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 .
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 18, 22 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 18 recites “the at least three locking lugs” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It appears that Applicant meant to state - - the at least three latching lugs - -.
Claim 22 recites “claim 9” which does not exist. It appears that Applicant meant for this to depend upon claim 21.
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) 11-13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 212044733 U) in view of Kitamura et al. (USP 6315142).
Regarding claim 11, Cai et al. discloses a cover cap (seen in fig.7 the cap at 52) for covering a medical component, the cover cap including:
a circular-cylindrical tube section (seen between figures 6, 7, 9) that is closed at one longitudinal end and open at its other longitudinal end (it is closed at one end);
an edge that lies in a plane inclined to a pipe section longitudinal axis (the edge can be seen in fig.7).
Cai et al. fails to disclose the cap having at least three latching lugs distributed over a circumference of the tube section and arranged at a distance from one another, the at least three latching lugs being configured to protrude radially inwards from the edge for clipping the cover cap to the medical component.
Kitamura et al. teaches, within a similar field of cover caps or covers, the use of at least three latching lugs (fig.2b, 10) distributed over a circumference of the cover and arranged at a distance from one another (seen in fig.2b), the at least three latching lugs being configured to protrude radially inwards from the edge (seen in figure 2b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover cap disclosed in Cai et al. to make use of at least three latching lugs distributed over a circumference of the cap, as taught/suggested in Kitamura et al. in order to provide the same predictable result of allowing for an easy securing option for the cap to the medical device or robotic joint. This is also considered a simple substitution of one known mechanical connection for another known mechanical connection that perform the same result of fastening the elements together.
Regarding claim 12, Cai et al. discloses the cover cap of Claim 11, wherein the medical component is a robotic arm (seen in figures the device is a robotic arm).
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses the cover cap of Claim 11, wherein a first latching lug of the at least three latching lugs is arranged in a region of the edge that is furthest from the closed end (it is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that the latching lugs would be spread around the circumference in Cai et al. in a non-uniform arrangement as suggested in fig.2b of Kitamura; it follows that at least one of the lugs would be in a region of the furthest from the closed end. It is also important to note that the term “region” is broad and could encompass a large portion of the circumference unless it is precisely qualified what is meant by the region; in addition, the lugs could be placed anywhere as a matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses the cover cap of Claim 11, wherein the at least three locking lugs are arranged unequally distributed over the circumference of the tube section (as taught/suggested by Kitamura the lugs would be unequally distributed).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 212044733 U) in view of Kitamura et al. (USP 6315142), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Guerin et al. (USP 11623681).
Regarding claim 20, Cai et al. fails to disclose the cover cap of Claim 11, wherein the cover cap is constructed in one piece from a glass bead or glass fiber reinforced plastic.
Guerin et al. teaches/suggests the concept of making a cover cap out of a glass fiber reinforced plastic (col.1, lines 59-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap in Cai et al. to be made of the material as taught by Guerin et al. in order to provide the predictable results of making the cap light weight and cheaper and also allow for more complex geometries without a need for additional manufacturing processes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17, 19, 21, 22 (if corrected according to suggestion above) 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.
The prior art fails to provide sufficient rationale or prima facie case of obviousness to reject a combination of these dependent claims and all intervening and base claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617