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 Objections
Claims 9, 14-17, 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9, 14-17, and 23 recite the limitation ‘separatable’ in the claims. It is suggested this limitation be changed to ‘separable’ for grammatical purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites the same limitations as set forth in claim 12 from which it depends. Therefore, it fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hostettler et al (20190290362).
Regarding claim 9, Hostettler et al (hereafter Hostettler) discloses a needle guide (1) for intracorporeal location of a puncture needle (14) to be percutaneously introduced into a patient, comprising an upper plate (2), which is situatable to face away from the patient, and a lower plate (3), which is situatable to face the patient, the plates being rigidly spaced apart from each other and each providing holes through which the puncture needle is guided, wherein: the upper and lower plates are each separatable into at least two plate parts (the limitation ‘separatable into at least two plate parts’ is sufficiently broad to encompass the separation of fields 9 in each plate by field lines and markings, paragraph 0049-0052, or any arbitrary separation of parts that are joined to form a whole); and when joined together, the at least two plate parts of each plate commonly define all of the holes through which the puncture needle is guided (figure 1a).
Regarding claim 10, Hostettler discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 9, wherein: the at least two plate parts of the upper plate are connected to an upper frame surrounding the upper plate; the at least two plate parts of the lower plate are connected to a lower frame surrounding the lower plate; and the upper and lower frames are rigidly connected together by a connecting structure (see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11-13, Hostettler discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 9, wherein: the at least two plate parts each include fingers, wherein: the fingers of each plate include longitudinal extensions oriented parallel to each other; the fingers of each plate respectively include half hole contours and are arranged so that when the at least two plate parts are joined together, the half hole contours of the fingers of two immediately adjacent fingers define one of the holes.
PNG
media_image2.png
212
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 14-17, Hostettler discloses all of the limitations set forth in claims 10-13, wherein: the upper and lower frames are each separatable into at least two parts (each frame as more than two fields).
Regarding claim 18, Hostettler discloses all of the limitations set forth in claims 10-14, wherein: at least two plate parts of the upper plate are connectably detachable to the upper frame, and the at least two plate parts of the lower plate are connectably detachable to the lower frame (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 23, Hostettler discloses all of the limitations set forth in claims 10, wherein: the connecting structure is separable from the guide (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 24, Hostettler discloses all of the limitations set forth in claims 11, wherein: the upper and lower frame respectively span frame planes which are oriented parallel to each other; and the connecting structure comprises at least two connecting struts oriented orthogonal to the upper and lower frame planes (figure 1a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Needle guides with grids:
Nowlin et al (US7871405)
Barzell et al (US 20040143150)
Engelhard et al (US 20030036766)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH TIEU DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ANH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771