DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Non-Provisional Patent Application filed on June 18, 2024. Claims 1-8 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-8 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.
Claims 3, 6, and 8 each recite the limitation of “the flexible joint”. However, claim 1 recites “a first flexible joint”, “a second flexible joint”, and “a third flexible joint”, therein making it indefinite as to which of these flexible joints “the flexible joint” refers to. For the purposes of compact prosecution, because claim 3 includes the reference number (140) associated with the limitation of “the flexible joint”, the limitation in claim 3 will be interpreted as “the second flexible joint”. Because, claim 6 includes the reference number (130) associated with the limitation “the flexible joint”, the limitation in claim 6 will be interpreted as “the first flexible joint”, and because claim 8 includes the reference number (145) associated with the limitation “the flexible joint”, the limitation in claim 8 will be interpreted as “the third flexible joint”.
Claims 5 and 7 recite the limitations of “the handle” and “the locking mechanism”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for both of these limitations in the claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 4.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation of “the shaft”. However, there is a shaft associated with both the bar and the bottom arm, therein making it indefinite as to which shaft “the shaft” is referring to. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “the shaft” will be interpreted as “the shaft of the bottom arm”.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation of “the shaft”. However, there is a shaft associated with the bar, the bottom arm, and the top arm, therein making it indefinite as to which shaft “the shaft” is referring to. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “the shaft” will be interpreted as “the shaft of the top arm”.
Claim 4 is further rejected for being dependent on an indefinite 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia et al. (US 2019/0274777, hereinafter Garcia).
Concerning claim 1, the Garcia et al. prior art reference teaches a device that may be classified as a stereotactic device given it may move in three planes (Figure 1; 100), the stereotactic device comprising: a clamp (Figure 1; 110) configured for mounting the stereotactic device on a rigid part of an operating table (Figure 1; 120); a bar comprising a first end and a second end (Figure 1; 108), the first end configured for being held by the clamp, and the second end is located in a y-z plane substantially capable of being at the center of the operating table in the x direction; an articulating arm assembly (Figure 1; 104) comprising: a bottom arm (Figure 1; 114) having a first end and a second end, the first end being coupled to the second end of the bar through a first flexible joint (Figure 1; 111); a top arm having a first end and a second end (Figure 1; 115), the first end coupled to the second end of the bottom arm through a second flexible joint (Figure 1; 113), for being rotatable in the y-z plane; a sleeve mounted to the second end of the top arm (Figure 1; 107) with a third flexible joint and configured for holding the medical device (Figure 1; 103); wherein the first flexible joint, the second flexible joint, and the third flexible joint provide three degrees of freedom for moving and positioning the tip of the medical device ([¶ 0067]).
Concerning claim 2, the Garcia reference teaches a stereotactic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stereotactic device is mountable along the z-axis on the rigid part of the operating table using the clamp (Figure 1; 110).
Concerning claim 3, the Garcia reference teaches a stereotactic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second flexible joint, and all of the joints include a locking mechanism ([¶ 0067]).
Concerning claim 4, , the Garcia reference teaches a stereotactic device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the locking mechanism comprises: a first locking profile which connects the bottom arm to the locking mechanism (Figure 1; portion of locking mechanism associated with joint 113), a second locking profile which connects the top arm to the locking mechanism (Figure 1; portion of locking mechanism associated with joint 111); and a handle (Figure 1; actuator 112 which provides the locking mechanism may be grabbed on its outer surface, therein defining a handle), wherein engaging the handle engages the first locking profile and the second locking profile thereby prevents the movement of the articulating arm ([¶ 0067], actuator locks and unlocks joints).
Concerning claim 5, the Garcia reference teaches a stereotactic device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the bottom arm comprises a shaft (Figure 1; 114), wherein a position of the shaft of the bottom arm is controlled by operating the handle of the locking mechanism (Figure 1; actuator 112 serves as the locking mechanism, wherein the outer surface of the actuator may be used as a handle) for enabling or preventing a rotary movement of the bottom arm in y-z plane ([¶ 0084]).
Concerning claim 6, the Garcia reference teaches a stereotactic device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the shaft of the bottom arm engages with the first flexible joint (Figure 1; 114, 111) for preventing movement of the bottom arm in the y-z plane ([¶ 0067], the locking mechanism may be fluidic, pneumatic, or hydraulic, therein necessitating the connection of the shafts and joints for operation).
Concerning claim 7, the Garcia reference teaches a stereotactic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the top arm comprises a shaft (Figure 1; 115), wherein a position of the shaft of the top arm is controlled by operating the handle of the locking mechanism for enabling or preventing movement of the medical device in the y-z plane (Figure 1; handle of locking mechanism = actuator 112).
Concerning claim 8, the Garcia reference teaches a stereotactic device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the shaft of the top arm engages with the flexible joint (Figure 1; 115, 103) for adjusting angle of the medical device and for preventing movement of the medical device ([¶ 0067], the locking mechanism may be fluidic, pneumatic, or hydraulic, therein necessitating the connection of the shafts and joints for operation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Ellard et al. reference (6,179,262) teaches a stereotactic device including a table clamp and an articulating arm including arms with joints including locking mechanisms; the Schuerch, Jr. et al. reference (US 2014/0208514) teaches a stereotactic device including a table clamp and an articulating arm including a plurality of linkages and flexible joints; the Singh et al. reference (US 2015/0133958) teaches a stereotactic device including a clamp, bar, and articulating assembly; and the Tseng et al. reference (US 2022/0110712) teaches a stereotactic device including a clamp, a bar, an articulating arm, and a sleeve.
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 9/24/2025