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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 of claim 1, “inserted” should read “insertable” to use a functional limitation signifier.
On line 3 of claim 1, “the inner” should read “an inner” to provide antecedent basis.
On lines 3-4 of claim 1, “the guiding catheter, comprising:” should read “the guiding catheter, the trapping balloon comprising:”.
On line 8 of claim 1, “inflating” should read “inflatable” to use a functional limitation signifier.
On line 11 of claim 1, “the outer” should read “an outer” to provide antecedent basis.
On line 16 of claim 1, “gripped” should read “grippable” to provide a functional limitation signifier.
On line 18 of claim 1, “abutting the back end” should read “for abutting the back end”.
On line 20 of claim 1, “adjusting the insertion length” should read “for adjusting the insertion length”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
In regard to claim 1, the limitation “a catheter shaft being formed to have a predetermined total length L from the back end to the front end connected with a hub through a strain relief” renders the claim indefinite. There is no antecedent basis for the front end and the back end and furthermore it is unclear what structure they belong to. Furthermore, it is unclear which end is intended to be connected to the hub and if the hub/strain relief is part of the claimed device or not.
In regard to claim 1, on line 7 there is no antecedent basis for “the front end region”. It is unclear if this is the same structure as the “front end”.
In regard to claim 1, on lines 18-19 “the base end of the guiding catheter and/or the base end of the guiding catheter” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation is repetitive and also there is no antecedent basis for “the base end”.
In further regard to claim 1, the claim cannot be understood in light of the specification because claim 1 recites a through-hole, a lock mechanism, a gripper, an abutting part, and a stopper as being five distinct structures but the specification appears to disclose these elements as being part of a single structure, namely stopper 6. It is unclear if the applicant is intending to recite five structures or one part with five different parts.
On line 21 of claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for “the locking position”. Furthermore, it is unclear how the stopper could change the locking position or what structures and functional language that would require.
The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
In regard to claim 2, the “through-hole” is not previously recited as being part of the stopper.
In regard to claim 3, the claim is written in such a manner that it cannot be understood.
Prior Art Rejection
There is no prior art that discloses or teaches the limitations of claim 1 as recited. Indication of allowability cannot be given at this time due to the numerous 112 deficiencies of the claim. The prior art will be re-evaluated upon resolution of the 112 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J STIGELL whose telephone number is (571)272-8759. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30 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, Michael Tsai can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
THEODORE J. STIGELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/THEODORE J STIGELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783