein the arc-shaped end of the first needle feeding plate is provided with a first chute along the arc-shaped surface thereof, into which the positioning snap is clamped; wherein the rocking block slides in the first chute, so that the first clamping part can move between a first position and a second position, in order to provide a structure capable of fixing the needle guide when desired, based on the teachings of Sasady (para. [0017]).
Regarding claim 7, 18/034,579 (as modified) claims the needle support structure of claim 7 (claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, 18/034,579 (as modified) claims the needle support structure of claim 11 (claim 7), but fails to claim a needle guide bracket, comprising a ring-shaped body, wherein an outer wall of the body is connected to the needle support structure according to claim 1, wherein the plane in which the angle control plate and the needle grooved plate are located is parallel to the axis of the body.
Sasady teaches a needle guide bracket (3, para. [0017]), comprising a ring-shaped body (shaped as a circular arc), wherein an outer wall of the body is connected to the needle support structure according to claim 1 (fig. 6), wherein the plane in which the angle control plate and the needle grooved plate are located is parallel to the axis of the body (fig. 6), for the purpose of providing a needle guide device capable of attaching to an ultrasound head which is easier to operate by a physician (paras. [0003], [0017] and [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a needle guide bracket, comprising a ring-shaped body, wherein an outer wall of the body is connected to the needle support structure according to claim 1, wherein the plane in which the angle control plate and the needle grooved plate are located is parallel to the axis of the body, in order to provide a needle guide device capable of attaching to an ultrasound head which is easier to operate by a physician, based on the teachings of Sasady (paras. [0003], [0017] and [0021]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Prior Art
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are free of prior art, however, remain rejected over 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and double patenting as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 BRIGID K BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-7698. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571)-272-4695. 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.
/BRIGID K BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3771