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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1-18 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, “hinge ;” should read --hinge;--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1, lines 10-13 recite: “the inner element comprising at least one inner hinge, or each inner hinge comprising a first and a second inner slits facing each other relative to a second longitudinal plane crossing the inner element and parallel to the longitudinal axis of said inner element…” The use of “or” in the claim is unclear and has rendered the claim indefinite. The claim recites “comprising at least one inner hinge”, which implies that there is one inner hinge or more than one inner hinge. The use of “or” presents an alternative. However, the claim recites “each inner hinge” following “or.” This implies two or more inner hinges. It is unclear whether the claim intends to recite at least one hinge or two or more hinges. Clarification is necessary. The Examiner suggests deleting “or” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-19 are dependent on claim 1, thus are also rendered indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-19 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 recites a surgical device comprising a tubular outer shaft and an inner element, each of said outer shaft and said inner element having an elongated shape extending along a longitudinal axis between a proximal end and distal end,
the tubular outer shaft comprising at least a distal and a proximal outer hinges, the distal outer hinge being closer to the distal end than the proximal outer hinge; each outer hinge comprising a first and a second outer slits facing each other relative to a first longitudinal plane crossing the outer shaft and parallel to the longitudinal axis of said outer shaft,
the inner element comprising at least one inner hinge, each inner hinge comprising a first and a second inner slits facing each other relative to a second longitudinal plane crossing the inner element and parallel to the longitudinal axis of said inner element,
the surgical device having: a first and a second distal stiffnesses considered at the distal outer hinge; and a first and a second proximal stiffnesses considered at the proximal outer hinge; each of the second distal and proximal stiffnesses being superior to, respectively, the first distal and proximal stiffness;
the inner element being able to move angularly and/or axially in the tubular outer shaft, between different configurations of the tubular outer shaft and the inner element relative to each other,
so that the first and the second distal stiffnesses correspond respectively to a first and to a second positions of the at least one inner hinge relative to the distal outer hinge, and that the first and the second proximal stiffnesses correspond respectively to a first and to a second positions of the at least one inner hinge relative to the proximal outer hinge;
the surgical device being configured so that, in at least one of the configurations of the tubular outer shaft and the inner element, the surgical device has the second distal stiffness and the first proximal stiffness.
The limitations, in combination, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The following references all disclose surgical devices with tubular outer shafts and inner elements that have hinges: US 2006/0241564 A1, US 2011/0230718 A1, US 2013/0274784 A1, US 2019/0133705 A1. However, these references all fail to disclose or suggest the totality of features recited in claim 1. These references fail to disclose or suggest a configuration of the tubular outer shaft and the inner element where the surgical device has the claimed second distal stiffness and the claimed first proximal stiffness.
Claims 2-19 are all dependent on claim 1, thus 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN D KNAUSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:30-8:30.
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, 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.
/C.D.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771