DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Non-Provisional Patent Application filed on November 30, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
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) 1-5, 11, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shindo (US 2023/0277192).
Concerning claims 1 and 16, the Shindo reference teaches a medical device handle (Figure 1-7; 10) comprising: an actuator (Figure 1; 14); a first pulley (Figure 2; 34); a second pulley (Figure 1; 32), wherein the second pulley is movable relative to the first pulley along an axis extending between a first axle of the first pulley and a second axle of the second pulley ([¶ 0133]); a pull member wrapped around the first pulley and the second pulley (Figure 2; 30) and coupled to the actuator ([¶ 0134], pull member coupled to actuator via pinion 28), and a control member coupled to the second pulley (Figure 2; 20) wherein movement of the second pulley along the axis is configured to move the control member in a direction parallel to or coaxial with the axis ([¶ 0140]); wherein the medical device handle is configured to transition from a first configuration, in which the first pulley and the second pulley are separated by a first distance, to a second configuration, in which the first pulley and the second pully are separated by a second distance, wherein the second distance is smaller than the first distance ([¶ 0133], first configuration = actuator is not pressed; second configuration = actuator is pressed).
Concerning claim 2, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the first pulley (Figure 2; 34) is fixed relative to a body of the medical device handle ([¶ 0133]).
Concerning claim 3, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein each of the pull member and the control member includes at least one of a wire, a cable or a thread (Figure 1; 20, 30).
Concerning claim 4, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the axis extending between the first axle of the first pulley and the second axle of the second pulley is approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the medical device handle (Figure 2; horizontal arrow).
Concerning claim 5, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein movement of the control member is configured to actuate an end effector at a distal end of a shaft extending from the medical device handle ([¶ 0141]).
Concerning claim 11, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the first pulley and the second pulley confer a mechanical advantage, such that a force exerted by the actuator on the pull member is smaller than a force exerted by the second pulley on the control member ([¶ 0133]).
Concerning claim 13, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the second pulley is coupled to the control member by a coupler (Figure 2; 33).
Concerning claim 14, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 13, wherein the coupler is affixed to a face of the second pulley (Figure 2; 32, 33).
Concerning claim 15, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein movement of the second pulley along the axis by a distance is configured to move the control member by the distance ([¶ 0133]).
Concerning claim 17, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 16, wherein transitioning the medial device handle from the first configuration to the second configuration causes the control member to move proximally ([¶ 0134]).
Concerning claim 18, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 17, wherein movement of the control member is configured to actuate an end effector at a distal end of a shaft extending from the medical device handle ([¶ 0141]).
Concerning claim 20, the Shindo reference teaches a medical device handle (Figure 1-7; 10) comprising: an actuator (Figure 1; 14); a first pulley (Figure 2; 34); a second pulley (Figure 1; 32), wherein the second pulley is movable relative to the first pulley along an axis extending between a first axle of the first pulley and a second axle of the second pulley ([¶ 0133]); a pull member wrapped around the first pulley and the second pulley (Figure 2; 30) and coupled to the actuator ([¶ 0134], pull member coupled to actuator via pinion 28), and a control member coupled to the second pulley (Figure 2; 20); wherein the actuator is configured to move the pull member proximally so as to move the second pulley proximally relative to the first pulley, thereby moving the control member proximally ([¶ 0133]).
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jogasaki et al. (US 2017/0156711, hereinafter Jogasaki).
Concerning claim 1, the Jogasaki et al. prior art reference teaches a medical device handle (Figure 1-8) comprising: an actuator (Figure 1; 5); a first pulley (Figure 2; 16); a second pulley (Figure 1; 23), wherein the second pulley is movable relative to the first pulley along an axis extending between a first axle of the first pulley and a second axle of the second pulley ([¶ 0047]); a pull member wrapped around the first pulley and the second pulley (Figure 1; 15) and coupled to the actuator ([¶ 0054], pull member is operatively coupled to the actuator via pinion gears 9); and a control member coupled to the second pulley (Figure 1; 2, operatively coupled to the second pulley via racks 7), wherein movement of the second pulley along the axis is configured to move the control member in a direction parallel to or coaxial with the axis (Figure 1; B | [¶ 0053]).
Concerning claim 6, the Jogasaki reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the first pulley is rotatable about the first axle, and wherein the second pulley is rotatable about the second axle ([¶ 0038, 0051]).
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo (US 2023/0277192) in view of Hyodo et al. (US 2016/0360949, hereinafter Hyodo).
Concerning claims 7-10 and 19, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, further comprising a resilient member in the form of a spring configured to exert a restoring force on the pull member when the medical device is in the second configuration (Figure 4A; 46 | [¶ 0141]), but does not specifically teach said resilient member extending between the first pulley and the second pulley to restore force on the second pulley.
However, the Hyodo reference teaches a manipulation device including a first fixed pulley (Figure 5; 2) and a second movable pulley (Figure 5; 45), and a control member coupled to the second pulley, and further including a resilient member extending between the first pulley and the second pulley to exert a restoring force on the second pulley (Figure 5; 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the resilient member of the Shindo reference be positioned between the first pulley and the second pulley to exert a restoring force on the second pulley as in the Hyodo reference as a simple substitution of one known placement for a biasing member for exerting a restoring force on a control member (the compression spring at the end effector of Shindo) for another known placement for a biasing member for exerting a restoring force on a control member (the coil spring within the pully mechanism of the Hyodo reference) which would yield the predictable result of effectively operating in the same manner.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo (US 2023/0277192) in view of Kirkemo (US 2016/0089127).
Concerning claim 12, the Shindo reference teaches the medical device handle of claim 1, wherein the actuator is a push button ([¶ 0076]) or a lever ([¶ 0153]), but does not specifically teach at least one finger loop.
However, the Kirkemo reference teaches a medical device handle, therein being in the same field of endeavor as the Shindo reference, wherein the handle includes an actuator that may be a ring, button, or trigger ([¶ 0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the actuator of the Shindo reference be at least one finger loop as in the Kirkemo reference, given the Kirkemo reference defines a ring, or finger loop as an obvious alternative to a button or trigger (Kirkemo; [¶ 0052]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Frassica et al. reference (US 5,626,553), the teaches a medical device handle including an actuator, a first pulley, and a second movable pulley; the Okamoto et al. reference (US 2014/0309625) teaches a medical device handle including a pulley mechanism including a pull member, a control member, and a resilient member; the Jogasaki et al. reference (US 2016/0213438) teaches a medical device including a pulley system with a fixed pulley, a movable pulley, and a resilient member positioned between the pulleys; and the Kuroda et al. reference (US 2015/0032119) teaches a medical device handle that includes a pair of movable pullies for actuating a snare mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 12/23/2025