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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 22, 2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3-6 and 12 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 3, and by virtue of their dependency Claims 4-6, recite the limitation "the antenna cover A" in line 2. Likewise, Claim 12 recites the limitation “the antenna cover A” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “an antenna cover A”.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018147243 A1 (Ishizeki et al.) in view of US 20090030448 A1 (Andre et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Ishizeki teaches a medical treatment instrument [1], comprising:
a first electrode [4] including a microwave application antenna A [2] and a microwave reception antenna B [3] (see Fig. 2);
a second electrode [7] including a microwave application antenna C [5] and a microwave reception antenna D [6] (see Fig. 3);
a first coaxial cable [8] including a first central conductor and a first external conductor [18], a distal end of the first central conductor and a distal end of the first external conductor being directly or indirectly connected to a terminal end of the microwave application antenna A [2] and a terminal end of the microwave reception antenna B [3], respectively (see Fig. 2; see also provided translation of Ishizeki, p. 3, para. 7);
a second coaxial cable [9] including a second central conductor and a second external conductor [19], a distal end of the second central conductor and a distal end of the second external conductor being directly or indirectly connected to a terminal end of the microwave application antenna C [5] and a terminal end of the microwave reception antenna D, respectively (see Fig. 2; see also p. 3, para. 8);
a microwave transmission coaxial cable [10] including a central conductor [15] and an external conductor [16]; a microwave splitter [11] including a conductor for splitting [14] having a branch 1 [172] and a branch 2 [173], the branch 1 and the branch 2 being formed into a two-legged fork shape on a distal end side of the microwave splitter, a terminal end of the conductor for splitting [14] being directly or indirectly connected to the central conductor of the microwave transmission coaxial cable [10], the branch 1 being directly or indirectly connected to a terminal end of the first central conductor [18], and the branch 2 being directly or indirectly connected to a terminal end of the second central conductor [19] (see Fig. 4; see also p. 5, para. 11-12);
and position setting portions of a first electrode [4] and a second electrode [7], the position setting portions including a position setting portion A and a position setting portion B being opposed to each other (see Fig. 1), the position setting portion A being arranged in the first electrode [4] including an accommodation portion A that accommodates the first coaxial cable [8] (see Fig. 2), and a position setting portion B being arranged in the second electrode [7] including an accommodation portion B that accommodates the second coaxial cable [9] (see p. 4, para. 13-14 and p. 5, para. 1).
Ishizeki does not explicitly teach a fitting protruding portion A, a fitting hole portion A, a fitting protruding portion B, and a fitting hole portion B, the fitting protruding portion A and the fitting protruding portion B being configured to be accommodated in the fitting hole portion B and the fitting hole portion A, respectively, when the first electrode and the second electrode are brought into contact with each other.
Andre teaches a surgical forceps device including a fitting protruding portion A [5], a fitting hole portion A [6], a fitting protruding portion B [3], and a fitting hole portion B [4], with the fitting protruding portion A and the fitting protruding portion B being configured to be accommodated in the fitting hole portion B and the fitting hole portion A, respectively, when the tips are brought into contact with each other (see para. 0023; see also Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Andre to the device of Ishizeki to provide for a fitting protruding portion A, a fitting hole portion A, a fitting protruding portion B, and a fitting hole portion B, with the fitting protruding portion A and the fitting protruding portion B being configured to be accommodated in the fitting hole portion B and the fitting hole portion A, respectively, when the first electrode and the second electrode are brought into contact with each other. Doing so would center the tips of the device such that they align with greater precision when bringing them into contact with each other, as recognized by Andre.
Regarding Claim 9, Ishizeki does not explicitly disclose an internal angle formed by the branch 1 and the branch 2 is between 20 degrees and 80 degrees. However, Ishizeki discloses that the bifurcated shape of the branches may be a V shape (see p. 6, para. 1, “The bifurcated shape may be a U shape, a V shape, or the like.”). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an internal angle formed by the branch 1 and the branch 2 between 20 and 80 degrees in the combination of Ishizeki and Andre discussed in Claim 1 above because the range of angles formed by a V shape reasonably overlaps with the claimed ranges, and it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wetheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding Claim 10, Ishizeki teaches a surface of the microwave application antenna A [2] and a surface of the microwave application antenna C [5] each have a sawtooth shape, and suggests a configuration such that, when the first electrode and the second electrode are brought into contact with each other, the surfaces contact with each other only with a blade of the sawtooth shape of the microwave application antenna A and a blade of the sawtooth shape of the microwave application antenna C (see Fig. 3; see also p. 4, para. 6-7, “the contact surface with the tissue is a sawtooth shape so that the tissue is difficult to slip).
Regarding Claim 11, Ishizeki teaches a distal end surface of the microwave reception antenna B and a distal end surface of the microwave reception antenna D each have a tooth shape, and suggests a configuration such that, when the first electrode and the second electrode are brought into contact with each other, the distal end surfaces mesh with each other only with the tooth shape of the distal end of the microwave reception antenna B and the tooth shape of the distal end of the microwave reception antenna D (see Fig. 3; see also p. 4, para. 6-7 “the inner surface of the antenna (particularly the contact surface with the tissue) can be widely applied in the shape of a blade, a flat shape, a round shape, a rod shape, an uneven shape, a sawtooth shape, and the like”).
Regarding Claim 14, Ishizeki teaches the position setting portion A is arranged in a range of from the terminal end of the microwave application antenna A [2] to a distal end of the first coaxial cable [8], and the position setting portion B is arranged in a range of from the terminal end of the microwave application antenna C to a distal end of the second coaxial cable (see Fig. 2 for the position setting A of the first electrode [4], which mirrors the structure of position setting B of the second electrode [7] and its corresponding location relative to the microwave application antenna C and the second coaxial cable).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018147243 A1 (Ishizeki et al.) in view of US 20130116679 A1 (Van der Weide et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Ishizeki teaches a medical treatment instrument [1], comprising:
a first electrode [4] including a microwave application antenna A [2] (see Fig. 2);
a second electrode [7] including a microwave reception antenna D [6] (see Fig. 3);
a microwave transmission coaxial cable [10] the microwave transmission coaxial cable including a central conductor [15] and an external conductor [16], the central conductor being directly or indirectly connected to the microwave application antenna A, and the external conductor being directly or indirectly connected to the microwave reception antenna D (see Fig. 4; see also p. 5, para. 11-12);
and an antenna cover A [12], which is configured to cover the microwave application antenna A [2] (see e.g. Fig. 3 for the identical cover on the opposing antenna; see also p. 4, para. 13),
Ishizeki does not explicitly disclose that the antenna cover A includes a marking at a specific position from a distal end of the first electrode or the second electrode, on a surface of the antenna cover A. However, Van der Weide discusses the use of markings in energy delivery devices, including specifically at the distal end of a device, where Ishizeki’s cover would be (see para. 0182, “a marking (e.g., a number) a present on the proximal end of the device so that it is viewable by the physician's eyes and a second marking (e.g., that corresponds to the number) is present on the distal end of the device”). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ishizeki in view of Andrew to further include markings at any specific position from a distal end of the electrode on a surface of the cover A (a position that may be determined by, for example, how easy it would be to view). Doing so would help with identification of the device, as recognized by Van der Weide.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018147243 A1 (Ishizeki et al.) in view of US 20090030448 A1 (Andre et al.) and further in view of US 20130116679 A1 (Van der Weide et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Ishizeki does not explicitly disclose that the antenna cover A includes a marking at a specific position from a distal end of the first electrode or the second electrode, on a surface of the cover A. However, Van der Weide discusses the use of markings in energy delivery devices, including specifically at the distal end of a device (see para. 0182, “a marking (e.g., a number) a present on the proximal end of the device so that it is viewable by the physician's eyes and a second marking (e.g., that corresponds to the number) is present on the distal end of the device”). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Ishizeki and Andre as discussed in Claim 1 above to further include markings at any specific position from a distal end of the electrode on a surface of the cover A (a position that may be determined by, for example, how easy it would be to view). Doing so would help with identification of the device, as recognized by Van der Weide.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018147243 A1 (Ishizeki et al.) in view of US 20090030448 A1 (Andre et al.) and further in view of US 20140276978 A1 (Shields et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ishizeki and Andre discussed in Claim 1 above does not specifically disclose that the fitting hole portion A and the fitting hole portion B are each blind hole portions. However, Shields teaches a similar clamping device that utilizes a protrusion [158] and blind hole [160] (see Fig. 2A) for a similar purpose of aligning the jaws of the device (see para. 0035, “The pin and hole align the jaws in the lateral direction, represented by arrow 162 in FIG. 2B, so that the jaws do not slide apart in the lateral direction when grasping an item”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Andre and Ishizeki discussed in Claim 1 above to replace the fitting hole portion A and the fitting hole portion B with blind hole portions. Doing so would be an alternative way to align the pinch tips of the device, as recognized by Shields.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018147243 A1 (Ishizeki et al.) in view of US 20090030448 A1 (Andre et al.) and further in view of US 20200297405 A1 (Sims et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Ishizeki teaches an antenna cover A [12] that includes an inner cavity fitting hole portion in an inner cavity of the cover and a microwave application antenna C [5] that includes a fitting protruding portion that is fitted into the inner cavity fitting hole portion (see Fig. 3). However, Ishizeki does not disclose that the fitting hole portion is at a distal-end side of the cover (instead, it is throughout its length) nor does Ishizeki disclose that the protruding portion is at an upper end on a distal end side of the antenna.
Sims teaches a surgical forceps tip cover [216, 218] that includes a distal-end side inner cavity fitting hole portion in an inner cavity on a distal end side of the cover (the cavity engaging [214b]) (see Fig. 2) and further teaches a conductive plate [214] with a distal-end side protruding portion [214b] at an upper end on a distal side of the plate wherein the distal-end side fitting protruding portion is fitted into the distal-end side inner cavity fitting hole portion (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishizeki and Sims to provide for the antenna cover of Ishizeki to include a distal-end side inner cavity fitting hole portion in an inner cavity on a distal end side of the cover, wherein the microwave application antenna includes a distal-end side fitting protruding portion at an upper end on a distal end side of the antenna, and wherein the distal-end side fitting protruding portion is fitted into the distal-end side inner cavity fitting hole portion. Doing so could help secure the cover and antenna together.
Regarding Claim 3, Ishizeki teaches an antenna cover A [12] that includes an outer engagement portion and a microwave reception antenna [6] that includes a receiving portion that is engaged with the cover (the surfaces engaging [12] and [6]) (see Fig. 3). Ishizeki does not disclose that the outer engagement portion or the distal-end receiving portion is located on a distal end side of the cover and antenna, respectively (instead, they are engaged along the length of the antenna and cover).
Sims teaches a surgical forceps tip cover [216, 218] that includes a distal-end side receiving portion on a distal end side of the cover (the cavity engaging [214b]) (see Fig. 2) and further teaches a conductive plate [214] with a distal-end side protruding portion [214b] at an upper end on a distal side of the plate wherein the distal-end side fitting protruding portion is fitted into the distal-end side inner cavity fitting hole portion (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ishizeki and Sims to provide for the antenna cover of Ishizeki to include a distal-end side outer engagement portion on a distal end side of the cover and for the microwave reception antenna to include a distal-end side receiving portion, wherein the distal-end side outer engagement portion is engaged with the distal-end side receiving portion. Doing so is a mere reversal of the protrusion and hole mating mechanism which would similarly help secure the cover and antenna together.
Regarding Claim 7, Ishizeki does not explicitly disclose the terminal end of the conductor for splitting includes a fitting hole portion, wherein a distal end of the central conductor includes a fitting protruding portion, and wherein the fitting protruding portion is fitted into the fitting hole portion. However, Ishizeki teaches that the terminal end of the conductor for splitting [14] is “directly or indirectly coupled” to the distal end of the central conductor [15] (see p.5, para. 10; see also Fig. 4). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the terminal end of the conductor and the distal end of the central conductor via a fitting hole and fitting protrusion mechanism. Doing so would be an obvious way to couple the two, as fitting holes and protrusions are well known in the art (e.g., the protrusion [214b] of Fig. 2 of Sims) and Ishizeki is merely silent on the specific coupling mechanism.
Regarding Claim 8, Ishizeki does not explicitly disclose a distal end of the branch 1 of the conductor for splitting includes a fitting hole portion, the terminal end of the first central conductor includes a fitting protruding portion, and the fitting protruding portion is fitted into the fitting hole portion, and wherein a distal end of the branch 2 of conductor for splitting includes a fitting hole portion, the terminal end of the second central conductor includes a fitting protruding portion, and the fitting protruding portion is fitted into the fitting hole portion. However, Ishizeki teaches that the distal end of the branch 1 [172] is directly or indirectly coupled” to the terminal end of the first central conductor [18] and the distal end of the branch 2 [173] is likewise “directly or indirectly couples to the terminal end of the second central conductor [19] (see p.5, para. 11-12; see also Fig. 4). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the terminal end of the conductor and the distal end of the central conductor via a fitting hole and fitting protrusion mechanism. Doing so would be an obvious way to couple each pair, as fitting holes and protrusions are well known in the art (e.g., the protrusion [214b] of Fig. 2 of Sims) and Ishizeki is merely silent on the specific coupling mechanism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claims 4-6, each would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4, and by virtue of their dependency, Claims 5-6, would be allowable for disclosing an antenna cover B, wherein the antenna cover B is located in an inner cavity of the microwave reception antenna B and/or the microwave reception antenna D, and accommodates a terminal end of the microwave application antenna A and/or the microwave application antenna C in an inner cavity of the cover.
WO 2018147243 A1 (Ishizeki et al.) in view of US 20090030448 A1 (Andre et al.) and further in view of US 20200297405 A1 (Sims et al.) suggests the use of antenna covers on microwave application antennas (see e.g., the discussion of cover A in Claims 1-3). However, this combination fails to disclose the configuration of antenna cover B, which is specifically located in an inner cavity of a microwave reception antenna and accommodates a terminal end of a microwave application antenna. None of the prior art referenced in this Office Action, alone or in combination, would draw one of ordinary skill in the art towards the claimed invention as disclosed in Claims 4-6.
Regarding Claims 13 and 17, each disclosing a microwave splitter: Claim 17 is allowed and Claim 13 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13 would be allowable for disclosing a microwave splitter which includes a casing including two casing covers, the casing covers each having an outer cover arranged therein; two insulator (dielectric) covers; two metal covers; and two resin covers, wherein the two resin covers are arranged so as to sandwich the conductor for splitting therebetween, wherein the two metal covers are arranged so as to sandwich the two resin covers therebetween, wherein the two insulator (dielectric) covers are arranged so as to sandwich the two metal covers therebetween, and wherein the two casing covers are configured so as to sandwich the two insulator (dielectric) covers therebetween.
Claim 17 is allowable for disclosing a microwave splitter comprising a conductor for splitting, a casing including two casing covers; two insulator (dielectric) covers; two metal covers; and two resin covers, wherein the two resin covers are arranged so as to sandwich the conductor for splitting therebetween, wherein the two metal covers are arranged so as to sandwich the two resin covers therebetween, wherein the two insulator (dielectric) covers are arranged so as to sandwich the two metal covers therebetween, and wherein the two casing covers are configured so as to sandwich the two insulator (dielectric) covers therebetween.
WO 2018147243 A1 (Ishizeki et al.) discloses a microwave splitter comprising a conductor for splitting [14] and a casing preferably formed of metal with a plastic (dielectric) exterior (see p. 5, para. 9). Ishizeki fails to suggest the specific configuration of the layers of the claimed casing by failing to disclose at least the inner resin layer altogether and that each of its layers includes two corresponding covers. None of the prior art referenced in this Office Action, alone or in combination with Ishizeki, would draw one of ordinary skill in the art towards the claimed invention as disclosed in Claims 13 and 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN M SARCENO ROBLES whose telephone number is (571)272-8786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights