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 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 1-20 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.
In re claim 1,
The limitation “…being coupled to a first hub of an interventional device assembly”, raises a clarity concern when viewed in combination with the earlier limitation. Specifically, it is unclear if “an interventional device assembly” Applicant is referring to the same “interventional device assembly” recited in the limitation “an anti-buckling device for an interventional device assembly” or a second, different, interventional device assembly. For examination purposes the limitation “being coupled to a first hub of a interventional device assembly”, will be interpreted as “…being coupled to a first hub of the interventional device assembly”.
The limitation “a telescoping tube comprising a proximal end….the proximal end of the telescoping tube being coupled to a first hub of an interventional device assembly” promotes a clarity concern. Examiner notes that “a first hub” is not positively required by the claim and therefore fails to further limit the structure of “a telescoping tube”. For examination purposes, any telescoping tube with a proximal end capable of mating with a suitably dimensioned “ first hub” type component will be interpreted as satisfying the limitation. If Applicant intends to positively require “a first hub”, Examiner recommends positively reciting “a first hub” as an element that the “anti-buckling device” comprises.
The limitation “a distal retainer coupled to the distal end of the telescoping tube, the distal retainer being configured to releasably couple to a distal hub attachment at a distal end of the first hub” promotes a clarity concern. As discussed above (see (ii)), the limitation “a first hub” is not positively required by the claim. Therefore, it is unclear how the limitation “a distal hub attachment at a distal end of the first hub”, seeks to further limit the claim, as it fails to further define or distinguish the structure of “a distal retainer”. For examination purposes any “distal retainer” capable of coupling to a suitably dimension “distal hub attachment” will be interpreted as satisfying the limitation.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-20 inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 2, the limitation “wherein the second hub comprises a proximal hub attachment configured to receive the distal retainer”, raises a clarity concern given that “a second hub” is not positively required by claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear how the limitation “wherein the second hub comprises a proximal hub attachment configured to receive the distal retainer” further limits the structure of the “distal retainer”. For examination purposes, any distal retainer capable of coupling with a suitably dimensioned “proximal hub attachment” will be interpreted as satisfying the limitation. If Applicant intends to positively recite “a second hub”, Examiner recommends positively reciting “a second hub” as an element that the “anti-buckling device” comprises.
In re claim 3, for substantially the same reasons as described above (In re claim 2) the limitation “the proximal hub attachment comprises a recess and one or more slots configured to receive the body and one or more tabs of the distal retainer, respectively” raises a clarity concern. For examination purposes, any distal retainer configured to be mated with a suitably dimensioned “proximal hub attachment” will be interpreted as satisfying the limitation. Examiner notes that dependent claims 4, 5 and 6 inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 5, the limitation “wherein each of the one or more slots of the proximal hub attachment comprises an internal taper”,” raises a clarity concern. As discussed above, given that the “a second hub” is not positively required by claim 1, it is unclear how the limitation further limits the structure of the “distal retainer”. For examination purposes, any distal retainer configured to be mated with a suitably dimensioned “proximal hub attachment” will be interpreted as satisfying the limitation.
In re claim 7, the limitation “wherein the distal hub attachment of the first hub is configured to receive the distal retainer”, raises a clarity concern. Specifically, it is unclear how the limitation further limits the structure of “the distal retainer”, given that “the first hub” is not positively required by the claim. For examination purposes any distal retainer configured to be mated with a suitably dimensioned “distal hub attachment” type component will be interpreted as satisfying the limitation “wherein the distal hub attachment of the first hub is configured to receive the distal retainer”. Examiner notes that dependent claims 8, 9, 10 and 11 inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 8, the limitation “the distal hub attachment of the first hub comprises a recess and one or more slots configured to receive the body and one or more tabs of the distal retainer, respectively” raises a clarity concern given that “the first hub” and “the distal hub attachment of the first hub” are not positively required by claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear how the limitation “the distal hub attachment of the first hub comprises a recess and one or more slots configured to receive the body and one or more tabs of the distal retainer, respectively” seeks to further limit the structure of “the distal retainer”. For examination purposes, any distal retainer configured to be mated with a suitably dimensioned “distal hub attachment” will be interpreted as satisfying the limitation. Examiner notes that dependent claim 11 inherits the same deficiencies.
In re claim 10, the limitation “wherein each of the one or more slots of the distal hub attachment comprises an internal taper”, raises a clarity concern. As discussed above, given that “a first hub” and “a distal hub attachment” are not positively required by claim 1, it is unclear how the limitation further limits the structure of the “distal retainer”. For examination purposes, any distal retainer configured to be mated with a suitably dimensioned “a proximal hub attachment” will be interpreted as satisfying the limitation.
In re claim 14, the limitation “wherein the proximal retainer is secured within an interior of the first hub between a proximal end of the first hub and the distal end of the first hub” promotes a clarity concern given that the “first hub” is not positively required by claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation will be given patentable weight only in how it materially alters or adds structure to “the proximal retainer”.
In re claim 20, the limitation “wherein the telescoping tube is contained by the first hub when in the first configuration.”, raises a clarity concern given that the “first hub” is not positively required by claim 1. For examination purposes the limitation “wherein the telescoping tube is contained by the first hub when in the first configuration” will be given patentable weight only in how It materially alters the structure of “the telescoping tube”.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stahler et al. (US 2012/0071895).
In re claim 1, Stahler discloses an anti-buckling device (FIG. 65D- 65F: 500; [0509, 0510]: “anti- buckling device 500”) for an interventional device assembly (FIG. 1; abstract), comprising:
a telescoping tube (640) comprising
a proximal end (right most end of telescoping tube 640) and
a distal end (left most end of telescoping tube 640),
the proximal end of the telescoping tube being coupled to a first hub of an interventional device assembly (FIG. 65A, FIG. 65D, FIG.65E; regarding limitation “a first hub”, see above section Claim Rejection 112 (In re claim 1 (ii))); and
a distal retainer (cylindrical portion attached to distal end of telescoping tube 640) coupled to the distal end of the telescoping tube (FIG. 65D, FIG. 65E),
the distal retainer being configured to
releasably couple to a distal hub attachment at a distal end of the first hub in a first configuration (see above section Claim Rejection 112 (In re claim 1 (iii)); Examiner notes it is apparent that the “distal retainer” could be mated a suitably dimensioned “distal hub attachment” as claimed) and
releasably couple to a second hub of the interventional device assembly positioned distal to the first hub in a second configuration (FIG. 65D, FIG. 65E; Note the limitation “a second hub”, is not positively recited in the claim and therefore fails to further limit the “distal retainer” of Stahler. Examiner notes that the “distal retainer” of Stahler could be mated with such a suitably dimensioned “second hub” as claimed)
In re claim 2, Stahler discloses,
wherein the second hub comprises a proximal hub attachment configured to receive the distal retainer (see above section Claim Rejections § 112 (In re claim 2)),
*wherein the distal retainer is configured to be rotated relative to the proximal hub attachment when received within the proximal hub attachment to releasably attach the distal retainer to the proximal hub attachment.
*The limitation “wherein the distal retainer is configured to be rotated relative to the proximal hub attachment when received within the proximal hub attachment to releasably attach the distal retainer to the proximal hub attachment”, comprises functional language and has been given patentable weight only in how it materially alters or adds structure to the apparatus of the claims. See MPEP 2114. The prior art need only be able to perform these functions in order to anticipate the claimed invention. It is clear that the system of Stahler could be operated in the claimed manner if desired.
In re claim 3, Stahler discloses, wherein:
the distal retainer comprises a body (cylindrical structure of distal retainer) with one or more tabs (partially curved portion extending out from the “body”) extending radially outward therefrom (FIG. 65D, FIG. 65E); and
the proximal hub attachment comprises a recess and one or more slots configured to receive the body and one or more tabs of the distal retainer, respectively (see above section Claim Rejections § 112 (In re claim 3); Examiner notes that the “distal retainer” of Stahler could be mated with a suitably dimensioned “proximal hub attachment” as claimed).
In re claim 4, Stahler discloses, wherein each of the one or more tabs of the distal retainer comprises a tapered leading edge (FIG. 65D, FIG. 65E).
In re claim 5, Stahler discloses, wherein each of the one or more slots of the proximal hub attachment comprises an internal taper (see above section Claim Rejections § 112 (In re claim 5); Examiner notes that the “distal retainer” could be mated with suitably dimensioned “proximal hub attachment” as claimed).
In re claim 7, Stahler discloses,
wherein the distal hub attachment of the first hub is configured to receive the distal retainer (see above section Claim Rejections § 112 (In re claim 7); Examiner notes “the distal retainer” of Stahler could be mated with a suitably dimensioned “distal hub attachment” as claimed).
*wherein the distal retainer is configured to be rotated relative to the distal hub attachment when received within the distal hub attachment to releasably attach the distal retainer to the distal hub attachment (see * below).
*The limitation “wherein the distal retainer is configured to be rotated relative to the distal hub attachment when received within the distal hub attachment to releasably attach the distal retainer to the distal hub attachment”, comprises functional language and has been given patentable weight only in how it materially alters or adds structure to the apparatus of the claims. See MPEP 2114. The prior art need only be able to perform these functions in order to anticipate the claimed invention. It is clear that the system of Stahler could be operated in the claimed manner if desired.
