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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention III, claims 18-25 in the reply filed on 05/07/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 18-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 2020/0297517 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Anderson discloses a control device comprising: one or more processors comprising hardware, the one or more processors being configured to: determine a target placement position for placing a stent in a stenosis based on an observation image acquired from an observation device that observes the stenosis (see paragraphs 0168-0169; see claim 300; processors implicitly taught in claim 300 by indicating that dimensions of a suitable stent are computed from the dimensions of the stenosis wherein an angiographic image of the stent in the vessel is captured to confirm the position of the stent therein; both steps require a processor hence, processor is implicitly taught; see paragraph 0104).
With respect to claim 19, Anderson discloses the one or more processors is configured to determine a position of the stent where a distal end of the stent and a proximal end of the stent sandwich the stenosis as the target placement position (see paragraphs 0010, 0159 and 0175; see Figure 6).
With respect to claim 21, Anderson discloses the one or more processors are further configured to provide navigation information about the determined target placement position together with the observation image (see claim 300).
With respect to claim 22, Anderson discloses providing the navigation information comprises: calculating an optimal position, which is an optimal placement position of the stent delivery device at which the stent to be released is placed at the determined target placement position; and providing the optimal position as the navigation information (see paragraphs 0168-0169; see claim 300).
With respect to claim 23, Anderson discloses providing the navigation information comprises calculating an optimum position, which is an optimum release position of the stent placed at the determined target placement position; and providing the optimum position as the navigation information (see paragraphs 0168-0169; see claim 300).
With respect to claim 24, Anderson discloses providing the navigation information comprises: calculating a predicted placement position to be placed when the stent housed in the stent delivery device is released; and providing the predicted placement position as the navigation information (see paragraphs 0168-0169; see claim 300).
With respect to claim 25, Anderson discloses providing the navigation information further comprises superimposing a virtual image of the stent placed at the predicted placement position on the observation image (see paragraphs 0168-0169; see claim 300).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2020/0297517 A1) in view of Sakai et al. (US 2021/0267778 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Anderson discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for when the determined target placement position is the lower bile duct, the one or more processors is configured to determine a position of the stent sandwiching the stenosis between a distal end of the stent and a proximal end of the stent and where a proximal end of the stent protrudes from a papilla, as the determined target placement position. However, Sakai discloses when the determined target placement position is the lower bile duct (see paragraph 0028), the one or more processors is configured to determine a position of the stent sandwiching the stenosis between a distal end of the stent and a proximal end of the stent and where a proximal end of the stent protrudes from a papilla, as the determined target placement position (see paragraphs 0028, and 0071-0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the step of when the determined target placement position is the lower bile duct, the one or more processors is configured to determine a position of the stent sandwiching the stenosis between a distal end of the stent and a proximal end of the stent and where a proximal end of the stent protrudes from a papilla, as the determined target placement position as taught by Sakai in combination with Anderson’s stent location for the purpose of having the placement position is preferably held and allow the stent delivery device to enter the bile duct along the guide wire (see paragraphs 0064 and 0071).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXOMARA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Raymond Keith can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/DIXOMARA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights