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 .
Claims 14 and 15 are cancelled. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-13 and 16-26 appears herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Merely using two holders extending perpendicularly from two arms is not the same as "the receiver including a frame pivotably coupled to a bracket, the frame defining a receiving aperture having a shape corresponding to an end of the endorectal cooling device," as independent claim 1 presently recites.”
Examiner respectfully contends that Merriam webster defines a bracket as “an overhanging member that projects from a structure (such as a wall) and is usually designed to support a vertical load or to strengthen an angle.” Therefore, arm (410) of Yamamoto would be considered a bracket. Par. [0153] of Yamamoto, as further discussed in the rejections to claims 1 and 13 below, discuss how holders (412 and 422) and tiltably connected to rotatable connectors (416 and 426). Furthermore, giving the limitation “having a shape corresponding to” the broadest reasonable interpretation, the shape of holders (412 and 422) of Yamamoto is considered to “correspond” to an end of the endoscope of Yamamoto, and the endorectal cooling device of Moffitt in the Yamamoto/Moffitt combination applied to claim 1 below, at least in that holders (412 and 422) each provide a gap/channel configured to receive/hold said endoscope of Yamamoto and/or endorectal cooling device of Moffitt.
Examiner notes that Fig. 1B, 1C, and 3B of Applicant’s drawings filed 03/02/2023 depict a frame (121) comprising a generally square/rectangular aperture (122) receiving an endorectal cooling device (30) with a generally circular cross section and, as best understood by examiner, no other shape arrangements between said aperture and cooling device are provided in the drawings. Furthermore, Yamamoto teaches another embodiment in which a holder (Fig. 27, Char. 620) completely surrounds/encloses an instrument being held. (Fig. 27)
Applicant further argues “Moreover, Moffitt fails to remedy the deficiencies of Yamamoto because Moffitt is silent on a "receiver including a frame pivotably coupled to a bracket, the frame defining a receiving aperture having a shape corresponding to an end of the endorectal cooling device," as independent claim 1 presently recites.”
Examiner respectfully contends that, as further discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 13 below, Moffitt was merely relied on to teach an endorectal cooling device. Yamamoto teaches a receiver including a frame pivotably coupled to a bracket, the frame defining a receiving aperture having a shape corresponding to an end of the endorectal cooling device, as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-13, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2005/0234293 A1) in view of Moffitt (US 2016/0193076 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Yamamoto teaches
an endoscopic device; (Fig. 15 and 16, Char. 10: endoscope) and
a holder operable to receive and maintain a position of the endoscopic device, (Fig. 16, Char. 400: holding device) the holder including:
a base (Fig. 16, Char. 402 and 406) operable to be coupled to a surface; (Fig. 16, Char. 2: examination table)
an arm extending from the base; (Fig. 16, Char. 404 and 410) and
a receiver pivotably coupled with the arm, (Fig. 16, Char. 412: holder) the receiver including a frame (Fig. 15-16, Char. 417: metal support) pivotably coupled to a bracket, (Fig. 15-16, Char. 410: telescoping arm) the frame defining a receiving aperture having a shape corresponding to an end of the endoscopic device and operable to receive the end of the endoscopic device. (Fig. 16: Hand operation portion (14) of endoscope (10) is disposed within a gap/opening of holder (412); Giving the limitation “a receiving aperture having a shape corresponding to…” broadest reasonably interpretation, he gap/opening of holder (412) would be considered to have a shape corresponding to an end of the endoscope (10) at least in that holder (412) receives/holds endoscope (10) in said gap/opening)
Yamamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the endoscopic member being an endorectal cooling device.
Moffitt, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches using an endorectal cooling device to cool the rectum of a patient. (Fig. 4 and Par. [0039])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Yamamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Moffitt, and configure the holder (412) of Yamamoto to support/hold the endocavity thermal control device (40) of Moffitt in place of the endoscope (10) of Yamamoto. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one insertable surgical device for another for the predictable result of supporting an inserted probe/device during a medical procedure.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the receiving aperture is substantially rectangular. (Yamamoto: Fig. 16 and Par. [0154])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the receiving aperture has a width between about 39 millimeters and 42 millimeters and a height between about 31 millimeters and about 36 millimeters.
However, the receiving aperture (Yamamoto: Fig. 16: gap/opening of holder (412)) of the Yamamoto/Moffitt combination, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, would have a width and a height.
Absent a statement of criticality and unexpected results, the width and height of the gap/opening of holder (412) of Yamamoto is interpreted as reading on the claimed width between about 39 millimeters and 42 millimeters and a height between about 31 millimeters and about 36 millimeters
Regarding claims 10 and 22, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, teaches the arm is rotatable in relation to the base. (Yamamoto: Fig. 16)
Regarding claims 11 and 23, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, teaches the arm is translatable along a longitudinal axis of the base. (Yamamoto: Fig. 16 and Par. [0153]: Arm (410) laterally telescopes)
Regarding claims 12 and 24, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, teaches the receiver is pivotable in relation to the arm. (Yamamoto: Fig. 16)
Regarding claims 25, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claim 13 above, teaches the bracket includes one or more branches (Yamamoto: Fig. 16, Char. 416: connector) extending perpendicularly from a bottom portion, (Yamamoto: Fig. 16: Connector (416) extends perpendicularly from a bottom portion of metal frame (417)) the one or more branches are pivotably coupled to the frame. (Yamamoto: Par. [0153]: Holders (412) and (422) are tiltably mounted on connectors (416) and (426))
Claim(s) 4 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2005/0234293 A1) in view of Moffitt (US 2016/0193076 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kostrzewski (US 2016/0151120 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, is silent regarding the receiving aperture forms a notch operable to receive a ridge on the endorectal cooling device.
Kostrzewski, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an instrument receiving aperture forming a notch operable to receive a ridge on the instrument. (Fig. 13 and Par. [0106]: Protrusions (1356) on instrument (1350) are configured to be received in cutouts (1354) of the robot flange (1352) configured to receive said instrument (1350))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, to incorporate the teachings of Kostrzewski, and configure the holder (412) and endoscocavity thermal control device (40) of Moffitt to comprise the cutouts (1354) and protrusions (1356) respectively. Doing so would help secure device (40) of Moffitt within the holder (412) of Yamamoto and minimize the risk of device (40) becoming accidentally dislodged/moved from holder (412).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2005/0234293 A1) in view of Moffitt (US 2016/0193076 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Pereira (US 2017/0086883 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, is silent regarding the base includes an adhesive which permits the base to be removably coupled to the surface.
Pereira, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches using an adhesive to couple the base of a medical device to an operating table. (Par. [0090])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, to incorporate the teachings of Pereira, and configure clamp (406) of Yamamoto to include the adhesive of Pereira, such that the adhesive helps secure clamp (406) to the table (2) of Yamamoto. Doing so would minimize the risk of holding device (400) becoming dislodged from table (2) of Yamamoto.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2005/0234293 A1) in view of Moffitt (US 2016/0193076 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Daum (US 2004/0092810 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, teaches the base includes a top plate and a bottom plate, (Yamamoto: Fig. 16: Top and bottom clamping members of clamp (406))
The combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, is silent regarding the bottom plate is operable to be received in a recess formed in a bottom surface of a system base for a positioning system, wherein the top plate is operable to be positioned on a top surface of the system base opposite the bottom surface.
Daum, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a positioning system (Fig. 3A-B, Char. 13, 14, and 15) comprising a base (Fig. 3A-B, Char. 18: arm-mounting-lock-bolt) including a top member (Attached “Annotated Daum Fig. 3B” below: The portion of arm-mounting-lock-bolt (18) labelled “top member”) and a bottom member; (Attached “Annotated Daum Fig. 3B” below: The portion of arm-mounting-lock-bolt (18) labelled “bottom member”) wherein the bottom member is operable to be received in a recess formed in a bottom surface of a system base for a positioning system, (Attached “Annotated Daum Fig. 3B” below: The portion of arm-mounting-lock-bolt (18) labelled “bottom member” is disposed within the receptacle of arm-mounting track (15)) wherein the top member is operable to be positioned on a top surface of the system base opposite the bottom surface. (Attached “Annotated Daum Fig. 3B” below)
Annotated Daum Fig 3B
PNG
media_image1.png
397
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, to incorporate the teachings of Daum, and include the positioning system of Daum, such that the top and bottom clamping members of clamp (406) of Yamamoto are disposed in place of the top member and bottom member of arm-mounting-lock-bolt (18) of Daum, thereby clamping onto the top/roof of arm-mounting-track (15) of Daum instead of directly clamping onto table (2) of Yamamoto. Doing so would allow for positioning device (13) to be used to provide a cushion for the patient, providing a comfortable and easier way to position a patient for probe/device insertion.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2005/0234293 A1) in view of Moffitt (US 2016/0193076 A1), in view of Daum (US 2004/0092810 A1), as applied to claims 6 and 18 above, and further in view of Marvich (US 3,971,538).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt/Daum, as applied to claims 6 and 18 above, is silent regarding the bottom plate includes a fastener that is operable to be received by the top plate, wherein the fastener is operable to couple the top plate with the bottom plate.
Marvich, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches using a screw (bolt) and nut to secure a clamping system to a table. (Fig. 1 and 6; Col. 7, Lines 11-16)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt/Daum, as applied to claims 6 and 18 above, to incorporate the teachings of Marvich, and include the nut and bolt of Marvich, such that the screw of Marvich extends through the bottom clamping member of clamp (406) of Yamamoto, arm-mounting track (15) of Daum, and the top clamping member of clamp (406) of Yamamoto. Doing so would further secure clamp (406) and holding device (400) of Yamamoto to arm-mounting track (15) of Daum, minimizing the risk of clamp (406) becoming dislodged or removed accidentally.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt/Daum/Marvich, as applied to claims 7 and 19 above, teaches wherein the fastener is operable to be inserted through a channel in the system base and through an aperture formed in the top plate. (In the rejection to claims 6 and 19 above, the screw of Marvich was disposed through both clamping members of clamp (406) of Yamamoto and arm-mounting track (15) of Daum.)
Regarding claims 9 and 21, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt/Daum/Marvich, as applied to claims 7 and 19 above, teaches the fastener includes a screw, wherein the base includes a nut operable to be threadedly coupled with the screw extending through the top plate to couple the top plate with the bottom plate (In the rejection to claims 6 and 19 above, the screw and nut of Marvich was included such that the screw of Marvich was disposed through both clamping members of clamp (406) of Yamamoto and arm-mounting track (15) of Daum.)
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2005/0234293 A1) in view of Moffitt (US 2016/0193076 A1), as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Abboud (US 2020/0060724 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claim 25 above, is silent regarding the one or more branches includes a first branch pivotably coupled to a first side of the frame and a second branch pivotably coupled to a second side of the frame.
Abboud, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a device for holding a cannula (Par. [0092]) comprising an embodiment in which the cannula is held by two holding portions, (Par. [0130] and Fig. 2, Char. 24a-b) and an embodiment in which the cannula is held by a single holding portion. (Par. [0092] and Fig. 1C, Char. 24: working channel holder)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Yamamoto/Moffitt, as applied to claim 25 above, to incorporate the teachings of Abboud, and configure holders (412) and (422) of Yammamoto as a single holder connected by connectors (416) and (426) of Yammamoto to a single telescoping arm. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one device holding arrangement for another for the predictable result of holding the endorectal cooling device in place.
In this combination, connectors (416 and 426) would be on different sides of the holder, at least in that distal connector (426) would be on a distal side and proximal connector (416) would be on a proximal side.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS SHEA BORSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 5712724764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/N.S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3794