In re claim 8, Stahler discloses, wherein:
the distal retainer comprises a body (cylindrical structure of distal retainer) with one or more tabs (partially curved portion extending outward from the “body”) radially outward therefrom (FIG. 65D, FIG. 65E); and
the distal hub attachment of the first hub comprises a recess and one or more slots configured to receive the body and one or more tabs of the distal retainer, respectively (see above section Claim Rejections § 112 (In re claim 8); Examiner notes that the “distal retainer” of Stahler could be mated with a suitably dimensioned “distal hub attachment” as claimed).
In re claim 9, see above (In re claim 4).
In re claim 10, Stahler discloses, wherein each of the one or more slots of the distal hub attachment comprises an internal taper (see above section Claim Rejections § 112 (In re claim 10); Examiner notes that the “distal retainer” of Stahler could be mated with a suitably dimensioned “distal hub attachment” as claimed).
In re claim 12, Stahler discloses wherein the telescoping tube comprises a plurality of concentric telescopically axially extendable and collapsible tube segments (FIG. 65D and FIG. 65E show plurality of concentric telescopic segments in a collapsible (FIG. 65D) and extendable (FIG. 65E) form).
In re claim 13, Stahler discloses, wherein the plurality of tube segments comprise
an outermost tube segment (FIG. 65E: most distal tube segment, i.e., tube segment attached to right end of “distal retainer” (see above In re claim 1)) attached to the distal retainer and
an innermost tube segment (FIG. 65E: most proximal tube segment) attached to a proximal retainer (connecting structure to the right of most proximal tube segment).
In re claim 14, Stahler discloses wherein the proximal retainer is secured (FIG. 65F, apparent as the proximal retainer is coupled to “the plurality of tube segments”) within an interior of the first hub between a proximal end of the first hub and the distal end of the first hub (regarding the limitation “within an interior of the first hub between a proximal end of the first hub and a distal end of the first hub’”, see above section Claim Rejection § 112 (In re claim 14)).
In re claim 15, Stahler discloses,
wherein the plurality of tube segments comprises an innermost tube segment (FIG. 65F: 640 connecting directly to distal retainer), and one or more outer tube segments (FIG. 65F: remaining tube segments),
wherein each of the one or more outer tube segments is coupled to a cap (portion of proximal retainer that contacts outer tube segments) at its proximal end, the cap having a through hole configured to receive an interventional device therethrough (FIG. 65F; abstract).
In re claim 16, Stahler discloses, wherein the cap has an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the tube segment to which the cap is coupled (FIG. 65F; apparent as tube segment fits inside cap).
In re claim 17, Stahler discloses,
wherein the plurality of tube segments comprises an outermost tube segment and one or more inner tube segments (FIG. 65F),
wherein each of the one or more inner tube segments comprises a first tube section having a first outer diameter and a second tube section having a second outer diameter (Examiner notes that it is inherent that any two “sections” of an inner tube segment would have “a first outer diameter” and “a second outer diameter”).
In re claim 18, Stahler discloses, wherein each of the plurality of tube segments comprises an inner diameter reducing feature (FIG. 65F: 641, shown in greater detail in FIG. 65G) configured to reduce an unsupported free length of an interventional device when the interventional device extends through the telescoping tube [0510].
In re claim 19, Stahler discloses, wherein the inner diameter reducing feature is attached to a distal end of each of the plurality of tube segments (FIG. 65G).
In re claim 20, Stahler discloses, wherein the telescoping tube is contained by the first hub when in the first configuration (see above section Claim Rejections § 112 (In re claim 20); FIG. 65D shows tube in a collapsed configuration, Examiner notes that the “telescope” tube could be contained in a suitably dimensioned “first hub” as claimed if desired).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahler et al. (US 2012/0071895), in view of Sharon et al. (US 11,213,362)
In re claim 6, Stahler does not disclose, wherein the distal retainer comprises an arm extending from the body and configured to be manipulated by a user to rotate the distal retainer
Sharon discloses an interventional device assembly (FIG. 11; col. 1, lines 21-23) with a retainer (502). As shown in FIG. 11, the retainer includes an arm (504), that extends from its body. Sharon further discloses the arm being configured to allow rotational movement of the retainer (col. 32, lines 48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distal retainer of Stahler to comprise an arm extending from the body, as taught by Sharon. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would provide a user with a better grip.
In re claim 11, see above (In re claim 6).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. (US 2022/0313375) discloses a surgical robotic assembly (FIG. 17) with an anti-buckling device (1700).
Magani et al. (US 2023/0106299) discloses an anti-buckling device (abstract) that comprises a telescopic tube (FIG. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights