DETAILED ACTION
The following is a First Action, Non-Final Office Action on the merits.
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 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. PCT/KR2021/010050 provides adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Accordingly, the benefit date is given as 8/2/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The amendment filed 1/26/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the first paragraph incorporates by reference the applications to which priority is claimed. Since the filing date of the application is the PCT date (8/2/2021) and not the US national stage filing date (1/26/2024), this incorporation by reference is regarded as new matter. See MPEP §608.01(p) (“An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)) 1B & 1893.03(b) (“An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date.”) Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it merely restates claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “some of nerves” to -some nerves- in ll. 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the body” to -a body- in ll. 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the end of the electrode” to -an end of the electrode- in ll. 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “to move the electrode guide” to -to move the electrode unit- in ll. 9 since the specification states: “the electrode driving unit 150 may be configured to move the electrode unit 120 in the forward and backward directions in conjunction with the electrode guide driving unit 140”. Appropriate correction is required. The Examiner notes the specification repeats the claim wording in several places also and thus it is also suggested to amend these recitations; however, the originally filed disclosure provides support for both the limitation in claim 1 and the proposed amendment since the electrode driving unit is configured to move the electrode unit in conjunction with the electrode guide driving unit, which, in turn, are configured to move the electrode guide.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “that moves” to -that is configured to move- in ll. 14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the circumference of the tube” to -a circumference of the tube- in ll. 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “moves” to -is configured to move- in ll. 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “is moved” to -is configured to move- in ll. 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “blocks” to -is configured to block- in ll. 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “reduces” to -is configured to reduce-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “moves” to -is configured to move- in ll. 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “moves” to -is configured to move- in ll. 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the same length” to -a same length- in ll. 2. 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 1-11 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 1 recites the limitations “the end of the electrode unit” in ll. 5, “one end of the electrode unit” in ll. 12 and “one end of the electrode unit” in ll. 19. It is unclear if “the end” and “one end” in either of lls. 12 or 19 are all the same as or different from one another. For purposes of examination, they will all be interpreted as being the same “end”.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and are thus also rejected.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 3-5, 9 & 11 all recite “when” phrases which are interpreted as functional language/intended use.
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: “electrode guide”, “electrode driving unit”, “tensile force maintaining unit” and “a moving unit” in claim 1 and “reducer” in claim 4.
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. Specifically: “electrode guide 130 includes a plurality of joint units 131 …the electrode guide 130 may further include a tip joint 132 and a wire 133”, “electrode driving unit 150 may include a tensile force maintaining unit 151, a moving unit 152, a reducer 153, a forward movement rail 154, a backward movement rail 155, a connection rail 156 connecting the forward movement rail 154 and the backward movement rail 155, and a second stopper 157”; “tensile force maintaining unit 151 may include a first spring 151a, the protrusion 151b upwardly protruding from one side, a first stopper 151c an electrode connection portion 151d on the other side”; and “moving unit 152 may include a connection portion 152a for connection to the tensile force maintaining unit 151, the pin 152b, a support 152c and a hinge 152d”. See 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph rejection regarding the “reducer” in claim 4.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 limitation “a reducer that reduces a speed of the electrode connection portion moved in the backward direction…” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (“reducer” is a generic placeholder modified by the functional limitation of “that reduces a speed of the electrode connection portion moved in the backward direction…” and not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function). The originally filed disclosure is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states: “The reducer 153 may reduce the tensile force of the first spring 151a when the tensile force maintaining unit 151 and the moving unit 152 are disconnected from each other…. Therefore, in the present disclosure, the reducer 153 gradually reduces the tensile force of the first spring 151a so that damage to the tube V can be suppressed…. Here, when the tensile force maintaining unit 151 and the moving unit 152 are disconnected from each other, the electrode driving unit 150 may gradually reduce the tensile force of the first spring 151a by means of the reducer 153. That is, the length of the first spring 151a may be gradually decreased to a predetermined length (D2.fwdarw.D3) by means of the reducer 153.” The drawings illustrate a box as “reducer 153”. Thus, the disclosure is devoid of any specific structure that performs the function in the claim and lacks description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the structure or structures that perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 & 5-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-11 of copending Application No. 18/684411 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite: electrode device for nerve denervation or modulation in vivo (electrode apparatus for nerve denervation or modulation in vivo), comprising: a main body including a shaft (a main body including a shaft); an electrode unit formed to be drawn out from one end of the shaft and configured to denervate or modulate at least some of nerves on a tube in the body (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 a body); an electrode guide coupled to the end of the electrode unit and configured to guide the electrode unit to be brought into contact with the tube in the body (an electrode guide coupled to the end of the electrode unit and configured to guide the electrode unit to be brought into contact with the tube in the body); an electrode guide driving unit configured to move the electrode guide in forward and backward directions (an electrode guide driving unit configured to move the electrode guide in forward and backward directions); and an electrode driving unit configured to move the electrode guide in the forward and backward directions in conjunction with the electrode guide driving unit (an electrode driving unit configured to move the electrode guide in the forward and backward directions in conjunction with the electrode guide driving unit), wherein the electrode driving unit includes (electrode driving unit includes): a tensile force maintaining unit connected to one end of the electrode unit and configured to provide a tensile force to the electrode unit (a tensile force maintenance unit connected to one end of the electrode unit); and a moving unit that moves the tensile force maintaining unit in the forward direction (a moving unit that is connected to the tensile force maintenance unit and moves the tensile force maintenance unit in the forward and backward directions) until the electrode guide encloses the circumference of the tube in the body in a state where the moving unit is connected to the tensile force maintaining unit, and then is disconnected from the tensile force maintaining unit (moving unit moves the tensile force maintenance unit in the forward direction until the electrode guide encloses circumference of the tube in the body in a state where the moving unit is connected to the tensile force maintenance unit, and then is disconnected from the tensile force maintenance unit; claim 2), and after the tensile force maintaining unit and the moving unit are disconnected from each other, an electrode connection portion connected to one end of the electrode unit moves in the backward direction (a connection portion for connection to the tensile force maintenance unit; and a pin formed in the connection portion and configured to enable the moving unit to move the tensile force maintenance unit in the forward direction, and the electrode driving unit further includes: a forward movement rail along which the pin moves in the forward direction; the electrode driving unit further includes: a backward movement rail along which the pin moves in the backward direction to make the electrode guide deviate from the circumference of the tube in the body after the moving unit is disconnected from the tensile force maintenance unit). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the co-pending application anticipate the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 & 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-10 of copending Application No. 19/034080 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite: electrode device for nerve denervation or modulation in vivo (electrode apparatus for nerve denervation or modulation in vivo), comprising: a main body including a shaft (a main body including a shaft); an electrode unit formed to be drawn out from one end of the shaft and configured to denervate or modulate at least some of nerves on a tube in the body (n 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 a body); an electrode guide coupled to the end of the electrode unit and configured to guide the electrode unit to be brought into contact with the tube in the body (an electrode guide coupled to the end of the electrode unit and configured to guide the electrode unit to be brought into contact with the tube in the body); an electrode guide driving unit configured to move the electrode guide in forward and backward directions (an electrode guide driving unit configured to move the electrode guide in forward and backward directions); and an electrode driving unit configured to move the electrode guide in the forward and backward directions in conjunction with the electrode guide driving unit (an electrode driving unit configured to move the electrode guide in the forward and backward directions in conjunction with the electrode guide driving unit), wherein the electrode driving unit includes (electrode driving unit includes): a tensile force maintaining unit connected to one end of the electrode unit and configured to provide a tensile force to the electrode unit (a tensile force maintenance unit connected to one end of the electrode unit); and a moving unit that moves the tensile force maintaining unit in the forward direction (a moving unit that is connected to the tensile force maintenance unit and moves the tensile force maintenance unit in the forward and backward directions) until the electrode guide encloses the circumference of the tube in the body in a state where the moving unit is connected to the tensile force maintaining unit, and then is disconnected from the tensile force maintaining unit (moving unit moves the tensile force maintenance unit in the forward direction until the electrode guide encloses circumference of the tube in the body in a state where the moving unit is connected to the tensile force maintenance unit, and then is disconnected from the tensile force maintenance unit; claim 2), and after the tensile force maintaining unit and the moving unit are disconnected from each other, an electrode connection portion connected to one end of the electrode unit moves in the backward direction (a connection portion for connection to the tensile force maintenance unit; and a pin formed in the connection portion and configured to enable the moving unit to move the tensile force maintenance unit in the forward direction, and the electrode driving unit further includes: a forward movement rail along which the pin moves in the forward direction; the electrode driving unit further includes: a backward movement rail along which the pin moves in the backward direction to make the electrode guide deviate from the circumference of the tube in the body after the moving unit is disconnected from the tensile force maintenance unit). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the co-pending application anticipate the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The closest prior art is regarded as: Joeng et al. (KR10-2244131, using US2023/0157747 as translation, cited in IDS, having two common inventors) teaches an electrode device comprising a main body, an electrode unit and an electrode guide configured to enclose a circumference of a tube in a body, but fail to disclose the structure (as invoked under 35 USC 112(f)/sixth paragraph) of “a tensile force maintaining unit” and “a maintaining unit” in combination with the limitations of claim 1. Elmouelhi et al. (2006/0079883) disclose an electrode device comprising a main body including a shaft, an electrode unit (30), an electrode guide (38A), an electrode guide driving unit (110), an electrode driving unit (108), a tensile maintaining unit (112), and a moving unit (118) that disconnects from the tensile maintaining unit (112), but fails to disclose the structure (as invoked under 35 USC 112(f)/sixth paragraph) of “an electrode guide”, “an electrode guide driving unit”, “a tensile force maintaining unit” and “a maintaining unit”. Park et al. (KR 10-2015-0021632, cited in IDS) disclose a medical device comprising a guide driving unit (300, 310, 311, 315, 312, 365, 362, 340) configured to move a guide (140) in a forward and backward direction and a driving unit (200, 210, 220, 271, 262, 215, 250) configured to move a unit that includes a tensile force maintaining unit (250) and a moving unit (200), but fails to disclose all elements of the structure (as invoked under 35 USC 112(f)/sixth paragraph) of “an electrode guide”, “an electrode guide driving unit”, “a tensile force maintaining unit” and “a maintaining unit”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYMI E DELLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1429. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:00 am - 4:45 pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYMI E DELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
JAYMI E. DELLA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3794