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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/22/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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) 47, 49-54, 57, 58, and 62-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2019/0076093 to Saroha et al. (Saroha).
As to claim 47, Saroha discloses an input control console for a flexible elongate device, the input control console comprising:
an input control having an infinite length of travel in a one or more directions (Fig. 6-9; Para. 0055, steering controller, 118), the input control providing a command suitable for controlling a degree of freedom motion of the flexible elongate device (Fig. 1-9; Para. 0055, 0060, 0065-0066, steering controller 118 should be able to receive user inputs indicative of a desired movement of the distal portion 104 of the intravascular device 102); and
a ring located on a top surface of the console, the input control being mounted within the ring (Fig. 8; Para. 0080, top portion 112a includes an opening 160 sized to allow the steering controller 118 to pass through).
As to claim 49, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, wherein the input control includes a single-axis device (Para. 005-0053; controlling translation of the intravascular device 102 along a longitudinal axis of the intravascular device).
As to claim 50, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 49, wherein the single-axis device is a scroll wheel (Para. 0055, scroll wheel).
As to claim 51, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, wherein the input control includes a multiple-axis device (Para. 0060, two pull-wire wheels 122 and 124 attached to two different motors 126 and 128 are controlled by a single steering controller 118 (a joystick with biaxial potentiometer in the illustrated embodiment) to facilitate steering of the intravascular device in all directions in a plane extending perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the intravascular device).
As to claim 52, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 51, wherein the multiple-axis device is a track ball (Para. 0055, steering controller 118 can be any suitable type of controller including without limitation a joystick (as shown), dial, track pad, scroll wheel, touchscreen, and/or combinations thereof).
As to claim 53, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, wherein the input control includes a touch pad (Para. 0055, touch screen, track pad).
As to claim 54, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, wherein the ring includes a raised ring (Fig. 7, 8; Para. 0080, top portion 112a includes at opening 160, shows raised area surrounding the opening).
As to claim 57, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, wherein the ring has a substantially circular shape (Fig. 7, 8; Para. 0080, opening, 160).
As to claim 58, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, wherein the ring has a substantially oval shape (Fig. 7, 8; Para. 0080, opening, 160).
As to claim 62, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, further comprising a second input control for receiving a selection of a display view for the elongate device (Para. 0055, steering controller 118 may include separate control for each dimension or a separate control for a combination of dimensions (e.g., a control for x-y movements)).
As to claim 63, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, further comprising a second input control for receiving a selection of an operational mode for the elongate device (Para. 0056, additional buttons controlling specific handle functionalities (e.g. on/off switch, lock button, etc.) can be included in addition to the joystick for user convenience and ease of use).
As to claim 64, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 63, wherein the operational mode is selected from a group consisting of a locked mode, a controlled mode, and a passive control mode (Para. 0056, additional buttons controlling specific handle functionalities (e.g. on/off switch, lock button, etc.) can be included in addition to the joystick for user convenience and ease of use).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 48, 59 and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saroha in view of U.S. Publication No. 2007/0027361 to Uchimura et al. (Uchimura).
As to claim 48, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, but does not expressly disclose further comprising: a second input control having an infinite length of travel in a one or more directions, the second input control providing a command suitable for controlling a second degree of freedom motion of the flexible elongate device; and a second ring located on a top surface of the console, the second input control being mounted within the second ring.
Uchimura teaches a second input control having an infinite length of travel in a one or more directions, the second input control providing a command suitable for controlling a second degree of freedom motion of the flexible elongate device (Fig. 23, 24; Para. 0270-0273, two operating pad 163A and 163B were provided in parallel in the direction substantially perpendicular to the center axis O of the endoscope 3D; Para. 0267, switches 162a, 162b, 162c and 162d for instructing operations to vertical and horizontal four directions in four places respectively corresponding with vertical and horizontal four directions); and
a second ring located on a top surface of the console, the second input control being mounted within the second ring (Fig. 23, 24; openings in the surface, Sa, for the operating pads, 163A and 163B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input control console of Saroha to include the second input control of Uchimura because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, the joystick with biaxial potentiometer of Saroha and the two operating pads of Uchimura perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being specify a biaxial direction. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the joystick with biaxial potentiometer of Saroha by replacing it with the two operating pads of Uchimura. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 59, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, but does not expressly disclose wherein the ring has a substantially polygon shape.
Uchimura teaches wherein the ring has a substantially polygon shape (Fig. 23, 24; openings in the surface, Sa, for the operating pads, 163A and 163B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input control console of Saroha to include the polygon shape of Uchimura because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, the joystick with biaxial potentiometer of Saroha and the two operating pads of Uchimura perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being specify a biaxial direction. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the joystick with biaxial potentiometer of Saroha by replacing it with the two operating pads of Uchimura. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 65, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a second input control for activating a cleaning system of the elongate device.
Uchimura teaches further comprising a second input control for activating a cleaning system of the elongate device (Fig. 10; Para. 0143-0146, photoreflector, 144, used to determine cleanliness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input control console of Saroha to include the cleaning system of Uchimura because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the input control console of Saroha as modified by the cleaning system of Uchimura can yield a predictable result of allowing for a cleanliness status to be determined. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the input control console of Saroha the ability to use the cleaning system of Uchimura since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 60 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saroha in view of U.S. Publication No. 2004/0008184 to Leahy.
As to claim 60, Saroha discloses the input control console of claim 47, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a wrist rest raised above a surface on which the input control are mounted.
Leahy teaches further comprising a wrist rest raised above a surface on which the input control are mounted (Fig. 1, hand support member, 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input control console of Saroha to include the hand support member of Leahy because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the ergonomic electric input device of Leahy is comparable to steering device of Saroha because they are the control portions of the device held by the hand of a user. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input control console of Saroha to include the hand support member of Leahy with the predictable result of creating a device that allows for a more natural and relaxed hand position.
As to claim 61, Saroha and Leahy disclose the input control console of claim 60. Saroha does not expressly disclose wherein a height of the wrist rest is adjustable.
Leahy discloses wherein a height of the wrist rest is adjustable (Fig. 1; Para. 0045, adjustable height support pads 106). This combination is obvious to one skilled in the art for at least the reasons set forth in claim 60.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 55 and 56 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 Lisa S Landis whose telephone number is (571)270-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571)272-3017. 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.
/LISA S LANDIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2626