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/Benefit
The filing of the instant application as a National Stage entry under 35 USC 371 with priority to PCT/EO2022/052832 (7 February 2022), which claims priority to FR 2101184 (8 February 2021), is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is noted that no certified English language of the foreign priority documents have been filed.
Formal Matters
Claims 1-18 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 July 2023 has been considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Drawings - Objections
The drawings are objected to because: Figures 1-6 do not have uniformly thick, well-defined, sufficiently dark lines. See CFR 1.84(l) which states “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction (in the present application Figures 1-6, it is difficult to clearly read the reference numbers, since the weight of the lines are not sufficiently thick). This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning”.
Additionally, Figures 1-6 use shading, however, this shading reduces legibility. See CFR 1.84(m) which states “Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color”.
The images also appear to be heavily pixelated which renders them grainy in appearance, making it difficult to discern features. It is unclear whether this grainy pixelation is from scanned images or photographs that have been digitally manipulated and reproduced or compressed in different file formats. However, it renders features of the images difficult to discern.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this
application because photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily
permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility
and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for
illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of:
electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern),
autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained
and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline
structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable.
If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate
understating of the invention, including where a drawing is necessary for the understanding of
the invention, the Office will continue the practice of requiring a drawing. See MPEP 608.02
(IV). The examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be
of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1) and MPEP 608.01(f).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain multiple kinds of formatted bullet points which render the claims unclear and confusing and make it difficult to read. It is suggested that standard form punctuation be used in lieu of the bullet points, including simple spacing, commas, and semi-colons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18 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 claim 1, line 24, the term “sufficiently” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” 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 broader claim reads, in relevant part, on a sealing belt of which two portions extends the sealing ring “sufficiently” so that the assembly formed by said sealing belt and by said sealing ring and by said drive component continuously covers all of said tracks, over the width of said belt, during the travel of said drive component from one track to another. However it is this “sufficient” term that is not adequately defined by the claim and there is no standard provided in the specification for ascertaining the requisite degree intended.
In claim 1, the term “several tracks” is a vague descriptor and doesn’t provide notice as to what is within the metes and bounds of the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the catheterization robot according to claim 1, wherein said tracks for longitudinal horizontal rectilinear translation of several flexible elongate medical elements, said tracks being parallel to each other, are four in number of which two tracks are for catheters and two tracks are for catheter guides. There appears to be language missing in line 2 following the “medical elements” term and before the comma. Or perhaps the claim is missing a verb after “wherein said tracks” [insert verb/helping verb to indicate action]? As written, the claim is unclear and confusing.
Applicant is referred to Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (2008). A five member expanded panel of the Board held that "if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite."
Applicant is also referred to Nautilus Inc., v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908-909 (2014) in which the Court held that a claim is indefinite if the specification and prosecution history fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Court also held that a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed thereby "appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)), in a manner that avoids "[a] zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims," (citing United Carbon Co., v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 (1942)) (Nautilus 909).
Claims 2-5 and 7-18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are free of the prior art. Claim 1 is the only independent claim. The closest prior art of record is Destrebecq et al., US 20200254218 (13 August 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Destrebecq teaches catheterization robot (¶62 catheterization robot 10) comprising:
several tracks (¶86 individual channels 26, 26’, common channel 27)¶ for longitudinal horizontal rectilinear translational movement of several flexible elongate medical elements (¶62 flexible medical member 15; ¶86 catheter 15’, catheter guide 15”,
said tracks being parallel to each other (¶86),
a drive (¶84 drive module 14) component for driving a flexible elongate medical element in rectilinear translation (¶74), which is:
common to said tracks (¶FIG 3a; ¶93),
transversely horizontally movable so as to travel alternately from one track to another (¶¶95, 101),
surrounded by a sealing ring (¶10a, 10b; ¶121 seal 81) which is:
deformable (FIG 9a; ¶156 sufficiently deformable seal 60) so as to allow a relative, horizontal longitudinal displacement between said drive component and the periphery of said ring (¶121 dynamic seal; FIGs 9a, 9b; ¶155 sealing of the robot),
integrally secured to said drive component so as to follow the transverse horizontal displacement of said drive component traveling from one track to another (FIGs 9a, 9b; ¶155),
Destrebecq does not teach: a sealing belt: which is transversely horizontally movable,
which is integrally secured to said periphery of said sealing ring so as to follow the transverse horizontal displacement of said sealing ring and of said drive component traveling from one track to another, and of which two portions extend the sealing ring:
transversely horizontally, respectively on the two sides,
sufficiently so that the assembly formed by said sealing belt and by said sealing ring and by said drive component continuously covers all of said tracks, over the width of said sealing belt, during the travel of said drive component from one track to another.
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771