DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on January 6, 2025. Claims 1-19 and 38 are currently pending.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mao (CN 111268590).
Concerning claim 1, the Mao prior art reference teaches a support stand (Figures 1-4), capable of holding a minimally invasive surgical instrument, the support stand comprising: first (Figure 4; 50) and second arms (Figure 4; 54) intersecting each other at an arm pivot (Figure 4; 59), and an instrument holder being supported by the first and second arms (Figure 4; 65), wherein the first and second arms are selectively pivotable relative to each other about the arm pivot (the arms will selectively pivot relative to one another as the support plate is moved), and wherein the arm pivot is selectively moveable along the first and second arms (the arm pivot will selectively move within the groove as the support plate is moved).
Concerning claim 2, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 1, further comprising a base (Figure 4; 23), the first and second arms extending between the instrument holder (Figure 4; 65) and the base (Figure 4; 23), wherein pivoting the first and second arms relative to each other and moving the arm pivot along the first and second arms allows varying distance and relative orientation between the base and the instrument holder ([¶ 0013]).
Concerning claim 3, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 2, wherein each of the first and second arms defines an opposed arm base end (Figure 4; 45) and a holder end (Figure 4; ends of 50 and 54 opposite 45), respectively, at the base and the instrument holder, and the arm base end of at least one of the first and second arms is selectively movable along the base ([¶ 0013]).
Concerning claim 4, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 3, wherein the first and second arms are pivotally mounted to the instrument holder at holder pivots fixed in translation along the instrument holder (Figure 4; ends of 50 and 54 opposite 45 are mounted at hinges | [¶ 0013]).
Concerning claim 5, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 4, wherein the arm base of both the first and second arms are selectively movable along the base (Figure 4; 45 | [¶ 0013]).
Concerning claim 6, the Mao reference teaches the supports stand of claim 5, wherein the base defines longitudinally spaced apart arm receiving portions for fixedly receiving the first and second arms at discrete longitudinal positions along the base (Figure 4; hinged portion of 45).
Concerning claim 7, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 3, further comprising a translation actuator for selectively moving the arm base end of the at least one of the first and second arms along the base (Figure 4; 44).
Concerning claim 8, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 7, wherein the translation actuator includes a lead screw extending along the base (Figure 4; 44) and a carriage movable along the lead screw through rotation of the lead screw (Figure 4; 45), the at least one of the first and second arms being mounted to the carriage and pivotable relative thereto (Figure 4; 50, 54).
Concerning claim 38, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 1, further comprising a controller for selectively energizing an actuator (Figure 4; motor 47 may be interpreted as a controller given it controls the movement of the actuator).
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.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 111268590) in view of Shupp et al. (US 6,857,493, hereinafter Shupp).
Concerning claim 9, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 3, but does not teach an other one of the first and second arms different from the at least one of the first and second arms being fixed along the base and pivotally mounted thereto.
However, the Shupp reference teaches a support stand similar to that of the Mao reference (Figure 1; 10), comprising first (Figure 1; 20) and second arms (Figure 1; 22), and a holder for holding objects (Figure 1; 14), the holder being supported by the first and second arms, wherein the first and second arms are selectively pivotable relative to each other about the arm pivot (Column 2, Line 63 – Column 3, Line 7), further comprising a base (Figure 1; 16), the first and second arms extending between the holder (Figure 1; 14) and the base (Figure 1; 16), wherein pivoting the first and second arms relative to each other allows varying a distance and a relative orientation between the base and the holder (Column 2, Lines 50-62), wherein each of the first and second arms defines an opposed arm base end (Figure 1; 28, 34) and a holder end (Figure 1; 26, 36), respectively, at the base and at the instrument holder, and the arm base end of at least one of the first and second arms is selectively movable along the base (Figure 1; 30), wherein an other one of the first and second arms different from the at least one of the first and second arms is fixed along the base and pivotally mounted thereof (Figure 1; 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the different from the at least one of the first and second arms that is movable along the base be fixed along the base as in the Shupp reference as a simple substitution of one known method of coupling the first and second arms to an actuator within a base structure (two movable connections as in the Mao reference) for another known method of coupling the first and second arms to an actuator within a base structure (one movable connection and one fixed connection as in Shupp), which would yield the expected result in operating in essentially the same manner.
Concerning claim 10, the combination of the Mao and Shupp references as discussed above teaches the support stand of claim 9, wherein the Mao reference further teaches a rotation actuator for selectively pivoting the other one of the first and second arms about the base (Figure 4; 44).
Concerning claim 11, the combination of the Mao and Shupp references as discussed above teaches the support stand of claim 10, wherein the first and second arms are freely pivotable about the arm pivot and the arm pivot is freely movable along predetermined portions of the first and second arms ([¶ 0016]).
Concerning claim 12, the combination of the Mao and Shupp references as discussed above teaches the support stand of claim 11, wherein the first and second arms each define a longitudinally extending slot (Figure 4; 51, 55), the arm pivot being received in and guided by the slots ([¶ 0016]).
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 111268590) in view of Kidd et al. (US 2011/0130718, hereinafter Kidd).
Concerning claim 15, the Mao reference teaches the support stand of claim 1, wherein the Mao reference teaches the instrument holder being a platform for lifting and transporting a medical device ([¶ 0009]), but does not specifically teach the medical device being a minimally invasive surgical instrument including first and second components, the instrument holder being configured for supporting the first and second components so that a distance between the first and second components is selectively adjustable.
However, the Kidd reference teaches a medical device in the form of a minimally invasive surgical instrument (Figure 45; 50, 50”) held by an instrument holder in the form of a platform (Figure 42; 172) for lifting and transporting the medical device, wherein the instrument includes first (Figure 45; 50) and second components (Figure 45; 50”), the instrument holder being configured for supporting the first and second components so that a distance between the first and second components is selectively adjustable ([¶ 0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surgical instrument of the Mao reference be the minimally invasive surgical instrument of the Kidd reference given the Kidd reference teaches that such a minimally invasive surgical instrument necessitates a platform for mounting the system (Kidd; [¶ 0061]), while the Mao reference allows for such a platform or system to be lifted and transported (Mao; [¶ 0009]).
Concerning claim 16, the combination of the Mao and Kidd references as discussed above teaches the support stand of claim 15, wherein the Kidd reference teaches the surgical instrument holder including a holder base (Figure 13; 172) and a platform for supporting one of the first and second components (Figure 42; 174), the platform being longitudinally movable along the holder base (Kidd; [¶ 0067]).
Concerning claim 17, the combination of the Mao and Kidd references as discussed above teaches the support stand of claim 16, further comprising a platform actuator for selectively moving the platform along the holder base (Figure 17; 182, 184 | [¶ 0067]).
Concerning claims 18 and 19, the combination of the Mao and Kidd references as discussed above teaches the support stand of claim 1, wherein the Mao reference teaches the instrument holder being a platform for lifting and transporting a medical device ([¶ 0009]), but does not specifically teach the surgical instrument including a catheter, the instrument holder holding the surgical instrument so that the surgical instrument is selectively rotatable about a rotation axis colinear with the catheter.
However, the Kidd reference teaches a medical device in the form of a minimally invasive surgical instrument (Figure 45; 50, 50”), which includes a catheter (Figure 45; 464) held by an instrument holder in the form of a platform (Figure 42; 172) for lifting and transporting medical device, the instrument holder holding the instrument so that the surgical instrument is selectively rotatable about a rotation axis colinear with the catheter ([¶ 0073]) via a rotation actuator for selectively rotating the surgical instrument about the rotation axis (Figure 45; 50”; [¶ 0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surgical instrument of the Mao reference be the minimally invasive surgical instrument including the catheter of the Kidd reference given the Kidd reference teaches that such a minimally invasive surgical instrument necessitates a platform for mounting the system (Kidd; [¶ 0061]), while the Mao reference allows for such a platform or system to be lifted and transported (Mao; [¶ 0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Terada reference (US 5,358,204) teaches a support stand having first and second arms intersecting each other at an arm pivot which is lockable via a knob; the Schwind reference (US 11,047,520) teaches a support stand having first and second arms intersecting each other at an arm pivot, wherein the first and second arms are selectively pivotable relative to each other about the arm pivot, and wherein the arm pivot is selectively movable along one of the first and second arms, wherein the arm pivot includes a locking knob; the Hruschka et al. reference (US 2015/0328068) teaches a support stand having first and second arms intersecting each other at an arm pivot, wherein the first and second arms are selectively pivotable relative to each other about the arm pivot, and wherein the arm pivot is selectively movable along one of the first and second arms; and the Zhang et al. reference (US 2023/0346499) teaches a support stand for a minimally invasive surgical instrument including an instrument holder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 2/20/2026