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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding independent Claim 1
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 with respect to claim 1 (filed with the RCE) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 applicant arguments center around the claim language specific to the cap. The language reads:
“wherein the cap includes a cavity sized to form an interference fit with the tubular member”
Applicants arguments center on the secondary reference of von Open. However, it is important to first look at the primary reference of Wiesman US 2022/0280764. Initially, the von Open reference was used merely to demonstrate that a frictional fit is a common type of fit for a cap. However, Wiesman discloses the cap 1 (figures 1-4). Figures 2 and 4 are found below. Figure 2 demonstrates the holding device assembly 12, the holding device assembly includes the introducer tip 2 and the grip housing 3 which is placed over the catheter 5 as shown in figure 3. Figure 4 shows the cap 1 is placed over the introducer tip to protect the introducer tip. To be clear, the cap 5 itself fits over the introducer tip 2 prior to the catheter extending out of the introducer tip. It is now argued, in response, that this is in-fact a classic frictional fit. A frictional fit is a mechanical joining method
PNG
media_image1.png
348
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
531
849
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which can include a press fit or an interference fit and relies on forces between the two componentsi. As can be seen in figures 2 and 4 of Weisman the holding device includes an introducer tip which is immediately adjacent to an unlabeled component which is shown in grey in the images provided. The grey component clearly is placed into the cap at the grey component on the cap. Weisman further discloses the following:
Paragraph [0176] As shown in FIGS. 1-4, the cap 1 covers and protects the introducer tip 2, while also maintaining a lubricant jelly contained in system. The cap 1 is a plastic, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), but can be made from other known plastics. The cap 1 should be easily removed but should not pull the introducer tip 2 off of housing 3 when removed.
Paragraph [0200] For the various embodiments described herein, the protective assembly 10 is provided with a protective introducer tip 2, which aids the introduction of the catheter 9 into the tract. The introducer tip 2 may be any suitable material, such as silicone, rubber. The introducer tip 2, as can be seen with reference to FIG. 5, has a slit valve, such as may be created by one or more cuts in the tip; which can be seen, for example, in an “X” cut in the end 2a, through which the distal end and body of the catheter 9 may pass. In use, at least a portion of the length of the tip 2 is to be inserted into the penis, thereby enabling the catheter/sheath to safely pass through the glans penis where the majority of bacteria resides. The front end of the holding device assembly 12, comprising the components depicted in FIGS. 4 and 7, provides an introducer tip 2, grip housing 3, with a retention device 4, and may be protected by cap 1 until removed for use. The holding device assembly 12 enables the catheter 9 to enter into the urethra after the introducer tip 2 is positioned in the urethra and lubricates the catheter 9 as it advanced through the grip housing 3 and is exposed to the lubricating gel contained within the grip housing 3.
Paragraph [0221] As shown in FIGS. 18 and 19, the graduated tubular style catheter/protective sheath design assembly 5′ of the second embodiment includes an introducer tip 2′, with one or more slits cut into the tip 2a′ to allow the catheter 5′ to pass freely there through. The introducer tip may be a silicone material, rubber, or other suitable elastomeric material. An expanded view of the introducer tip 2′ can be seen with reference to FIG. 20. The one or more slits in the tip 2a′ may be in the form of a star cut by providing 3 or more slices into the tip, such that when viewed end on, there is a star pattern, where the flexibility of the material allows each of the portions between adjacent slit sections to conform to the outside perimeter of the catheter passing through the tip. It is further contemplated that alternative slit configurations to the tip may be provided to allow the passage of the catheter therethrough, such as the “X” cut (2 slices), “Y” cut (3 radial slices), or a single slit that can accommodate passage of the catheter. The introducer tip 2′ was designed to be the first level of protection when the graduated tubular style catheter/protective sheath design assembly 10′ enters the glans penis/urinary meatus reducing the risk of transferring microbes further into the urethra. The protective assembly 10′ of the second embodiment may be fitted with a cap 1′ to protect the introducer tip 2′, as shown in FIG. 17. An expanded view of the cap 1′ can be seen with reference to FIG. 21. The cap 1′ as represented offers an easy pull cap design, that can be separated from the tip 2′ with a small pulling force, without dislodging the introducer tip 2′ from the housing 3′. A cross-section view of the protective sheath assembly 10′ can be seen with reference to FIG. 24. As discussed previously, an amount of lubricant jelly may be provided within the cap 1′ and against the distal end 2a′ of the tip 2′, leaving a coating of lubricant jelly on the introducer tip 2′ to facilitate introduction into the tract of a body, such as the urethra.
In this design by Weisman, and based on the above paragraphs, the cap is removable by the user and is considered to be an easy pull cap design. The cap is removed using a small pulling force, the pulling force is small in order to prevent dislodgment of the introducer tip from the housing 3 (figure 2). Weisman does not disclose a snap fit, which would require more force. Weisman is disclosing a tip which is held in place via a small force, when a small pulling force is applied the cap can be removed; this is a clear description of a friction fit. This small pulling force is clearly required and the cap is not simply fitted over the introducer
PNG
media_image5.png
616
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
tip; there is some force between the introducer tip and the protective cap holding it in place. Therefore, based on these passages it is clear that this is a typical frictional fit. This is further apparent in figure 24. In figure 24 the cap, shown in green sits over the introducer tip shown in grey. The cap can be removed when a small pulling force is applied thus creating a standard frictional fit. Although Weisman does not use the language “frictional fit” the fact that the cap is described as being easy to remove with a small pulling force demonstrates that this is a frictional fit. There are no snaps or other components to demonstrate a separate and distinct type of fit other than a typical friction fit. It is further noted that a frictional fit is not an inventive concept and is known throughout many different arts.
Regarding independent Claim 13
Applicant argues that because Weisman discloses a bullnose shape for the cap which also includes a ring that extends distally the distal most end cannot be interpreted as a distal most portion of the cap as a whole. The cap of figure 4 is shown below with reference to the rejection of claim 13. Initially the claim recites “A medical cap for a vascular catheter, comprising:”. The use of the word comprising is open ended. The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., > Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”). Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Comprising” is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 803 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves “the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”). In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371-73, 74 USPQ2d 1586, 1589-91 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that a claim to “a safety razor blade unit comprising a guard, a cap, and a group of first, second, and third blades” encompasses razors with more than three blades because the transitional phrase “comprising” in the preamble and the phrase “group of” are presumptively open-ended. “The word comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” Id. In contrast, the court noted the phrase “group consisting of” is a closed term, which is often used in claim drafting to signal a “Markush group” that is by its nature closed. Id. The court also emphasized that reference to “first,” “second,” and “third” blades in the claim was not used to show a serial or numerical limitation but instead was used to
PNG
media_image6.png
350
918
media_image6.png
Greyscale
distinguish or identify the various members of the group.
Therefore, due to the use of an open ended use of comprising the ring, which can either be considered a component of the cap or a separate component is not excluded as an additional component based on the MPEP.
Regarding independent Claim 19
Applicant’s arguments, see the response filed 5/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 18 under Wiesman have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sowards et al. US 2021/0275256.
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 1-12 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, lines 11-12 recite; “wherein the cap is formed of a single component”. This language is unclear because it can have more than one meaning. For instance a single component could be that the cap is only formed of plastic, which would be a single component or a single component could be that the cap is not joined in any manner and is a singular cap. Therefore this language is indefinite.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected because they depend from claim 1 which is rejected.
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 –
Claims 1-4, 6 and 12-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weisman US 2022/0280746.
Regarding claim 1: Weisman disclose a medical device assembly (figures 1-4), comprising:
a tubular member 5 (“catheter/protective sheath assembly”, figures 1-3, paragraph 0175) defining a lumen (paragraph 0027 “an interior lumen extending through the tubular catheter body” also paragraph 0182) extending along a length of the tubular member from a proximal to a distal end (in figure 1 the proximal end is towards 5e, while the distal end is towards cap 1), the tubular member is configured for insertion into a patient (“insert the introducer tip 2 into the urethra”, paragraph 0196);
an elongate medical device 155 (“surgical fiber” figure 60 and figure 60) disposed within the lumen so that a distal end of the elongate medical device is disposed adjacent the distal end of the tubular member (paragraphs 0012, 0203, 0246); and
a cap 1 (figures 1-4 and 7-8) covering the distal end of the tubular member (figures 1,2, 4 and 7), the cap configured to prevent contamination of the elongate medical device prior to insertion of the tubular member into the patient (paragraph 0176);
PNG
media_image5.png
616
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the cap is formed of a single component (“PVC”, paragraph 0176) and includes a cavity sized to form an interference fit with the tubular member (figure 7 demonstrates the cap in place over the distal tip, this is considered to be an interference fit because the cap requires a pulling force to remove the cap, paragraph 0221).
Regarding claims 2-3: Weisman discloses that the cap 1 (figures 1-3, paragraph 0176) covers and protects the introducer tip 2 (figures 1-3) and also maintains lubricant jelly within the system, and is therefore considered fluid tight (paragraph 0176) which would also prevent microbial ingress.
Regarding claim 4: Weisman discloses that the cap 1 (figure 1-3) is detachably coupled (paragraphs 0176 and 0200).
Regarding claim 6: Weisman discloses that the elongate medical device includes an optical fiber which extends along the length of the medical device (figure 60, “surgical fiber”, paragraph 0203, paragraphs 0214, 0222, 0246).
Regarding claim 12: Weisman discloses that the elongate medical device is a catheter (paragraph 0175).
Regarding claim 13: Wiesman discloses a cap body defining a proximal and distal end, a cavity extending into the cap body from the proximal end, the cavity configured to receive the catheter (as is shown in figure 3 the catheter 5 can be contained within introducer tip 2, the cap operably covers introducer tip 2) and the cap is configured to prevent contamination of the medical device disposed within a lumen of the catheter (paragraph 0176 the cap maintains a lubricant within the system and is thus considered to be fluid tight which would inherently reduce contamination prior to cap removal). Weisman discloses that the cap includes a bullnose shape with an exterior surface at the distal most end of the cap which is considered to be smooth and contoured (figure 1). Specifically regarding the claim language “the cap includes a bullnose shape”, this shape is clearly seen in figures 1-3. The claim is an open-ended claim which includes the language “comprising” in the preamble. This language was discussed in the response to the arguments and will not be repeated here, however because this is an open ended claim construction the loop on the cap of Weisman does not prevent Weisman from being used as prior art or in a 102 rejection because in open ended claim construction additional components can be in the prior art.
Regarding claims 14-15: Weisman discloses that the cap 1 (figures 1-3, paragraph 0176) covers and protects the introducer tip 2 (figures 1-3) and also maintains lubricant jelly within the system, and is therefore considered fluid tight (paragraph 0176) which would also prevent microbial ingress.
Regarding claim 16: Weisman discloses that the cap 1 (figure 1-3) is detachably coupled (paragraphs 0176 and 0200).
Regarding claim 17: Weisman discloses that the cavity is tapered and the cap includes a bullnose shape (figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiesman US 2022/0280746 previously recited in view of Ramamurthy et a US 8,864,655 previously recited.
Regarding claim 5: Weisman discloses the claimed invention including the elongate medical device 155 (figure 60) however Weisman does not disclose that the elongate medical device 155 is enabled for tracking the location of the elongate medical device within the patient, it is noted that the elongate medical device 155 is an optical fiber (paragraph 0207). Ramamurthy however teaches of an optical fiber which includes strain sensors for tracking the device within a body (column 7, lines 24-36). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman to include strains sensors for tracking the device within a body, as taught by Ramamurthy, in order to determine a position of the device.
Regarding claim 7: Weisman discloses the claimed invention however Weisman does not specifically disclose a multicore optical fiber with a plurality of gratings along the length with the gratings enabling shape sensing. Ramamurthy however teaches of an optical fiber which can include multiple sub-cores (column 11, lines 8-9). The fibers include Fiber Bragg Gratings (FBGs 302, figures 3B and 3C) formed within or written into the core. The FBGs provide accurate shape and position data (column 8, lines 2-4). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman to include a multicore fiber with FBG’s, as taught by Ramamurthy, in order to provide accurate shape and position data.
Regarding claim 8: Weisman discloses the claimed invention however Weisman does not specifically disclose a number of illuminating fiber cores which propagate light distally along the device and imaging optical fiber cores used. Ramamurthy however teaches of an optical fiber which can include multiple sub-cores (column 11, lines 8-9). The fibers include Fiber Bragg Gratings (FBGs 302, figures 3B and 3C) formed within or written into the core. The FBGs provide accurate shape and position data (column 8, lines 2-4). As is known in the art the light is propagated distally. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman to include a multicore fiber with FBG’s, as taught by Ramamurthy, in order to provide accurate shape and position data.
Regarding claims 9-10: Weisman discloses the claimed invention however Weisman does not specifically discloses magnetic elements disposed along the length used for magnetic tracking. Ramamurthy however teaches of using electromagnetic coils (column 14, line 52), an electromagnetic localizing sensor can be placed on each Bragg Fiber to obtain three-dimensional coordinates (column 20, lines 27-35). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman to include an electromagnetic localizing sensor can be placed on each Bragg Fiber to obtain three-dimensional coordinates, as taught by Ramamurthy, in order to establish absolute position (Ramamurthy column 20, line 31). Specifically regarding claim 10, the language found in claim 10 is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. Applicant is reminded that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. In this instance, the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use recitations since the device comprises the required magnetic elements.
Regarding claim 11: Weisman discloses the claimed invention including the elongate medical device 155 (figure 60) however Weisman does not disclose that the elongate medical device 155 is an intravascular catheter. Ramamurthy however teaches of an intravascular system (column 8, line 56) which uses a guide catheter (column 8, line 12) which is considered to be an intravascular catheter based on figure 2A. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman to include an intravascular catheter, as taught by Ramamurthy, in order to treat cardiac tissue.
Claims 19-25 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiesman US 2022/0280746 previously recited in view of Sowards et al. US 2021/0275256.
Regarding claim 19: Weisman discloses providing an elongate medical device assembly (figures 1-3 demonstrate the medical device assembly) comprising;
a tubular member 5 (“catheter/protective sheath assembly”, figures 1-3, paragraph 0175) defining a lumen (paragraph 0027 “an interior lumen extending through the tubular catheter body” also paragraph 0182) extending along a length of the tubular member from a proximal to a distal end (in figure 1 the proximal end is towards 5e, while the distal end is towards cap 1), the tubular member is configured for insertion into a patient (“insert the introducer tip 2 into the urethra”, paragraph 0196);
an elongate medical device 155 (“surgical fiber” figure 60 and figure 60) disposed within the lumen so that a distal end of the elongate medical device is disposed adjacent the distal end of the tubular member (paragraphs 0012, 0203, 0246);
wherein the elongate medical device includes an optical fiber 155 (“surgical fiber”, paragraph 0203 and figure 60); and
a cap 1 (figures 1-4 and 7-8) covering the distal end of the tubular member (figures 1,2, 4 and 7), the cap configured to prevent contamination of the elongate medical device prior to insertion of the tubular member into the patient (paragraph 0176);
removing the cap from the tubular member (paragraphs 0176, 0200 and 0241) and
projecting illuminating light distally away from the distal end of the elongate medical device (0207-0209).
However, Weisman does not disclose a multicore optical fiber which includes a number of illuminating optical fiber cores for propagating light distally and projecting light away from the distal end of the medical device or inserting the distal end of the device through skin of a patient.
Sowards however teaches of introducing a catheter 195 (figure 4) through a skin insertion site 410 (figure 4); the catheter 195 contains a multi-core optical fiber positioned within stylet 130 (figure 5, paragraph 0051). As can be seen in Sowards figure 5 there are multiple fibers 510 (figure 5) which each project light distally, paragraph 0009 discloses that the light is projected distally. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman to include a catheter introduced through the skin of a patient which includes a multi-core optical fiber which projects light distally, as taught by Sowards, in order to determine a physical state of the multi-core optical fiber (abstract Sowards).
Regarding claims 20-21: Weisman discloses that the cap 1 (figures 1-3, paragraph 0176) covers and protects the introducer tip 2 (figures 1-3) and also maintains lubricant jelly within the system, and is therefore considered fluid tight (paragraph 0176) which would also prevent microbial ingress.
Regarding claim 22: Weisman/Sowards discloses the claimed invention Sowards further teaches of advancing a catheter along the vasculature of the patient (paragraphs 0011-0012, 0018 and 0045). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman/Sowards to include advancing the catheter along vasculature, as taught by Sowards, in order to place the assembly at a desired location.
Regarding claim 23: Weisman/Sowards discloses the claimed invention Sowards further teaches of tracking the placement of the catheter (paragraph 0006). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman/Sowards to include tracking placement of the multi-core optical fiber, as taught by Sowards, in order to enable tracking and guidance of the stylet/catheter tip to a desired position with respect to a node of the patient's heart (Sowards, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 24: Weisman/Sowards discloses the claimed invention Sowards further teaches that the multi-core fiber includes multiple gratings (paragraphs 0041, 0043 and 0053) which are along a length of the optical fiber, the gratings enabling shape sensing (paragraphs 0011-12 and 0041) and tracking the location of the medical device for display (paragraphs 0048-49). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman/Sowards to include multiple gratings along a length of the optical fibers, with the gratings enabling shape sensing and tracking for display, as taught by Sowards, in order to have a representation of the physical state of the stylet which include length, shape, form and orientation.
Regarding claim 25: Weisman/Sowards discloses the claimed invention Sowards further teach that the multi-core optical fibers propagate light proximally (paragraphs 009-0010) to the distal end, and the light is then received proximally (paragraphs 0009-0010, 0047, 0052 and 0073). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman/Sowards to include that the multi-core optical fibers propagate light proximally to the distal end, and the light is then received proximally after being reflected back, as taught by Sowards, in order to have the reflected light sent back to the console for analysis.
Regarding claim 29: Weisman/Sowards discloses the claimed invention Sowards further teach of an intravascular guidance medical device (paragraph 0002), the catheter resides within the vasculature (paragraph 0064) and is therefore considered to be an intravascular catheter. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman/Sowards to include an intravascular catheter, as taught by Sowards, in order to position the catheter within the patients or proximate to the patient’s heart.
Regarding claim 30: Weisman discloses that the medical device is a catheter (paragraph 0182).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiesman US 2022/0280746 previously recited in view of Sowards et al. US 2021/0275256 and further in view of Ramamurthy et a US 8,864,655 previously recited.
Regarding claims 26-28: Weisman/Sowards discloses the claimed invention however Weisman/Sowards does not specifically discloses magnetic elements disposed along the length used for magnetic tracking. Ramamurthy however teaches of using electromagnetic coils (column 14, line 52), an electromagnetic localizing sensor can be placed on each Bragg Fiber to obtain three-dimensional coordinates (column 20, lines 27-35). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Weisman/Sowards to include an electromagnetic localizing sensor can be placed on each Bragg Fiber to obtain three-dimensional coordinates, as taught by Ramamurthy, in order to establish absolute position (Ramamurthy column 20, line 31). Specifically regarding claims 27-28, the language found in claim 10 is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. Applicant is reminded that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. In this instance, the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use recitations since the device comprises the required magnetic elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST.
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, Carl H Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
PAULA J. STICE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
i Friction Vs Snap Fit https://design-encyclopedia.com/?T=Friction%20Vs%20Snap%20Fit
Prosecution Insights