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 .
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: “a first movement device”, “a second movement device” and “a holding device” in claim 1; “a first connection portion” in claim 3; “a holding portion” and “an external device” in claim 13; “a second connection portion” and “a third connection portion” in claim 16; and “a closing device” in claim 17.
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 1-17 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.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, wherein the first movement device and the second movement device hold each other when the first movement device and the second movement device are in the holding state (emphasis added). It is not clear how the first and second movement devices hold each other. Does one device clamp onto the other? Or is there some other form of engagement? Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the first and second movement devices not moving relative to each other in the holding state.
Dependent claim 6 recites that the second movement device has a second inner wall surface. However, independent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, does not recite the second movement device having a first inner wall surface. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claim 7 recites that the second movement device has a second inner diameter. However, independent claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, does not recite the second movement device having a first inner diameter. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the second movement device is recited as having an inner diameter that is different at the top and bottom of the device. However, the claim does not make clear the location or orientation of the top and bottom of the device. Accordingly, the claims are rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the top of is interpreted as the proximal end of the second movement device and the bottom is interpreted as the distal end of the second movement device.
Dependent claim 9 recite that the holding device has a third outer wall surface and the second movement device has a second inner wall surface. . However, independent claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, does not recite the holding device having a first or second outer wall surface, or the second movement device having a first inner wall surface. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the holding device is recited “to face in an outgoing direction away from the gap”. However, the direction that is outgoing and in which the holding device faces is not clear from the claim language. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the distal end of the holding device is interpreted as facing the gap.
Regarding claim 12, the holding device is recited as having an inner diameter that gradually decreases from bottom to top. However, the claim does not make clear the location or orientation of the top and bottom of the device. Accordingly, the claims is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the top of is interpreted as the proximal end of the holding device and the bottom is interpreted as the distal end of the holding device.
Regarding claims 14-16, they recite the holding system further comprising an endoscope device. However, claim 1, from which claims 14-16 depend recites “a holding system for an endoscope” (emphasis added). Additionally, the specification recites the holding system as comprising a sleeve device; a first movement device connected to the sleeve device; a second movement device in contact with the first movement device; and a holding device connected to the second movement device (see, for example, the abstract of the published application). The claimed holding system is a structure for holding an endoscope, and does not include the endoscope itself. Accordingly, it is not clear how the claimed structure for holding an endoscope includes the endoscope as part of the structure. Accordingly, the claims are rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the endoscope is not considered a structural element of the holding system. Should Applicant desire to claim the endoscope, it should claim a system comprising the holding system and an endoscope.
Regarding claim 14, the endoscope device is recited as having a guiding rail extended into the endoscope device. It is not clear how the rail is “extended into” the endoscope device. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the guiding rail is interpreted as a groove disposed on the exterior of the endoscope device.
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, 4-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaspers et al. (US 2012/0296281 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jaspers discloses a holding system for an endoscope, comprising: a sleeve device (6/61; par. [0056]; Figs. 6A-6B); a first movement device (11; par. [0071] and [0074]; Figs. 6A-6B) connected to the sleeve device (6/61; Figs. 6A-6B); a second movement device (31; par. [0072]; Figs. 6A-6B) in contact with the first movement device (11; Figs. 6A-6B); and a holding device (53/55/56; par. [0072]-[0073] and [0075]-[0080]; Figs. 6A-6B and 8A-8B) connected to the second movement device (31; Figs. 6A-6B) and adapted to allow the first movement device (11) and the second movement device (31) to be in a relatively movable state (par. [0074] and [0076]; Fig. 7A) or a holding state (par. [0078]-[0079]; Fig. 7B), wherein the first movement device (11) is movable relative to the second movement device (31) when the first movement device (11) and the second movement device (31) are in the relatively movable state (par. [0074] and [0076]; Fig. 7A), wherein the first movement device (11) and the second movement device (31) hold each other when the first movement device (11) and the second movement device (31) are in the holding state (par. [0078]-[0079]; Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 4, Jaspers discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein the second movement device (31) defines a holding axis direction (longitudinal axis of 31; Fig. 3A), and the first movement device (11) defines a movement axis direction (longitudinal axis of 11; Fig. 3A), allowing a three-dimensional included angle to be defined between the holding axis direction (longitudinal axis of 31; Fig. 3A) and the movement axis direction (longitudinal axis of 11; Fig. 3A) and changed because of movement of the first movement device relative (11) to the second movement device (31) when the first movement device and the second movement device are in the relatively movable state (par. [0074] and [0076]; Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 5, Jaspers discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein the second movement device (31) defines a holding axis direction (longitudinal axis of 31; Fig. 3A), and the first movement device (11) defines a movement axis direction (longitudinal axis of 11; Fig. 3A), allowing a three-dimensional included angle to be defined between the holding axis direction (longitudinal axis of 31; Fig. 3A) and the movement axis direction (longitudinal axis of 11; Fig. 3A) and maintained at a specific three-dimensional angle because the first movement device (11) and the second movement device (31) hold each other when the first movement device and the second movement device are in the holding state (par. [0078]-[0079]; Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 6, Jaspers discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein a first outer wall surface of the first movement device (11) is convex (Figs. 6A-6B), a second inner wall surface of the second movement device (31) is concave ( to engage 11), and the first outer wall surface (of 11) not only enables the first movement device (11) to be in contact with the second inner wall surface of the second movement device (31) but also enables the first movement device (11) to be movable relative to the second inner wall surface of the second movement device (31) when the first movement device and the second movement device are in the relatively movable state (par. [0074] and [0076]; Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 14, Jaspers discloses the holding system of claim 1, further comprising an endoscope device (capable of such intended use; par. [0002]-[0003]; 7) connected to the sleeve device and at least partially extended into the sleeve device.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gobel et al. (DE 102018103968 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gobel discloses a holding system for an endoscope, comprising: a sleeve device (50; Figs. 1 and 2); a first movement device (22; Fig. 2) connected to the sleeve device (Fig. 3); a second movement device (40; Fig. 2) in contact with the first movement device (22; Fig. 4); and a holding device (80/81; Figs. 4 and 7) connected to the second movement device (40) and adapted to allow the first movement device (22) and the second movement device (40) to be in a relatively movable state (when 80 is not tightened; page 10 - “each clamping lever (74) has a pressure region (78) which is adapted to the hinge part (20) and to press against the holding portion (22) when the tensioning levers (74) are compressed, the tensioning levers (74) in particular being connected to a tightening screw (80) adapted to move the tensioning levers (74) compress”) or a holding state (when 80 is tightened; page 10 - “each clamping lever (74) has a pressure region (78) which is adapted to the hinge part (20) and to press against the holding portion (22) when the tensioning levers (74) are compressed, the tensioning levers (74) in particular being connected to a tightening screw (80) adapted to move the tensioning levers (74) compress”), wherein the first movement device (22; Fig. 4) is movable relative to the second movement device (40) when the first movement device and the second movement device are in the relatively movable state (when 80 is not tightened), wherein the first movement device (22; Fig. 4) and the second movement device (40) hold each other when the first movement device and the second movement device are in the holding state (when 80 is tightened).
Regarding claim 2, Gobel discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein the first movement device (22) comprises a first half portion (first half portion 30; Fig. 2; bottom of page 6 - “the holding section 22 is in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 26 in at least two retaining segments 30 divided, in the embodiment shown here are three holding segments 30”) and a second half portion (second half portion 30; Fig. 2; bottom of page 6 - “the holding section 22 is in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 26 in at least two retaining segments 30 divided, in the embodiment shown here are three holding segments 30”), with the first half portion detachably connected to the second half portion (via 86/90; Figs. 4, 5 and 8; page 8, first paragraph).
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (WO 90/13841 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a holding system for an endoscope, comprising: a sleeve device (5/6/7/9; Figs. 2 and 4); a first movement device (22; Fig. 4) connected to the sleeve device (22 connects to 5; Figs. 2 and 4; page 2 - “a threaded coupling 5” and page 3 - “the endoscope bore 1 is connected to and through the bearing 22 by nut 5 to protrude through the opening 19”); a second movement device (20/21; Fig. 4) in contact with the first movement device (22; Fig. 4); and a holding device (23; Fig. 4) connected to the second movement device (20/21) and adapted to allow the first movement device (22) and the second movement device (20/21) to be in a relatively movable state (page 3 - “the universal bearing 22 provides for effortless repositioning of the bore 1 over a wide arc”) or a holding state (page 3 - “locking nut 23 is provided to clamp the bearing 22 for sustained, steady observation of one point”), wherein the first movement device (22; Fig. 4) is movable relative to the second movement device (20/21) when the first movement device and the second movement device are in the relatively movable state (when 23 is not engaged; page 3 - “the universal bearing 22 provides for effortless repositioning of the bore 1 over a wide arc”), wherein the first movement device (22; Fig. 4) and the second movement device (20/21) hold each other when the first movement device and the second movement device are in the holding state (page 3 - “locking nut 23 is provided to clamp the bearing 22 for sustained, steady observation of one point”).
Regarding claim 3, Miller discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein a first inner wall surface of the first movement device (22; Fig. 4) has a receiving groove (to receive threaded coupling 5), and a first connection portion of the sleeve device (Figs. 2 and 4; page 2 - “a threaded coupling 5”) is partially received in the receiving groove (Figs. 2 and 4; page 3 - “the endoscope bore 1 is connected to and through the bearing 22 by nut 5 to protrude through the opening 19”).
Regarding claim 7, Miller discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein the second movement device (20/21) has a second inner diameter with a lower half thereof decreasing gradually from top to bottom (Fig. 4 – the inner diameter of 21 that extends into 19 gradually decreases).
Regarding claim 8, Miller discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein the second movement device (20/21) has a bottom inner diameter (Fig. 4 – the inner diameter at the distalmost end of 21), and the first movement device (22; Fig. 4) has an outer diameter greater than the bottom inner diameter (Fig. 4 – largest outer diameter of 22).
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunn (US 5,810,712 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dunn discloses a holding system for an endoscope, comprising: a sleeve device (14; Figs. 1-2); a first movement device (18; Figs. 1 and 4) connected to the sleeve device (14); a second movement device (16; Figs. 1 and 4) in contact with the first movement device (18; Figs. 1 and 4); and a holding device (22/23; Fig. 1) connected to the second movement device (16; Fig. 1) and adapted to allow the first movement device (18) and the second movement device (16) to be in a relatively movable state (col. 7, ll. 48-56; Fig. 4) or a holding state (col. 6, ll. 20-28), wherein the first movement device (18) is movable relative to the second movement device (16) when the first movement device (18) and the second movement device (16) are in the relatively movable state (col. 7, ll. 48-56; Fig. 4), wherein the first movement device (18) and the second movement device (16) hold each other when the first movement device (18) and the second movement device (16) are in the holding state (col. 6, ll. 20-28).
Regarding claim 9, Dunn discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein the holding device (22/23; Fig. 1) has a third outer wall surface with an outer thread portion (22/23; Fig. 1), and the second movement device (16; Fig. 1) has a second inner wall surface with an inner thread portion (portion of 16 through which 22 is threaded; Fig. 1), such that the outer thread portion enables the holding device (22/23; Fig. 1) to be connected to the inner thread portion of the second movement device (16; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Dunn discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein a gap (Figs. 1 and 4 - space between 16 and 18 enabling movement of 18 therebetween) is defined between the first movement device (18) and the second movement device (16; Fig. 1), allowing the holding device (22/23; Fig. 1) to face the gap, move relative to the second movement device (16; Fig. 1), and come into contact with the first movement device (18) to allow the first movement device and the second movement device to be in the holding state (when 22/23 is tightened; col. 6, ll. 20-28).
Regarding claim 11, Dunn discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein a gap (Figs. 1 and 4 - space between 16 and 18 enabling movement of 18 therebetween) is defined between the first movement device (18) and the second movement device (16; Fig. 1), allowing the holding device (22/23; Fig. 1) to face in an outgoing direction away from the gap (Fig. 1), move relative to the second movement device (16; Fig. 1), and separate from the first movement device (18; when 23 is loosened) to allow the first movement device and the second movement device to be in the relatively movable state (col. 7, ll. 48-56; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Dunn discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein the second movement device (16; Fig. 1) has a holding portion (24; Figs. 1 and 3) held in place at an external device
Regarding claim 14, Dunn discloses the holding system of claim 1, further comprising an endoscope device (52; Fig. 4) connected to the sleeve device (14; Fig. 4) and at least partially extended into the sleeve device (14; Fig. 4)
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (US 2021/0393289 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a holding system for an endoscope, comprising: a sleeve device (103b; par. [0041]; Figs. 2B and 3A); a first movement device (103a; par. [0039] and [0041]; Figs. 2B and 3A) connected to the sleeve device (103b); a second movement device (109; par. [0032] and [0033]; Figs. 2A-2B) in contact with the first movement device (103a; Figs. 2B and 3A); and a holding device (113; par. [0033] and [0041]; Figs. 2A-2B) connected to the second movement device (109; Figs. 2A-2C) and adapted to allow the first movement device (103a) and the second movement device (109) to be in a relatively movable state (par. [0041]; Fig. 2B) or a holding state (par. [0033] and [0039]), wherein the first movement device (103a) is movable relative to the second movement device (109) when the first movement device (103a) and the second movement device (109) are in the relatively movable state (par. [0041]; Fig. 2B), wherein the first movement device (103a) and the second movement device (109) hold each other when the first movement device (103a) and the second movement device (109) are in the holding state (par. [0033] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Song discloses the holding system of claim 1, wherein the holding device (113; Fig. 2A) has a first inner diameter (inner diameter of 113a; Fig. 2A) with a lower half thereof decreasing gradually from bottom to top (Fig. 2A – inner diameter of 113a gradually decreases from the bottom (thin) edge to the top; inner diameter at the bottom is larger than the inner diameter at the top).
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) 15-16 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaspers, as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Csiky (US 2012/0232339 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Jaspers discloses the holding system of claim 14, wherein the endoscope device has a guiding rail extended into the endoscope device (capable of such intended use; the endoscope is not a structural component of the holding system), but does not specifically disclose a sleeve inner wall of the sleeve device has a guiding protrusion at least partially received in the guiding rail. Csiky teaches an analogous system wherein a sleeve inner wall of a sleeve device (28; Fig. 9F) has a guiding protrusion (50; Fig. 9F; par. [0174]) at least partially received in a guiding rail. Csiky teaches providing guiding protrusions and rails in order to provide sliding connections between components (par. [0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a guiding protrusion on the sleeve inner wall that engages with a guiding rail of a device in order to providing a sliding connection between the components, thereby enabling easy longitudinal movement of the inserted device in the sleeve along a determined path and rotation of the sleeve and inserted device.
Regarding claim 16, Jaspers discloses the holding system of claim 14, wherein the endoscope device has a second connection portion (capable of such intended use; the endoscope is not a structural component of the holding system), but does not specifically disclose the sleeve device has a third connection portion, allowing the endoscope device to be connected to the third connection portion of the sleeve device through the second connection portion. Csiky teaches an analogous system wherein a sleeve inner wall of a sleeve device (28; Fig. 9F) has a third connection portion (50; Fig. 9F; par. [0174]) at least partially received in a second connection portion. Csiky teaches providing a third connection portion and a second connection portion in order to provide sliding connections between components (par. [0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a third connection portion on the sleeve inner wall that engages with a second connection portion of a device in order to providing a sliding connection between the components, thereby enabling easy longitudinal movement of the inserted device in the sleeve along a determined path and rotation of the sleeve and inserted device.
Claim(s) 17 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaspers, as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Bonutti et al. (US 2014/0142509 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Jaspers discloses the holding system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose it further comprising a closing device connected to the sleeve device and at least partially extended into the sleeve device. Bonutti teaches an analogous holding system comprising a closing device (114; Fig. 14) connected to the sleeve device (110/204 ; Fig. 14) and at least partially extended into the sleeve device (Fig. 14). Bonutti teaches the closing device aids in positioning the sleeve device and dilating the body opening prior to insertion of the sleeve into the patient anatomy (par. [0089] and [0092]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the closing device of Bonutti in the system of Jaspers in order to accurately position the sleeve device in a dilated opening, as taught by Bonutti.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYNAE E BOLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/RYNAE E BOLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/23/26