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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the sheet presenting the abstract include other text. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1-16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1-16, examiner suggest the applicant provide the claims in standard format without the use of bullets.
Regarding Claim 2-16, “Drive module according to claim …” lacks proper antecedents, should read “The/Said drive module according to claim …”.
Regarding Claim 1, line 3 and 6, reads “a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments” should read “the/said plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments”, as it already has earlier recitation.
In Claim 1, line 9, “track connectors” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In Claim 1-9 and 16, reads “these elongate flexible medical instruments”, “these guide tracks”, and/or “these track connectors” lacks proper antecedent basis. Instead of reciting “these” the claims should recite “the/said plurality of …”.
In Claim 1, line 15, “the non-retracted position” should read “a non-retracted position”, because this is the first recitation of this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 1, line 17, “the retracted position” should read “a retracted position”, because this is the first recitation of this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 5, line 5, “by one or more walls” should read “by the one or more walls”.
In Claim 6, “the practitioner’s finger” should read “a practitioner’s finger”.
In Claim 7, “the non-retractable position” should read “the non-retracted position”.
In Claim 10, 11, 12, and 15, reads “a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments” should read “the/said plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mechanism for driving the translation” in claim 1 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 2-16, the claims recite “Drive module according to claim …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 1 and 15, “mechanism for driving the translation” is indefinite because there is no adequate corresponding structural disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, 10-12, and 15, “a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 5, reference to “one or more walls of this orifice” after reciting “at least two orifices” render the claimed structural relation, it is unclear which orifice is being referred to and whether the recited relationship applies to one or all of the orifices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10987491 B2 to Wenderow et al. (hereinafter “Wenderow”) in view of EP 3782574 A1 to Moon et al. (hereinafter “Moon”) in view of WO 2017158263 A1 to Bencteux et al. (hereinafter “Bencteux”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wenderow teaches a drive module of a catheter robot (see Abstract: “A robotic catheter system”), for driving the translation of a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments (see Para 03-05: “a robotic catheter system includes a cassette including a housing …” and Para 35: “Robotic vascular catheter system 10 … a motor drive base 22, a cassette 24”, and Para 41, 44: “cassette 24 further includes a first axial drive mechanism 48 for driving a guide wire 50 along its longitudinal axis, a second axial drive mechanism 52 for driving a working catheter 54 along its longitudinal axis … (cassette 24/300 that drive both guide wire and working catheter (embodied as a balloon, stent on a delivery catheter, a stent with a balloon, or any other therapeutic or diagnostic catheter device)”), comprising:
a mechanism for driving the translation of a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments (Para 3-5: “first pair of engagement surfaces are arranged to contact a guide wire with sufficient pressure such that when the engagement surfaces are driven, axial movement is imparted to the guide wire … second pair of engagement surfaces are arranged to contact a catheter with sufficient pressure such that when the engagement surfaces are driven, axial movement is imparted to the catheter … (each pair of engagement surface imparting movement to respective instruments, together constitute mechanism for driving the medical instruments)”),
a convergence device for the convergence, between a plurality of guide tracks for respectively guiding the translation of a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments, towards a common exit track shared by these elongate flexible medical instruments (see Para 66: “guide wire 50 passes through first axial drive mechanism 48, through first rotational drive mechanism 56, and then converges with working catheter 54 at a convergence zone 166 … Cassette 24 may include a channel configured to constrain the working catheter along a predefined path from a first point where the longitudinal axis of the working catheter and the longitudinal axis of the guide wire are not coaxial to a point where the longitudinal axis of the working catheter and the longitudinal axis of the guiding catheter are co-axial (separate instrument converging into single co-axial path toward the guide catheter/Y-connector)”), comprising:
characterized in that: these track connectors are retractable (see Para 90-91: “Cassette 300 includes a restraint structure that acts to restrain movement of the guide wire when cover 356 is in the closed position … When cover 356 is in the open position, both guide wire axial drive mechanism 350 and working catheter axial drive mechanism 352 are exposed allowing the user to load cassette 300 with a guide wire and working catheter”).
However Wenderow failed to disclose track connectors which are respectively located between these guide tracks and the exit track and which ensure continuity in the guidance of these elongate flexible medical instruments respectively between these guide tracks and the exit track, in the non-retracted position, the track connectors respectively form channels for guiding the translation of these elongate flexible medical instruments, in the retracted position, the track connectors no longer respectively form channels for guiding the translation of these elongate flexible medical instruments.
Moon disclose a medical robot, a driving device for a medical robot, and a medical robot (see Para Abstract, Para 01), track connectors which are respectively located between these guide tracks and the exit track and which ensure continuity in the guidance of these elongate flexible medical instruments respectively between these guide tracks and the exit track (see Para 63-6: “the second connector body 41-1 may include a first receiving portion 41-2 for accommodating the guide catheter 61, a second receiving portion 41-3 for accommodating the guide wire 62, and a third receiving portion 41-4 for accommodating the balloon catheter 63 … the first receiving portion 41-2 of the second connector 40-1 may be connected with both of the second receiving portion 41-3 of the second connector 40-1 and the third receiving portion 41-4 of the second connector 40-1”).
However, the combination of Wenderow in view of Moon failed to disclose the retractable track connectors such that: in the non-retracted position, the track connectors respectively form channels for guiding the translation of these elongate flexible medical instruments, in the retracted position, the track connectors no longer respectively form channels for guiding the translation of these elongate flexible medical instruments.
Another reference, Bencteux disclose an elongated flexible medical instrument insertion robots (see Abstract, Field of Invention), these track connectors are retractable (see Att. Doc. “guide track (40) is structured to open and then preferentially to close the passage of the elongated flexible medical instrument training module (3) (guide track is expressly located between the medical instrument training module and arterial introducer; open/close retractable channel)”), such that:
in the non-retracted position, the track connectors respectively form channels for guiding the translation of these elongate flexible medical instruments (see Att. Doc. “the guide track is structured to open and then preferentially to close in the passage of the elongated flexible medical instrument drive module … it is only during the passage of the drive module and at the level of this drive module that there is an opening of this guide track … indeed, elsewhere and the rest of the time, the guideway remaining closed, the elongated flexible medical instrument is securely held in place (closed = non-retracted)”), in the retracted position, the track connectors no longer respectively form channels for guiding the translation of these elongate flexible medical instruments (see Att. Doc. “the guide track is structured to open … an opening of this guide track of the elongated flexible medical instrument (open = retracted)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems of Wenderow with the teaching of Moon and Bencteux to guide multiple flexible medical instruments from individual drive path into one shared path toward patient using number of known interchangeable structural solution, such combination would provide structure that can guide the instruments while allowing the channels to be opened when access or manipulation to an individual instrument is needed, thereby improve the known structure for their intended function and maintaining guidance during translation.
Regarding Claim 8, Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux disclose the modified drive module of claim above. Wenderow further disclose, wherein these track connectors respectively curve from the plurality of guide tracks towards the common exit track (see Para 69-70: “y-connector 160 … Guide wire 50 and working catheter 54 pass through y-connector 160 into central bore 174 of guide catheter 144 upon exiting cassette 24 through opening 172 ..,”; and Para 73, 84-88 (Y-shaped connector toward a single common point/track)). Additionally, Moon also disclose the Y-shaped connector’s curve/angle from separate direction toward a single common point (see Para 62).
Regarding Claim 15, Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux disclose the modified drive module of claim above.
Bencteux further disclose the elongated flexible medical instrument insertion robots (see Abstract, Field of Invention), wherein the drive module comprises a consumable interface which includes the convergence device comprising the retractable track connectors, but which does not include the mechanism for driving the translation of a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments (see Att. Doc. “elongated flexible medical motor drive module (3) comprises two parts (14, 15) separable between them: a motor (14) reusable and without contact with the linear rail (4) … a carriage (15) disposable sliding on the linear rail (4), the carriage (15) being preferably disposable (express reusable/disposable/ consumable interface)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to further modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems with the addition teaching of Bencteux to have separate consumable interface while maintaining drive mechanism separately, thereby permits the instrument convergence components to be provided as a replaceable interface while the translation mechanism remains reusable.
Claims 2 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenderow in view of Moon and in view of Bencteux as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2018211184 A1 to Destrebecq et al. (hereinafter “Destrebecq”).
Regarding Claim 2, Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux disclose the modified drive module of claim above, but fails to disclose these track connectors are integrally secured together so as to be retractable simultaneously in a single operation, or are all integrated into a same part which itself is retractable.
Another reference, Destrebecq disclose a robotic module for driving an elongated flexible medical device with a guide track (see Abstract & Description), wherein these track connectors are integrally secured together so as to be retractable simultaneously in a single operation, or are all integrated into a same part which itself is retractable (see Att. Doc. “a robotic module for driving an elongate flexible medical device and a protective envelope … the protective envelope is removably attached to the robotic module … the robotic drive module is configured to drive a guide of a catheter and / or a catheter through the envelope”; and “the protective envelope 30 comprises a removable cover 50 and adapted to occupy an open position, in which it releases access to the guide tracks 32 and 38, and a closed position, illustrated in FIG. 8, in which the cover 50 closes the guiding tracks 32 and 38 (cover 50 simultaneously opens/closes access to both/all guide tracks)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to further modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems of Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux with the teaching of Destrebecq to maintain the instrument guiding arrangements/functionality, while providing the additional access functionality.
Regarding Claim 9, Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux disclose the modified drive module of claim above, but fails to explicitly disclose all integrated as one part in a single contact pad.
Destrebecq further disclose the robotic module for driving a flexible elongate medical element (see abstract), wherein these track connectors are all integrated as one part in a single contact pad which can be retracted simply by pressing on it (see Att. Doc. “the protective envelope 30 comprises a removable cover 50 and adapted to occupy an open position … and a closed position … in which the cover 50 closes the guiding tracks 32 and 38 (cover 50 is a single part governing access to all guide tracks)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to further modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems of Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux with the teaching of Destrebecq to predictably maintain the existing instrument-guiding and convergence functionality.
Regarding Claim 10-14, Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux disclose the modified drive module of claim above. Wenderow, further disclose various components of the disclosed invention may be made from a transparent or translucent plastic (see Para 103), but the combination fails to explicitly disclose at least one alternation of recesses and protuberances, a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments being respectively guided in the recesses between the walls formed by the protuberances.
However, Destrebecq further disclose the robotic module for driving a flexible elongate medical element (see abstract), wherein at least one alternation of recesses and protuberances, a plurality of elongate flexible medical instruments being respectively guided in the recesses between the walls formed by the protuberances (see Att. Doc. “the guide track comprises a second portion which comprises at least one support member of the elongated flexible medical member, a free surface of which comprises two branches which each have a convex shape and which delimit a groove adapted to receive the organ flexible medical elongated … the support member of the elongated flexible medical member is disposed along the longitudinal axis, between the two transverse grooves”);
wherein the track connectors of the convergence device are grooves made in a surface having the same concave curvature (see Att. Doc. “a main portion having a free surface having a concave shape, the main portion comprises a longitudinal groove for accommodating the elongate flexible medical organ extending along the longitudinal axis and dug into the free surface having the concave shape … the free surface having the concave shape has a radius of curvature of between 0.5 and 3 cm”);
wherein the guide tracks are not retractable (see Att. Doc. (guide tracks 32/38 described as fixed structural portion of the housing and only cover 50 is open/closed structure)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to further modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems of Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux with the teaching of Destrebecq to have the structural arrangement for performing the claimed instrument guiding functionality while maintaining the underlying operation of the system.
Claims 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenderow in view of Moon and in view of Bencteux as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200069384 A1 to Fenech et al. (hereinafter “Fenech”).
Regarding Claim 3-4, Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux disclose the modified drive module of claim above, but fails to explicitly disclose the retractable towards the inside or bottom of the drive module and withdrawing into at least one orifice of the drive module, while remaining guided by one or more walls of this orifice during their withdrawal.
Another reference, Fenech disclose an apparatus and methods for guiding and supporting delivery of a flexible interventional instrument into a patient anatomy (see Abstract, Para 02), wherein these track connectors are retractable towards the inside of the drive module, or towards the bottom of the drive module, when the drive module is in position and in its orientation for use (see Para -52-52: “If the return spring has a greater bias than the support member, the support member will tend to retract into the housing … An external force may be used to retract the support member into the housing (toward the inside of the device)”);
wherein these track connectors are retractable by withdrawing into at least one orifice of the drive module, while remaining guided by one or more walls of this orifice during their withdrawal (see Para 51: “retraction assembly 334 includes a housing 340 with an opening 342 through which the support member 304 extends. The opening 342 may be curved to accommodate passage of the curved support member or may have an opening height large enough to accommodate passage of the curvature …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to further modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems of Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux with the teaching of Fenech to have selectively retracting structure to provide access to an instrument while allowing the structure to return to its guiding position.
Regarding Claim 5, Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux disclose the modified drive module of claim above, but fails to explicitly disclose withdrawing into at least two orifices of the drive module which are separated by a fixed platform that does not withdraw into the drive module, while remaining guided by one or more walls of this orifice during their withdrawal as well as by one or more walls of this fixed platform.
Another reference, Fenech disclose an apparatus and methods for guiding and supporting delivery of a flexible interventional instrument into a patient anatomy (see Abstract, Para 02), wherein these track connectors are retractable by withdrawing into at least two orifices of the drive module which are separated by a fixed platform that does not withdraw into the drive module, while remaining guided by one or more walls of this orifice during their withdrawal as well as by one or more walls of this fixed platform (see Para 49-54: “instrument guiding apparatus 300 also includes a retraction system 310 including … retraction assemblies 334, 336, 338. The retraction assembly 334 retracts the support member 304. The retraction assembly 336 retracts the support member 306. The retraction assembly 338 retracts the support member 308 … housing 340 with an opening 342 through which the support member 304 extends (each retraction assembly has its own) … the housings (including housing 340) that house the individual retraction assemblies 334, 336, 338 form the housing 312. Coupling members 350 and brackets 352 couple the retraction assemblies 334, 336, 338 together”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to further modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems of Wenderow in view of Moon and Bencteux with the teaching of Fenech to constrain and support linear retraction motion, thereby yielding the same guiding and compactness advantage of catheter robot convergence device.
Claims 6-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenderow in view of Moon and further in view of Bencteux and Fenech as applied to claim 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Destrebecq.
Regarding Claim 6, Wenderow in view of Moon, Bencteux and Fenech disclose the modified drive module of claim above. Fenech disclose external force to retract the support member into the housing (see Para 52-53), but fail to explicitly disclose track connectors are mechanically retractable by finger pressure.
However, Destrebecq disclose a robotic module for driving an elongated flexible medical device with a guide track (see Abstract & Description), wherein these track connectors are mechanically retractable by a simple pressure exerted on them by the practitioner's finger ((see Att. Doc. “concave shape of the free surface … the concave shape allows the user to lock the flexible medical organ elongated in the groove by the simple pressure of a finger (disclose finger-pressure interaction with the guide track structure)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to further modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems of Wenderow in view of Moon, Bencteux, and Fenech with the teaching of Destrebecq to have reasonably extended figure-pressure actuation to the manually openable covers/tracks of robotic catheter system.
Regarding Claim 7, Wenderow in view of Moon, Bencteux, and Fenech disclose the modified drive module of claim above. Wenderow further disclose wherein the convergence device comprises a return element for the purpose of returning or maintaining these track connectors in the non-retractable position, in the absence of pressure being exerted on them (see Para 3-5: “a robotic catheter system includes a cassette … cassette also includes a biasing element configured to bias the engagement structure toward the engaged position. The biasing element is aligned generally parallel to the path defined by the engagement structure”). Additionally, Fenech also disclose spring-based return element (see Para 46-52).
Regarding Claim 16, Wenderow in view of Moon, Bencteux, and Destrebecq disclose the modified drive module of claim above, but fails to explicitly disclose the retractable towards the inside or bottom of the drive module.
Another reference, Fenech disclose an apparatus and methods for guiding and supporting delivery of a flexible interventional instrument into a patient anatomy (see Abstract, Para 02), wherein these track connectors are retractable towards the inside of the drive module, or towards the bottom of the drive module, when the drive module is in position and in its orientation for use (see Para -52-52: “If the return spring has a greater bias than the support member, the support member will tend to retract into the housing … An external force may be used to retract the support member into the housing (toward the inside of the device)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of Applicant’s effective filing date of invention to further modify the disclosed drive module of the robotic catheter systems with the teaching of Fenech to have selectively retracting structure to provide access to an instrument while allowing the structure to return to its guiding position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 1906858 B1 – See Abstract and Summary
WO 2015057821 A1 – See Abstract and Summary
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISRAT JAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm.
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, Patel Niketa can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
/I.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights