DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 16 July 2026. Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3-14, 16-20.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claims 1 and 14 recites “monitor” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to be connected to the first measurer and provide resection position information through a value of the pressure measure by the first measurer. According to the specification the monitor includes a controller and a display [Pg. 16, lines 6-7] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 2 recites “plurality of first measuring members” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to be attached to an inner side surface of the expander. According to the specification the plurality of first measuring members includes a contact type pressure sensor, and load cell [Pg. 13, lines 5-8] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 10 and 17 recites “controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to determine the resection position information. According to the specification the controller includes microprocessor or computer [Pg. 16, lines 15-18] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 12 and 19 recites “approach-necessary section” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to indicate a case in which the magnitude of the pressure measured by the first measurer is lower than or equal to a first set pressure. According to the specification the approach-necessary section includes software that determines: “a section in which the controller 410 determines, through the pressure value measured by the first measurer 300, that the resection tool 3 is 20 excessively far away from the expander 200” [Pg. 17, lines 18-20] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 12 and 19 recites “separation-necessary section” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to indicate a case in which the magnitude of the pressure measured by the first measurer is higher than or equal to a second set pressure. According to the specification the separation-necessary section includes software that determines: “a section in which the controller 410 determines, through the pressure value measured by the first measurer 300, that the resection tool 3 is excessively close to the expander 200.” [Pg. 18, lines 5-7] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 12 and 19 recites “resection-possible section” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to indicate that the magnitude of the pressure measured by the first measurer is between the first set pressure and the second set pressure. According to the specification the resection-possible section includes software that determines: “a section in which the controller 410 determines, through the pressure value measured by the first measurer 300, that the resection tool 3 is positioned at an appropriate distance from the expander 200.” [Pg. 18, lines 11-13] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 14 recites “measurer” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to measure an air pressure inside the expander. According to the specification the measurer includes a pressure sensor connected to an injector and a pressure gauge [Pg. 27, lines 1-9] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4, 5 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.
-Claim 4 recites “the plurality of first measuring members included in each of the plurality of first measurers” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 5 recites “wherein ones of the plurality of first measuring members respectively provided in different first measurers among the plurality of first measures” in lines 2-4. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to in terms of the plurality of first measuring members provided in different first measurers among the plurality of first measures. Possible grammatical correction may be required along with further explanation of what is required by the claim.
-Claim 5 recites “along a same circumference of the expander” in line 4. It is unclear which element is being referred to as having the same circumference of the expander. Further clarification should be required to identify whether this is referring to the plurality of first measurers, plurality of first measuring members, or a separate embodiment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-12, 14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Dea (U.S. 20120277525).
Regarding Claim 1, O’Dea teaches a sleeve gastrectomy aid device [0001] comprising:
a guide configured to be inserted into a stomach of a patient [Fig. 1, element 15 (catheter)] and [0069];
an expander configured to be disposed outside the guide and have a volume that changes according to an amount of air in the expander [Fig. 1, element 19 and 20(primary balloon and secondary inflatable element)] and [0087];
a first measurer configured to measure a pressure applied to the expander and have a shape that changes in accordance with a change in the volume of the expander [Fig. 1 elements 69 (primary pressure transducer), 37 (primary sensing electrodes)] and [0091]; and
a monitor configured to be connected to the first measurer and provide resection position information through a value of the pressure measured by the first measurer [Fig. 1, element 41 (visual display screen)] and [0101],
wherein the first measurer comprises:
a plurality of first measuring members configured to be attached to an inner side surface of the expander [Fig. 1 elements 69 (primary pressure transducer), 37 (primary sensing electrodes)] and [0091] and [0125]; and
a connector configured to be connected to the plurality of first measuring members adjacent to each other and expand and contract according to a distance between the plurality of first measuring members adjacent to each other [Fig. 1, element 22 (primary hollow interior region)] and [0091]—recites the electrodes being spaced along the interior region and moving during inflation and deflation.
Regarding Claim 8, O’Dea teaches wherein the connector is made of a material capable of conducting current [0091].
Regarding Claim 9, O’Dea teaches wherein the resection position information is information on a distance from the expander to a resection tool [0108],
wherein the distance from the expander to the resection tool is determined based on the value of the pressure measured by the first measurer [0108; “Suturing…deflated.”]
Regarding Claim 10, O’Dea teaches wherein the monitor comprises:
a controller configured to determine the resection position information based on the value of the pressure measured by the first measurer [Fig. 1, element 38 (data processing circuit)]; and
a display configured to display the resection position information determined by the controller [Fig. 1, element 39 (visual display screen)].
Regarding Claim 11, O’Dea teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine resection position sections according to a magnitude of the value of the pressure measured by the first measurer [0108].
Regarding Claim 12, O’Dea teaches wherein the resection position sections comprise:
an approach-necessary section indicating a case in which the magnitude of the value of the pressure measured by the first measurer is lower than or equal to a first set pressure [0103]—reference to surgeon or physician monitoring based on display data when to terminate inflation (interpreted to be equal to the predefined pressure referenced in [0104];
a separation-necessary section indicating a case in which the magnitude of the value of the pressure measured by the first measurer is higher than or equal to a second set pressure [0110]—reference to programming an alarm in response to the pressure of the saline inflating medium increasing above a predefined value; and
a resection-possible section indicating that the magnitude of the value of the pressure measured by the first measurer is between the first set pressure and the second set pressure [0104]—reference to monitoring the second balloon having a second predefined value.
Regarding Claim 14, O’Dea teaches a sleeve gastrectomy aid device [0001]—reference to “a device…in a sleeve gastrectomy procedure” comprising:
a guide configured to be inserted into a stomach of a patient [Fig. 1, element 15 (catheter)] and [0069];
an expander configured to be disposed outside the guide and have a volume that changes according to an amount of air in the expander [Fig. 1, element 19 and 20(primary balloon and secondary inflatable element)] and [0087];
a measurer configured to measure an air pressure inside the expander [Fig. 1 elements 69 (primary pressure transducer), 37 (primary sensing electrodes)] and [0091] and [0125]; and
a monitor configured to be connected to the measurer and provide resection position information through a value of the air pressure measured by the measurer [Fig. 1, element 41 (visual display screen)] and [0101],
wherein the measurer is connected to an injector configured to inject air into the expander [Fig. 1, elements 56 and 57 (primary and secondary pumps)] and [0106; “The primary balloon…adjacent the respective primary sensing electrodes 37.”]
Regarding Claim 16, O’Dea teaches wherein the resection position information is information on a distance from the expander to a resection tool [0108]—reference to desired transverse cross-sectional area or diameter,
wherein the distance from the expander to the resection tool is determined based on the value of the air pressure measured by the measurer [0108; “Suturing…deflated.”]
Regarding Claim 17, O’Dea teaches wherein the monitor comprises:
a controller configured to determine the resection position information based on the value of the air pressure measured by the measurer [Fig. 1, element 38 (data processing circuit)]; and
a display configured to display the resection position information determined by the controller [Fig. 1, element 39 (visual display screen)].
Regarding Claim 18, O’Dea teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine resection position sections according to a magnitude of the value of the air pressure measured by the measurer [0108].
Regarding Claim 19, O’Dea teaches wherein the resection position sections comprise:
an approach-necessary section indicating a case in which the magnitude of the value of the air pressure measured by the measurer is lower than or equal to a first set pressure [0103]—reference to surgeon or physician monitoring based on display data when to terminate inflation (interpreted to be equal to the predefined pressure referenced in [0104];
a separation-necessary section indicating a case in which the magnitude of the value of the air pressure measured by the measurer is higher than or equal to a second set pressure [0110]—reference to programming an alarm in response to the pressure of the saline inflating medium increasing above a predefined value; and
a resection-possible section indicating that the magnitude of the value of the air pressure measured by the measurer is between the first set pressure and the second set pressure [0104]—reference to monitoring the second balloon having a second predefined value.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dea (U.S. 20120277525) in view of Hiller (U.S. 20180110979).
Regarding Claim 3, O’Dea teaches wherein the first measurer extends in a longitudinal direction of the expander and the sleeve gastrectomy aid device comprises a plurality of first measurers Fig. 1 elements 69 (primary pressure transducer), 37 (primary sensing electrodes)],
O’Dea is silent on and the plurality of first measurers are spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the expander. Hiller teaches and the plurality of first measurers are spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the expander [Fig. 5, elements 408 (plurality of sensing elements)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the electrodes and sensors out circumferentially as taught by Hiller to provide an inflatable gastric balloon structure as suggested by O’Dea as O’Dea discusses monitoring the cross-sectional area or the diameter of the inflatable elements to determine whether the stomach is being excessively stretched [0072] with Hiller because Hiller teaches transitioning the device between a collapsed and expanded configuration [0040].
Regarding Claim 4, O’Dea is silent on wherein the plurality of first measuring members included in each of the plurality of first measurers are disposed to be spaced apart at predetermined intervals in the longitudinal direction of the expander [0039]—describes legs and sensing elements being evenly spaced apar from each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the electrodes and sensors out evenly as taught by Hiller to provide an inflatable gastric balloon structure as suggested by O’Dea as O’Dea discusses spacing apart a pair of primary stimulating electrodes [0091] with Hiller because Hiller teaches using both equal and unequal spacing for components of the device [0039].
Regarding Claim 5, O’Dea teaches wherein ones of the plurality of first measuring members respectively provided in different first measurers among the plurality of first measures [Fig. 1 elements 69 (primary pressure transducer), 37 (primary sensing electrodes)]. O’Dea is silent on are disposed along a same circumference of the expander. Hiller teaches are disposed along a same circumference of the expander [0043]—reference to circumferential ties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the structural elements out along the circumference as taught by Hiller to provide an inflatable gastric balloon structure as suggested by O’Dea as O’Dea discusses determining transverse cross-sectional area or the diameter adjacent to the primary sensing electrodes [0092] with Hiller because Hiller teaches expansion and contraction of the device [0048].
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dea (U.S. 20120277525) in view of Vrba (U.S. 20170348049).
Regarding Claim 6, O’Dea is silent on wherein the connector extends in a zigzag shape in a longitudinal direction thereof. Vrba teaches wherein the connector extends in a zigzag shape in a longitudinal direction thereof [Fig. 20C] and [0299]—reference to connecting wires in a zigzag arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the structures in a zigzag configuration as taught by Vrba to control spacing and sizing between the electrodes as suggested by O’Dea as O’Dea discusses spacing between the balloon components of the device [0090] with Vrba because Vrba teaches advantageously reducing spacing between the electrodes and reducing the overall size while maintaining a spiral pattern [0299].
Regarding Claim 7, O’Dea is silent on wherein the connector comprises a plurality of connecting members connected to each other in a lattice form and each having a diameter expanding in a direction parallel to a direction in which an external force is applied. Vrba teaches wherein the connector comprises a plurality of connecting members connected to each other in a lattice form [0189]—reference to expandable structures in the form of cages and baskets, interpreted to be lattice form, and each having a diameter expanding in a direction parallel to a direction in which an external force is applied [Fig. 37B, elements 3710A-D (lesion zones/connecting members)] and [0378]—referring to diameter expansion caused by contact force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a zigzag configuration to allow for diameter expansion as external forces are applied as taught by Vrba allow for anatomical deployment as suggested by O’Dea as O’Dea discusses tapering portions of the device to allow for extension throughout the stomach and its subsections [0009] with Vrba because Vrba teaches these deployment configurations to allow for the self-expandable or mechanically expandable nature of the device to facilitate contact with anatomy [0189].
Claim(s) 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dea (U.S. 20120277525) in view of Davidson (U.S. 20150099925).
Regarding Claim 13, O’Dea is silent on wherein the display is configured to display different colors according to the resection position sections. Davidson teaches wherein the display is configured to display different colors according to the resection position sections [0029]—reference to color-coded representation of endoscope movement and [Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize color indicators as taught by Davidson to monitoring pressure changes as suggested by O’Dea as O’Dea discusses use of a visual alarm in response to pressure changes [0110] with Davidson because Davidson teaches these indicators helping to minimize risk of perforating GI tract [0030].
Regarding Claim 20, O’Dea is silent on wherein the display is configured to display different colors according to the resection position sections [0029]—reference to color-coded representation of endoscope movement and [Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize color indicators as taught by Davidson to monitoring pressure changes as suggested by O’Dea as O’Dea discusses use of a visual alarm in response to pressure changes [0110] with Davidson because Davidson teaches these indicators helping to minimize risk of perforating GI tract [0030].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 with respect to the Claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Claim interpretation notice have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The application contends that each identified term is associated with definite structure. The examiner notes that the terms identified under claim interpretations are either nonce terms or are not used in a traditional or well-known manner to one of ordinary skill in the art. The terms:
-expander, first measurer, plurality of first measuring members, connector, plurality of connecting members, controller, and measurer are considered nonce terms that do not properly identify the corresponding structure associated with the element.
-monitor, approach-necessary section, separation-necessary section and resection-necessary section are not terms traditionally found in the art. For example, the applicant contends that the use of the term section is not a substitute for a means-plus function but rather a claim-defined range of pressure values. This demonstrates that this term is not conventionally used to indicate a physical structure and instead represents a pressure value which would not be well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 16 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 8-12, 14-19 under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. For claim 1, applicant contends that O’Dea does not teach:
the sensing electrodes (37) and the pressure sensing means (69) are provided so as to be deformable in shape.
structure for interconnecting neighboring pressure sensing means (69) or neighboring sensing electrodes (37).
plurality of first measuring members and connector,
Regarding argument 1, examiner notes that this limitation is not required by the claim. Further, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the sensing electrodes and the pressure sensing means are provided so as to be deformable in shape”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding argument 2, examiner notes that this limitation is not required by the claim. Further, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “structure for interconnecting neighboring pressure sensing means (69) or neighboring sensing electrodes”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding argument 3, examiner notes that the plurality of first measuring members and connector are referenced as [Fig. 1 elements 69 (primary pressure transducer), 37 (primary sensing electrodes)] and [Fig. 1, element 22 (primary hollow interior region)]. The transducers and electrodes are referenced throughout O’Dea as having the capability to sense which would fulfill the limitation of plurality of first measuring members and the connector is disclosed as open ends in the specification [Pg. 13, lines 1-11] which is taught is by O’Dea as a primary hollow interior region.
In summary, the applicant further contends that O’Dea does not teach ''wherein the first measurer comprises: a plurality of first measuring members configured to be attached to an inner side surface of the expander; and a connector configured to be connected to the plurality of first measuring members adjacent to each other and expand and contract according to a distance between the plurality of first measuring members adjacent to each other.” The examiner notes that the following references were presented in the body of the rejection [0091] and [0125]; and [Fig. 1, element 22 (primary hollow interior region)] and [0091]—recites the electrodes being spaced along the interior region and moving during inflation and deflation. These references describe and depict the electrodes and transducers attached to an inner surface of the balloon and inflatable element. Although only shown in 2-dimensions, the transducers appear to be at the center of this inflatable element and balloon which would encompass the inner side surface of the element. The connector, interpreted to be the primary hollow region connects the first measuring members which are next to one another with further description of inflation (expand) and deflation (contract) found in [0091].
For claim 14, applicant contends that O’Dea does not teach:
disclose that a pressure-measuring means may be provided at or connected to the inflating pump (56),
wherein the measurer is connected to an injector configured to inject air into the expander,
Regarding argument 1. for claim 14, the examiner notes that the recitation in argument 1 is not required by the claim. Further, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “disclose that a pressure-measuring means may be provided at or connected to the inflating pump”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding argument 2. For claim 14, the examiner notes that the following references were made to support this teaching: [Fig. 1, elements 56 and 57 (primary and secondary pumps)] and [0106; “The primary balloon…adjacent the respective primary sensing electrodes 37.”] These references describe a primary and secondary pump that injects or inserts air into the balloons and is connected to the primary sensing electrodes.
In view of the foregoing, the previously presented rejections citing O’Dea are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 16 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 3-7, 13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Hiller and Vrba do not cure the deficiencies as discussed for claim 1. The examiner notes the rejection citing O’Dea is maintained and that Hiller and Vrba are not required to overcome the deficiencies.
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights