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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 20 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection as discussed below. Claims 26-36 are newly added.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues Holzbaur et al. US 2007/0299438 fails to disclose the sizer as amended in claim 1. However, Examiner disagrees as shown in annotated figure 2 below. The arm being a straight portion (figure 2), the hook at an angle (curved, figure 2) and extending straight from the coupling with the arm (extends straight from or directly from the arm, figure 2).
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, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 20 and 26-36 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 recites the limitation "the coupling" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 28, 29 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holzbaur et al. US 2007/0299438.
Regarding claim 1, Holzbaur et al. discloses a sizer for a portion left atrial appendage of a heart (paragraph 0014, sizer placed around a portion of the heart), the sizer comprising: an elongate body having a proximal end portion 68 and an opposite distal end portion 70 and including an arm and a hook (see annotated figure 2 below, paragraph 0055, loop extending from straight elongate body portion), the arm being straight and extending from the proximal end portion to the distal end portion (figure 2), and the hook being coupled to the arm at an angle and extending straight from the coupling with the arm to a tip of the hook (hook angled with respect to arm portion extending the proximal end, figure 2), the tip of the hook being positioned at the distal end portion (see annotated figure 2 below); and one or more indicators on the elongate body and configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage (paragraph 0063, size indicators 24). Examiner notes that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function, hence, the functional limitations “configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. Holzbaur et al. discloses a sizer for a portion of the heart having the claimed structure configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators are configured to align with an end of the left atrial appendage (paragraph 0014, figure 8, distance that is being measured by the at least a partial loop that is formed near the distal end of the sizing device when the sizing device is placed about a portion of a heart, Examiner notes the claims are directed to an apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather than function, including configured to align with an end of the left atrial appendage when placed within the heart).
Regarding claim 7, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the hook comprises an opened hook (figure 2, paragraph 0055, distal end 70 partial loop or open hook).
Regarding claim 8, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the tip is configured to align with a first end of the left atrial appendage (figure 8), and the one or more indicators are configured to align with a second end of the left atrial appendage (figure 8, distal portion 22 placed around one side and indicators may extend around to the other side of the heart).
Regarding claim 10, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the elongate body the elongate body includes a proximal surface, a distal surface, and at least two side surfaces extending between the proximal surface and the distal surface, and the one or more indictors are positioned on one of the at least two side surfaces (see annotated figure 2 below, Examiner notes the side surface may include for example, an upper and lower surface along the elongate member between the proximal and distal end).
PNG
media_image2.png
282
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators include a plurality of the indicators spaced from each other (figure 2, indicators 24). Regarding claim 13, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators comprise one or more of characters or surface height variations of the elongate body (figure 2, paragraph 0065, indicators 24 imprinted one or more characters on the elongate body of the appropriate size to measure along the curve).
Regarding claim 15, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators are configured to indicate a diameter of the left atrial appendage (device is configured to be placed around the left atrial appendage, indicators configured for indicating a diameter when loop around the tissue, Examiner notes this is function language and the sizing device would be configured to be placed as a sizer as claimed).
Regarding claim 28, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators are positioned on the hook (figure 2).
Regarding claim 29, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators indicate a distance from the tip of the hook (figure 2, Examiner notes the mark indicators 24 are configured to indicate a distance from the tip of the hook, as they are a known distance from the tip).
Regarding claim 36, Holzbaur et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators include a graduated scaling upon a length of the hook (figure 2, indicators 24).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liddicoat et al. US 2001/0049558.
Regarding claim 1, Liddicoat et al. discloses a sizer for a portion left atrial appendage of a heart (paragraph 0013, sizer placed around a portion of the heart), the sizer comprising: an elongate body having a proximal end portion and an opposite distal end portion and including an arm and a hook (see annotated figure 2 below), the arm being straight and extending from the proximal end portion to the distal end portion (see annotated figure 2 below), and the hook being coupled to the arm at an angle and extending straight from the coupling with the arm to a tip of the hook (see annotated figure 2 below), the tip of the hook being positioned at the distal end portion (see annotated figure 2 below); and one or more indicators 220 on the elongate body (figure 4) and configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage (paragraph 0063, size indicators 24). Examiner notes that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function, hence, the functional limitations “configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. Liddicoat et al. discloses a sizer for a portion of the heart having the claimed structure configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage.
PNG
media_image3.png
319
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators are configured to align with an end portion of the left atrial appendage (Examiner notes the claims are directed to an apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather than function, including configured to align with an end of the left atrial appendage when placed within the heart).
Regarding claim 7, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the hook comprises an open hook (figure 4).
Regrading claim 8, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the tip is configured to align with a first end of the left atrial appendage and the one or more indicators are configured to align with a second end of the left atrial appendage (tip of hook 140 may be placed along one side of the left atrial appendage, the indicators may be placed along the opposite side or second end).
Regarding claim 10, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the elongate body includes a proximal surface (for example, any surface along proximal portion 150, 160, figure 4), a distal surface (for example, any surface along the distal portion 140, 170, figure 4) and at least two side surfaces extending between the proximal surface and the distal surface (for example, any surface on an upper or lower side along the elongate member160), and the one or more indicators are positioned on one of the at least two side surfaces (figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators include a plurality of indicators spaced from each other (figure 4, indicators 220).
Regarding claim 13, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators comprise one or more characters or surface height variations of the elongate body (figure 4, size indicator characters 220).
Regarding claim 15, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators are configured to indicate a diameter of the left atrial appendage (device is configured to be placed around the left atrial appendage, indicators configured for indicating a diameter when loop around the tissue, Examiner notes this is function language and the sizing device would be configured to be placed as a sizer as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Liddicoat at al. discloses wherein the hook extends perpendicular from the coupling with the arm to the tip of the hook (figure 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
342
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the distal end portion of the elongate body includes a first set of indicators, and the proximal end portion of the elongate body includes a second set of the indicators (see annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
342
510
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Liddicoat et al. discloses wherein the hook has a rectangular or square cross section (at least portion of hook segment may have a square or rectangular cross section, see annotated figure 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
325
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 28, 29 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sher et al. WO 01/30247.
Regarding claim 1, Sher et al. teaches a sizer (Examiner notes that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function, hence, the functional limitations “configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight, the device is configured for measuring bone or a heart within the body depending on the desired use) comprising an elongate body (figure 6) having a proximal end portion and an opposite distal end portion and including an arm and a hook (see annotated figure 6), the arm being straight and extending from the proximal end portion to the distal end portion (see annotated figure 6), and the hook being coupled to the arm at an angle and extending straight from the coupling with the arm to a tip of the hook (see annotated figure 6 below), the tip of the hook being positioned at the distal end portion (see annotated figure 6 below), and one or more indicators on the elongate body (measuring indicators 74, figure 6) and configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage (Examiner notes that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function, hence, the functional limitations “configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. Sher et al. discloses a sizer for a portion of the heart having the claimed structure configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage).
PNG
media_image7.png
464
612
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sher et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators are configured to align with an end portion of the left atrial appendage (Examiner notes the claims are directed to an apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather than function, including configured to align with an end of the left atrial appendage when placed within the heart).
Regarding claim 7, Sher et al. discloses wherein the hook comprises an open hook (figure 6, hook is open extending straight from arm).
Regrading claim 8, Sher et al. discloses wherein the tip is configured to align with a first end of the left atrial appendage and the one or more indicators are configured to align with a second end of the left atrial appendage (tip of hook may be placed along one side of the left atrial appendage, the indicators along portions 72, 75 figure 6 may be placed along the opposite side or second end).
Regarding claim 10, Sher et al. discloses wherein the elongate body includes a proximal surface (for example, any surface along proximal portion, figure 6), a distal surface (for example, any surface along the distal portion including hook or arm, figure 6) and at least two side surfaces extending between the proximal surface and the distal surface (for example, any surface on an upper or lower side along the elongate member), and the one or more indicators are positioned on one of the at least two side surfaces (figure 6, indicators along portions of hook and proximal end portion side surfaces).
Regarding claim 12, Sher et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators include a plurality of the indicators spaced from each other (figure 6, indicators 74).
Regarding claim 13, Sher et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators comprise one or more characters or surface height variations of the elongate body (dash like characters 74, figure 6).
Regarding claim 15, Sher et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators are configured to indicate a diameter of the left atrial appendage (device is configured to be placed around the left atrial appendage, indicators configured for indicating a diameter when loop around the tissue, Examiner notes this is function language and the sizing device would be configured to be placed as a sizer as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Sher et al. discloses wherein the hook extends perpendicular from the coupling with the arm to the tip of the hook (figure 6).
Regarding claim 20, Sher et al. discloses wherein the distal end portion of the elongate body includes a first set of indicators (see annotated figure 6 below) and the proximal end portion of the elongate body includes a second set of the indicators (see annotated figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
480
633
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Sher et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators are positioned on the hook (74, figure 6).
Regarding claim 29, Sher et al. discloses wherein the one or more indicators indicate a distance from the tip of the hook (Examiner notes the mark indicators 74 are configured to indicate a distance from the tip of the hook, as they are a known distance from the tip).
Regarding claim 32, Sher et al. discloses wherein the hook is a first hook, and the proximal end portion of the elongate body includes a second hook 33).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 26-28, 29, and 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iversen US 2006/0217737.
PNG
media_image9.png
484
714
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Iversen teaches a sizer (Examiner notes that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function, hence, the functional limitations “configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight, the device is configured for measuring bone or a heart within the body depending on the desired use) comprising an elongate body (figure 5) having a proximal end portion and an opposite distal end portion and including an arm and a hook (see annotated figure 5), the arm being straight and extending from the proximal end portion to the distal end portion (see annotated figure 5), and the hook being coupled to the arm at an angle and extending straight from the coupling with the arm to a tip of the hook (coupling with slider, arm 48 extends perpendicularly from arm, figure 5), the tip of the hook being positioned at the distal end portion (see annotated figure 5 below), and one or more indicators on the elongate body (ruler measurements along arm, figure 5) and configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage (Examiner notes that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function, hence, the functional limitations “configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. Sher et al. discloses a sizer for a portion of the heart having the claimed structure configured to indicate a size of the left atrial appendage).
Regarding claim 2, Iversen discloses wherein the one or more indicators are configured to align with an end portion of the left atrial appendage (Examiner notes the claims are directed to an apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather than function, including configured to align with an end of the left atrial appendage when placed within the heart).
Regarding claim 7, Iversen discloses wherein the hook comprises an open hook (figure 5, hook is open extending straight from arm).
Regrading claim 8, Iversen discloses wherein the tip is configured to align with a first end of the left atrial appendage and the one or more indicators are configured to align with a second end of the left atrial appendage (tip of hook 46 may be placed along one side of the left atrial appendage, the indicators or ruler may be aligned along the opposite side or second end).
Regarding claim 10, Iversen discloses wherein the elongate body includes a proximal surface (for example, any surface along proximal portion, figure 6), a distal surface (for example, any surface along the distal portion including hook or arm, figure 6) and at least two side surfaces extending between the proximal surface and the distal surface (for example, any surface on an upper or lower side along the elongate member), and the one or more indicators are positioned on one of the at least two side surfaces (figure 5, indicators positioned at least along the side surfaces of arm portions).
Regarding claim 12, Iversen discloses wherein the one or more indicators include a plurality of the indicators spaced from each other (figure 5, indicators along ruler).
Regarding claim 13, Iversen. discloses wherein the one or more indicators comprise one or more characters or surface height variations of the elongate body (ruler characters, figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Iversen discloses wherein the one or more indicators are configured to indicate a diameter of the left atrial appendage (device is configured to be placed around the left atrial appendage, indicators configured for indicating a diameter when loop around the tissue, Examiner notes this is function language and the sizing device would be configured to be placed as a sizer as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Iversen discloses wherein the hook extends perpendicular from the coupling with the arm to the tip of the hook (figure 5, hook 48 extends perpendicular from arm with coupling slider).
Regarding claim 20, Iversen discloses wherein the distal end portion of the elongate body includes a first set of indicators (figure 5, ruler along arm) and the proximal end portion of the elongate body includes a second set of the indicators (figure 5, Examiner notes ruler indicators extends along an entire length of the arm from a proximal end portion to a distal end portion).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Iverson discloses wherein the hook and the arm are rigid (paragraph 0135, device 40, comprising both the arm and hook, is made of plastic allowing the necessary stability and stiffness, at least a level of rigidness).
Regarding claims 28, 29 and 32-36, Iversen discloses wherein the one or more indicators are positioned on the hook (may consider an alternative configuration as annotated in figure 5 below), wherein the one or more indicators indicate a distance from the tip of the hook (Examiner notes the mark indicators are configured to indicate a distance from the tip of the hook, as they are a known distance from the tip), wherein the hook is a first hook, and the proximal end portion of the elongate body includes a second hook (see annotated figure 5 below), wherein the second hook is coupled to the arm at an angle and extends straight from the coupling with the arm to a tip of the second hook (see annotated figure 5 below), the tip of the second hook being positioned at the proximal end portion (see annotated figure 5 below), wherein the hook includes a first set of the indicators (see annotated figure 5 below), and the proximal end portion of the elongate body includes a second set of the indicators (ruler along arm extending an entire length), wherein the one or more indicators include a graduated scaling upon a length of the hook (see annotated figure 5 below, at first set of indicators).
PNG
media_image10.png
488
864
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzbaur et al. US 2007/0299438 in view of Khan et al. US 2020/0360093.
Regarding claim 14, Holzbaur et al. discloses one or more indicators as discussed above, but fails to disclose the one or more indicators are light reflective.
Khan et al. teaches a prove having a position sensor comprising markers or indicators having and one or more light reflective markers to be tracked for spatial position and/or orientation (paragraph 0070, 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Holzbaur et al. with indicators being light reflective, as taught by Khan et al., to allow for indicators to be light reflective to be tracked and viewed by a camera for spatial position and/or orientation.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liddicoat et al. US 2001/0049558 in view of Khan et al. US 2020/0360093.
Regarding claim 14, Liddicoat et al. discloses one or more indicators as discussed above, but fails to disclose the one or more indicators are light reflective.
Khan et al. teaches a prove having a position sensor comprising markers or indicators having and one or more light reflective markers to be tracked for spatial position and/or orientation (paragraph 0070, 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liddicoat et al. with indicators being light reflective, as taught by Khan et al., to allow for indicators to be light reflective to be tracked and viewed by a camera for spatial position and/or orientation.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iversen et al. US 2006/0217737 in view of Khan et al. US 2020/0360093.
Regarding claim 14, Iversen discloses one or more indicators as discussed above, but fails to disclose the one or more indicators are light reflective.
Khan et al. teaches a prove having a position sensor comprising markers or indicators having and one or more light reflective markers to be tracked for spatial position and/or orientation (paragraph 0070, 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Iversen with indicators being light reflective, as taught by Khan et al., to allow for indicators to be light reflective to be tracked and viewed by a camera for spatial position and/or orientation.
Claim(s) 26, 27 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liddicoat et al. US 2001/0049558.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Liddicoat et al. discloses an arm and a hook (figure 4), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hook and arm is rigid.
Applicant discloses the elongate body may be a material semi-soft, flexible, or rigid as desired (paragraph 0077). Examiner further notes the arm or hook would inherently comprise at least some degree of rigidity within the drive cable or cylinder and mounting ring to support tissue. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the arm and hook from a rigid material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 31, Liddicoat et al. discloses the sizer essentially as claimed as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the arm has a rectangular or square cross section.
Applicant It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Liddicoat et al., to have arm has a rectangular or square cross section, since applicant has not disclosed that having arm has a rectangular or square cross section solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the cross-sectional shape, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 26, 27, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sher et al. WO 01/30247.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Sher et al. discloses an arm and a hook (figure 6), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hook and arm is rigid. Examiner further notes the arm or hook would inherently comprise at least some degree of rigidity to provide elongate members sufficient to be placed against tissue for sizing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the arm and hook from a rigid material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Sher et al. discloses the sizer essentially as claimed as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hook or arm has a rectangular or square cross section.
Applicant discloses the elongate body may have an oblong, oval, rectangular shape or may have another shape as desired (paragraph 0065). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Liddicoat et al., to have arm has a rectangular or square cross section, since applicant has not disclosed that having arm has a rectangular or square cross section solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the cross-sectional shape, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iversen US 2006/0217737.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Sher et al. discloses the sizer essentially as claimed as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hook or arm has a rectangular or square cross section.
Applicant discloses the elongate body may have an oblong, oval, rectangular shape or may have another shape as desired (paragraph 0065). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Iverson., to have arm has a rectangular or square cross section, since applicant has not disclosed that having arm has a rectangular or square cross section solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the cross-sectional shape, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA C LAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM-4:00 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.
/C.C.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights