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(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2024, 11/15/2024 and 1/21/2025 have been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” has been used to designate both a C-shaped slot (as shown in Fig. 5A) and a knob/dial (as shown in Fig. 5B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently no claims are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-10), it is noted that a vascular intervention navigation surgery system is affirmatively claimed and determined to be within the scope of claims 1-10. Multiple examples of affirmative claiming of a vascular intervention navigation surgery system (and components thereof) include: (in lines 7-8) “the vascular intervention navigation surgery system is slidable relative to the support base”; (in lines 8-10) “a connecting male head is fixedly installed at the bottom of the vascular intervention navigation surgery system for connection with the connecting female head on the support frame”; (in lines 11-13) “the vascular intervention navigation surgery system comprises a Y-connector platform which is configured to accommodate and fix a Y-connector and a guiding catheter connected to the Y-connector”; (in lines 14-15) “the Y-connector is equipped at its distal end with a wheel sleeve which is fixedly connected coaxially with a main channel of the Y-connector”; and (in lines 15-16) “the wheel sleeve is driven by a wheel sleeve driving mechanism to rotate, thereby driving the guiding catheter to rotate”. For at least these reasons, a vascular intervention navigation surgery system was determined to be affirmatively claimed in claims 1-10. If applicant did not intend to claim the vascular intervention navigation surgery system, applicant may amend the claim limitations to avoid/eliminate affirmative recitations of the vascular intervention navigation surgery system and/or components thereof.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-10), there is an inconsistency in the preamble of claim wherein the preamble is for “a motion system” but the claim language is for an assembly comprising both a motion system and a vascular intervention navigation surgery system (i.e., components of the vascular intervention navigation surgery system are affirmatively claimed within claim 1, as set forth above);
In claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-10), there is an instance of rough grammar in line 1 at “A motion system for vascular intervention navigation surgery system” wherein an amendment such as “A motion system for a vascular intervention navigation surgery system” will moot this minor objection;
In claim 3, there is an instance of rough grammar in lines 1-2 at “an induction device is amounted at top of the support frame” wherein an amendment such as “an induction device is mounted at the top of the support frame” (or something similar) will moot this minor objection; and
In claim 11 (and thereby dependent claims 12-20), there is an instance of rough grammar in line 1 at “A force reproduction system for vascular intervention navigation surgery system” wherein an amendment such as “A force reproduction system for a vascular intervention navigation surgery system” will moot this minor objection.
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 3 and 15 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “induction device” in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean “a device to sense the position and distance of the male and female heads via laser, infrared, or mechanical,” while the accepted meaning is “the process by which an electrical conductor becomes electrified when near a charged body, by which a magnetizable body becomes magnetized when in a magnetic field or in the magnetic flux set up by a magnetomotive force, or by which an electromotive force is produced in a circuit by varying the magnetic field linked with the circuit” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/induction). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the front and back" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are acknowledged to contain allowable subject matter. It is noted that claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-10) remains subject to a minor claim objection and claim 3 remains subject to both a claim objection and a 112 rejection, each of which must be resolved before these claims can be in proper condition for allowance.
Claims 11-14 and 16-20 are allowed. It is noted that claim 15 remains subject to a minor claim objection which must be resolved before this claim can be in proper condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Lynch whose telephone number is (571)270-3952. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00AM-6:00PM, with alternate Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston, at (571) 272-7134. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT A LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights