DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The accompanying information disclosure statement (IDS) submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loschak et al. (6/12/23 IDS NPL cite No 3, “Loschak, Paul M., et al. "A 4-DOF robot for positioning ultrasound imaging catheters." ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, 2015.”, and hereinafter Loschak).
For claim 1, Loschak discloses a method for robotically operating a catheter (Figs 1-11) (Pgs 3-7), the method comprising inter alia:
connecting a robot to a shaft of a catheter spaced from a handle of the catheter (Figs 6-11) Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5);
translating, by the robot at a location of the connection, the catheter along a longitudinal axis of the shaft (via translational transmission actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5); and
rotating, by the robot at the location of the connection, the shaft about the longitudinal axis (via rotational transmission actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5).
For claim 2, Loschak discloses the method of claim 1 wherein translating comprises operating a worm drive (translational transmission actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5), a worm (helical drive portion of translational transmission actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) of the worm drive connecting the robot to the shaft and a worm wheel (translational helical gear) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) of the worm drive connected to a motor (translational actuator(s)) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5).
For claim 3, Loschak discloses the method of claim 2 wherein translating comprises driving the worm along the longitudinal axis with a threaded connection to the worm wheel (helical based translation actuator) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5).
For claim 4, Loschak discloses the method of claim 1 wherein rotating comprises operating a worm drive (rotational transmission actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5), a worm (helical drive portion of rotational transmission actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) of the worm drive connecting the robot to the shaft and a worm wheel (rotational helical gears (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) of the worm drive connected to a motor (rotational actuator(s)) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5).
For claim 5, Loschak discloses the method of claim 4 wherein rotating comprises rotating the worm by rotation of the worm wheel, a tooth of the worm wheel positioned in a groove on the worm (rotation based translation actuator) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5).
For claim 6, Loschak discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising operating the catheter at the handle by the robot and wherein translating and rotating are additional operation of the catheter at the location (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5).
For claim 7, Loschak discloses a system for robotic manipulation of a catheter, the system comprising inter alia:
a handle robot (robot manipulator portion for last DOF for rotating handle, Pg 4 robot design section) configured to hold a handle of the catheter, the handle robot having one or more first gears to operate controls of the handle of the catheter (Pg 4 robot design section);
an access point robot (robot manipulator portion for translation DOF, robot manipulator portion for bending DOF for L/R pitch, and robot manipulator portion for other bending DOF for P/A yaw, Pg 4 robot design section) configured to hold a shaft of the catheter away from the handle, the access point robot configured to translate the shaft along a longitudinal axis of the catheter and to rotate the shaft about the longitudinal axis Pg 4 robot design section); and
a controller (computer terminal GUI, Pg 3) configured to control operation of the first gears, the translation, and the rotation (Pgs 3-4).
For claim 8, Loschak discloses the system of claim 7 wherein the access point robot comprises
a worm drive (rotational and translational transmission actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) having a worm (rotational and translational helical actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) with threading (threads of rotational and translational helical actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) and a notch (notches for rotational and translational of helical actuators/drives) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5),
a first worm wheel (translational helical gear) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) having threading (threading of the translation translational helical gear) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5), and
a second worm wheel (rotational helical gears (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) having a tooth (tooth of the rotational helical gear) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5) matable with the notch for the rotation (tooth of the rotational helical gear) (Figs 6-11) (Pages 3-5, especially sections 4.2-4.5).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record on the accompanying PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relating to means for configuring and methods for executing robotic catheter control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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 A. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791