DETAILED ACTION1
ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 & 10 in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 1-7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the angular cutter head. This feature was earlier introduced as the angled cutter head and should be consistently referred to as such. Claim 1 also recites the three-dimensional structure is a main body of the cutter head. First, the term angled has been omitted from the cutter head name and should be inserted for consistence. Second, it is unclear what additional feature this phrase is added since the claim earlier explicitly defines the angled cutter head to be a 3D structure. It is unclear what other element would also be part of the cutter head such that is necessary to define the 3D structure to be the main body of the cutter head. If applicant had recited that the cutter head included or comprised a 3D structure, then it could be understood that the cutter head could have additional elements. But as phrased, it is defined to be a 3D structure with a wire pressing surface and nothing else. Finally, claim 1 recites a main body of the angled cutter head a second time later in the claim. This constitutes improper antecedent basis. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 5 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205253974 to Beijing Design Tech Co. (hereafter BDT) in view of CN 204953745 to Goertek and https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/how-to-mechanically-attach-a-compression-spring-to-a-flat-surface.477360/ (hereafter eng-tips)
Claim 1 recites a device for shaping a guide wire. BDT relates to such a shaping device, specifically it relates to a pin pending apparatus. See BDT, pg. 1, ll. 14-34.3 Such a pin is not a medical guide wire, but the pin of an electronic component is similar in diameter and material to medical guide wires. As such, the device of BDT is capable of (i.e. for) shaping a guide wire. Claim 1 recites the device has three structural components a support platform and an angled cutter head. Figure 1 of BDT shows a device having a cutter head (22) that is fixedly connected to [a] support platform (1, 2) via a connecting device (26). BDT teaches that the angular cutter head (22) is capable of moving up and down under restraint of the connecting device to bend a guide wire. See BDT pg. 4, ll. 190-211. Figure 1 of BDT also shows that the angled cutter head is a three- dimensional structure (22) with a wire pressing surface in the form of the curved lower surface. Element (22) is also the main body of the cutter head as no other element in BDT is considered to be part of the cutter head for the purpose of this rejection.
Claim 1 also recites the connecting device is a spring connecting device. BDT teaches a spring (27) is wrapped around the pillar (26), which is the connecting device. See BDT pg. 4, ll. 190-211 and Figs. 1-2. As such, the pillar is broadly speaking a spring connecting device. Claim 1 then recites the support platform is provided with a guide wire entry platform so that the guide wire is guided to be below the angled cutter head. The open slot on the side of the limiting block (3) serves as an entry allowing the intended use of wire being guided…below the angled cutter head. See BDT Figs. 1-2. Claim 1 also recites the device…is provided thereon with a wire pressing device. This device is connected…via a spring device to the angled cutter head. Substrate (21) – in combination with driving mechanism (201) and rear pillars (25) – is considered to be analogous to the wire pressing device. It is connected using two springs (27) to the cutter head (22). The first spring meets this limitation and the other meets the limitation of a second spring [that] is fixed [to] the main body of the cutter head on one side and on the other side fixed [to] the wire pressing device.
Claim 1 further recites that the second spring is provided in [an] inner cavity of the main body of the angled cutter head. BDT does not explicitly teach the spring extends into a cavity. But BDT does teach the springs must be attached to the body of the cutter (22). The eng-tips website teaches providing a recessed pocket when attaching a spring to a surface to prevent lateral displacement of the spring, as shown in this reproduced image.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify BDT to have such a recess, which is an inner cavity in the main body of the angled cutter head to prevent lateral displacement of the spring.
Claim 1 also recites that the wire pressing surface is an inclined surface. An inclined surface is understood to be a flat plane on an incline. By contrast, BDT shows a surface with a series of convex protrusions. This is not an inclined surface. But the purpose of the pressing surface is to create a desired shape in the wire. It would have been obvious to modify this surface to an inclined surface to create such a desired shape, as taught by Goertek. Goertek relates to a needle bending device and is therefore analogous art. See Goertek Technical Field Section. Figures 4-5 show an inclined surface (13) for bending the needle (3) to a desired shape. Thus, inclined surfaces are known shaped for bending thin metal wire. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify the pressing surface of BDT to an inclined surface to obtain this type of bend when desired.
Claim 2 recites that the wire pressing surface consists of a plurality of different inclined surfaces which act as small cutter heads. Figure 1 of BDT shows a plurality of convex protrusions. Thus, when modifying the shape to an inclined surface, it would further be obvious to have multiple inclined surfaces, just as there are multiple convex protrusions.
Claim 5 recites that a lower side of the wire pressing device is lower than a lower side of the main body of the cutter head in a natural state of the second spring. As noted in the rejection of claim 1, the wire pressing device is considered to be the combination of elements (201), (27) and pillars (25). The lower end of the pillars (25) are lower than…the main body of the cutter head. Claim 5 then recites the inner cavity is arranged in a middle of the angled cutter head. The springs (27) are shown centered on the top surface of plate (22). There are therefore in the middle along the longitudinal axis. Claim 5 further recites a pair of the second springs are provided and arranged symmetrically along a midline of the inner cavity. BDT shows three springs, but the MPEP states mere duplication of parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B). Thus, it would have been obvious to duplicate the part and use a third spring, which would result in a pair of second springs. These springs would logically all be placed in recess to prevent lateral movement and would be symmetrically placed in its midline. Finally, Claim 5 recites that the wire pressing device is a three-dimensional structure of which a bottom surface is a plane. The substrate (21) is a primary component of the wire pressing device and is planar on its bottom surface. Finally, claim 10 recites a combination of claims 1 and 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 3-4 & 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
3 All citations are to the attached English language of BDT obtained from espacenet.com. Page and lines numbers were added by the examiner to facilitate citations.