DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 02/20/2026. Claims 1 and 4 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1 and 4 is as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 4 each recite “the pieces each have…”. This limitation should read “the pieces each have:” to better indicate that all of the succeeding limitations correspond to each piece of the plurality of pieces.
Claim 4 recites “a direction orthogonal to [an] a short axis center of the coupling shaft”. The term “[an]” appears to be a copy/paste error from claim 1 and should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 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.
Claims 1 and 4 each recite the limitation "wherein the piece is made by a synthetic resin". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the piece” appears to attempt to claim antecedent basis to “the plurality of pieces”, however it is unclear if “the piece” refers to all of the pieces or if “the piece” is attempting to recite a singular piece of the plurality of pieces.
Claims 1 and 4 each recite “a central plate portion formed at a lower half portion of the piece” and “a pair of support arm portions formed at an upper half portion of the piece”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the piece” appears to be attempting to claim that the respective limitation applies to each piece of the plurality of pieces given the preceding recitation of “the pieces each have…” However, such recitations of “the piece” should read “the respective piece”.
Claims 1 and 4 each recite the limitation "the short shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Review of applicant’s specification appears to disclose that the “short shaft” and “rotation shaft” are the same structure. For examination purposes, this term will be interpreted to “the rotation shaft”.
The term “gently” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gently” 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. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted to read as simply “inclined” instead of “gently inclined”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “rounded in the shape of R”. The term “rounded in the shape of R” 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. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted to be read as “rounded in shape” or “rounded” instead of “rounded in the shape of R”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1 and 4, the Coleman, Karasawa, Morrissey, Forster, and Yeung references fail to teach the electrode catheter as claimed in claims 1 and 4 including the “coupling shaft with a plurality of pieces being coupled so that the pieces are able to mutually rotate within a predetermined range in a hollow space of the outer tube; a head member connected to a tip end of the coupling shaft; and a plurality of operation wires with one ends thereof being fixed to the head member and the other ends thereof being fixed to the operation handle, wherein the piece is made by a synthetic resin, and the pieces each have a rotation shaft that is provided on both surfaces of a central plate portion formed at a lower half portion of the piece in a longitudinal direction of the coupling shaft, and protrudes in a direction orthogonal to a short axis center of the coupling shaft; a shaft receiving hole that is provided on a pair of support arm portions formed at an upper half portion of the piece in the longitudinal direction of the coupling shaft, and axially supports the rotation shaft; and a through hole that is located at a position offset from the axis center” and the inclined surface on the rotation shaft as claimed. The Coleman and Karaswa references discloses a similar devices, but fails to teach the rotation shaft provided on both surfaces of a central plate portion formed at a lower half portion of the piece in a longitudinal direction of the coupling shaft, and protrudes in a direction orthogonal to a short axis center of the coupling shaft, a shaft receiving hole that is provided on a pair of support arm portions formed at an upper half portion of the piece in the longitudinal direction of the coupling shaft, and axially supports the rotation shaft. The remaining references discloses similar device with a plurality of pieces to enable bending and rotation, but fail to teach the specifics as claimed. No other pertinent prior art reference were found that would overcome the above deficiencies. Therefore, there is no motivation (either in these references or elsewhere in the art) for making such specific and significant modifications thereto to arrive at claim(s) 1 and 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794