This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 07/06/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 12-19, 22 and 59 under 35 USC 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 under 35 USC 112(b) for dependent claims 13-17, 22 and 59, refer to rejection below for details. Since the examiner has applied new grounds of rejection, this office action is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The original specification does not have support for the recitation “datum element” as recited in dependent claims 22 and 59.
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 13-17, 22 and 59 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.
Dependent Claims 13 and 15 improperly depend from canceled claim 11. Appropriate correction is required (claims 13 and 15 should depend from independent claim 1).
Claim 14 depends from Claim 13 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 16 and 17 depend from Claim 15 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding Dependent Claim 22, the phrase "or support leg" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) between the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention or simply an example/possibility. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Dependent Claim 59, the phrase "or support leg" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) between the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention or simply an example/possibility. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the datum component" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the engaged datum component" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "other element" in line 4. It is unclear what structural characteristics has this “other element” rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Note regarding claims 22 and 59: The original specification does not have support for the recitation “datum element”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 18 and 19 are allowed in view of the amendments to the claims filed on 07/06/2026.
Claims 13-17, 22 and 59 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record neither discloses nor makes obvious the combination set forth in the independent claim, particularly "a drive mechanism configured to distally advance the needle, the tube and the probe in the body cavity after entry of the probe into the body cavity, with the probe advancing distally beyond the needle", in combination with the other claim limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4831. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/William H Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights