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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/23/23;10/14/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 recites the limitation " said varying travel extension…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation comes from claim 12 and should depend therefrom. Claims 15 and 16 are further rejected based on dependency on claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,4,8,10,12 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. Claims 14-16 which should depend directly or indirectly from claim 12 are therefore further objected to.
Claim 28 is 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. Claims 29-30 are further objected to based on dependency.
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 1,3,5-7,9,11,13, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fournier et al. (US 2018/0353250) (“Fournier”).
(claims 1,3,7,9) Fournier discloses: Catheter robot module for translation and rotation of a flexible elongated medical element (Fig. 1), comprising: a casing (Fig. 7a,b), two pairs of movable pads (Fig. 6a-f)): said pads of a same pair at least partly facing each other (Fig. 6a-f), each pair of movable pads being adapted to separately or in combination: perform a translation of said flexible elongated medical element longitudinally with respect to said casing, by a first translation cycle: clamping said flexible elongated medical element between said pads, translating forth said pads synchronously longitudinally in the same direction with respect to said casing, with respect to a user set longitudinal translation direction, unclamping said flexible elongated medical element, translating back said pads synchronously longitudinally in the same reverse direction with respect to said casing, with respect to said user set longitudinal translation direction ([0107-0112] describe the grasping, translating, ungrasping, translating process for translating the catheter), perform a rotation of said flexible elongated medical element around longitudinal axis with respect to said casing, by a second rotation cycle: clamping said flexible elongated medical element between said pads, performing a relative forth translation of said pads transversely in opposite directions with respect to said casing, with respect to a transversal translation direction corresponding to a set rotation direction, unclamping said flexible elongated medical element, performing a relative back translation of said pads transversely in opposite reverse directions with respect to said casing, with respect to said transversal translation direction corresponding to said set rotation direction ([0116-0121] describe the grasping, translating, ungrasping, translating process for rotating the catheter), (claim 11) a driver of said pairs of movable pads implemented so that: in one or several or all modes where said translation of said flexible elongated medical element is performed: said translation of said flexible elongated medical element is alternatively performed by said pairs of movable pads, both said pairs working in phase opposition (Fig. 6a-f), said phase opposition being controlled at least: by varying duration of said translating back in said first translation cycle for at least one of said pairs ([0149] step 4 “returns to its original position and waits, unmoving, at its original position; this wait time varies according to the selected speed of translation and rotation, and also the total cycle time”), so as to control and keep said phase opposition between both said pairs ([0149] see above).
(claim 3) see rejection for claim 1
(claim 7) see rejection for claim 1 and additionally, a driver of said pairs of movable pads implemented so that: said translation of said flexible elongated medical element being alternatively performed by said pairs of movable pads, both said pairs working in phase opposition (Fig. 6a-f), (claim 5) said rotation of said flexible elongated medical element being alternatively performed by said pairs of movable pads ([0148] “this implementation applies for movements other than translation. This implementation applies for more than two pairs” It is implicit that the motion of Fig. 6a-f also applies for rotation), said phase opposition being controlled, at least: (claim 6) by varying duration of said translating back, in said first translation cycle and in said second rotation cycle, for at least one of said pairs, ([0149 “step 4: remain in clamping mode and at constant speed; during this time, the second pair 33’ returns to its original position and waits, unmoving, at its original position; this wait time varies according to the selected speed of translation and rotation, and also the total cycle time”), so as to control and keep said phase opposition between both said pairs ([0149] see above).
(claim 9) see rejection for claim 7
Claim 13: said forth translation duration is always longer than said back translation duration. (fig. 8, see also [0149])
Claims 17-20: there is some temporary overlapping between said flexible elongated medical element clamping by one of said pairs of movables pads and said flexible elongated medical element clamping by the other one of said pairs of movables pads, said temporary overlapping lasting preferably between 10% and 95% of the whole duration of said translation of said flexible elongated medical element.
unclamping is performed simultaneously to a portion of said forth translation travel extension, during the second half of said forth translation travel extension, said portion ranging preferably from 5% to 20% of the full extent of said forth translation travel extension.
clamping is performed simultaneously to a portion of said forth translation travel extension, during the first half of ;aid forth translation travel extension, said portion ranging preferably from 5% to 20% of the full extent of said forth translation travel extension.
clamping starts after the end of said back translation travel extension and after the beginning of next said forth translation travel extension.
(Figs. 6a-f,8; [0143,0149])
Claim 21: varying duration of said translating back in said first translation cycle for one of said pairs, so as to control and keep said phase opposition between both said pairs, is performed by reducing or extending duration with respect to a standard back translation duration. (the back cycle is extended depending on the targeted speed [0149, step 4)
Claims 22,23: see claim 21, the cycle is adjusted depending on the target. The factor alpha being unclear, such feature is considered arbitrary and therefore not inventive.
Claim 24: as mentioned above, the return cycle is a function of the target speed (see also Fig. 8) and it is implicit that the higher the target speed the lower the return cycle will be.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier.
Fournier does not directly disclose the elements of claims 25-27. However, Claims 25,26: such relation between the target speed and the return cycle would be a straightforward choice for the skilled person in the art. Claim 27: a user continuously controlling and varying the translation or rotation would be an obvious design choice for a person skilled in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fournier’s module since it has been held in KSR that a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (experimentation). If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANNA K HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am- 4:30pm 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/DEANNA K HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783