DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 11/12/25, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-10 are pending with claims 1-2 amended. Applicant's amendment to claim 2 has overcome the previously filed objection. The following is a complete response to the 11/12/25 communication.
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2019/0133681) in view of O’Keefe (US 2020/0170701).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches an electrode apparatus for nerve denervation or modulation in vivo, comprising: a main body including a shaft (main body with shaft 10);
an electrode unit formed to be drawn out from one end of the shaft and configured to denervate or modulate at least part of nerves on a tube in the body (end effector loop 20 as in par. [0043] with electrodes 23); and
an electrode guide configured to support the electrode unit and guide the electrode unit to be brought into contact with the tube in the body (electrode guide as body 21 to support the electrodes 23 to contact tissue). Jeong teaches the electrode guide surrounds the tube in the body for nerve denervation or modulation (Fig. 8 with electrode guide surrounding vessel), but is silent regarding wherein the electrode guide includes a plurality of joint units which sequentially protrude from one end of the shaft while forming a curved winding path.
However, O’Keefe teaches wherein the electrode guide includes a plurality of joint units which sequentially protrude from one end of the shaft while forming a curved winding path (flex spine 80 joints to allow for flexibility).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong is silent regarding the joints, but O’Keefe teaches wherein the electrode guide further includes a wire formed to sequentially penetrate the plurality of joint units and configured to provide a force of pulling the plurality of joint units in a direction to be wound around the tube (wires 220 to articulate the joint units).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 3, Jeong is silent regarding the joints, but O’ Keefe teaches wherein while the wire protrudes from the end of the shaft together with the plurality of joint units (220 protrudes from the shaft with the joint units of 80), the wire protrudes less than the plurality of joint units per unit time (cables 220 protrudes less than the flex spine 80 as in par. [0224]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong is silent regarding the joints, but O’ Keefe teaches wherein each joint unit includes:
a hinge unit formed on one or both sides of the joint unit in a longitudinal direction to be connected to an adjacent joint unit (cutouts in 140 form hinges as in Fig. 5); and a through-hole formed in the longitudinal direction to allow insertion of the wire at a location spaced apart from a rotation center of the hinge unit (holes 145).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong is silent regarding the joints, but O’ Keefe teaches wherein each joint unit includes:
a hinge unit formed on one or both sides of the joint unit in a longitudinal direction to be connected to an adjacent joint unit (hinge as portions that are not cutout allowing for bending); and
a winding support unit formed on one or both sides of the joint unit in the longitudinal direction to support the adjacent joint unit (winding support 35), and
since adjacent joint units are supported by means of the winding support unit, the plurality of joint units are located to be spaced apart from the tube (joint units spared apart from tube 270).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 6, O’ Keefe teaches wherein the winding path includes:
a first path formed to have a first radius of curvature by part of the plurality of joint units; and a second path formed to have a second radius of curvature greater than the first radius of curvature by the other joint units sequentially protruding after part of the plurality of joint units (par. [0355] inner and outer curves).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 7, Jeong is silent regarding the joints, but O’Keefe teaches wherein the electrode guide further includes a tip joint that supports the electrode unit (end effector mount 210), is coupled to the end of the plurality of joint units connected sequentially to each other (210 connected to 80 as in Fig. 2), and protrudes from one end of the shaft earlier than the plurality of joint units (Fig. 2).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 8, Jeong is silent regarding the joints, but O’Keefe wherein the electrode guide further includes a wire formed to sequentially penetrate the plurality of joint units and coupled to the tip joint (wire 180).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 9, Jeong is silent regarding the joints, but O’ Keefe teaches wherein at least a portion of the tip joint’s surface facing the tube is covered by the electrode unit (par. [0317 with knife unit 805]), and the tip joint has a tapered shape that gradually decreases in thickness toward the end (tip joint 840 tapers as in Fig. 81).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Regarding claim 10, Jeong is silent regarding the joints, but O’Keefe teaches wherein the plurality of joint units is made of an elastically deformable material and formed as one body (80 as one body with cutouts), and a winding support groove which is disposed on the winding path and of which at least a part is deformed to be closed is formed between adjacent joint units of the electrode guide (support groove between the coil spirals, as in Fig. 7 and par. [0091)).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong with the joints of O’Keefe, as an alternative method of creating a flexible electrode guide, allowing for flexibility in desired directions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed 11/12/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jeong as a primary reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794