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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III, claims 40-41, in the reply filed on March 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
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) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0190571).
Chen et al. discloses a system for providing intraperitoneal access, comprising: a cannula (70) having a distal end (74) which is insertable into a dilated aperture of a rectouterine pouch via transvaginal access; an internal lumen (Figure 11) of said cannula being sized to accept a plurality of flexible robotic arms to be passed therethrough (the lumen is considered capable of accepting said robotic arms); wherein an edge defining an aperture at the distal end of the cannula comprises a first edge portion extending along one side of the aperture (Figure 9, top edge) and a second edge portion extending along an opposite side of the aperture (Figure 9, bottom edge), and the first edge portion is positioned more distally along the cannula than the second edge portion (Figure 9); said plurality of flexible robotic arms passing through said cannula, said plurality of robotic arms extending side-by-side along said internal lumen of said cannula; wherein for each said given robotic arm of said plurality of flexible robotic arms exiting the cannula aperture at the distal end of the cannula, at least a distal portion of said given robotic arm is bent across a plane of said first edge portion of the cannula aperture to exit the cannular aperture that is disposed at the distal end of the cannula. (With regard the statement of intended use and other functional statements, they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference “teach” what the subject patent teaches, but rather it is only necessary that the claims under attack “read on” something in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 218 USPQ 781 (CCPA 1983). Furthermore, the manner in which a device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Therefore, recitation of the robotic arms are not given patentable weight)
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) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0190571).
Regarding claim 41, a cross-section of an inner lumen of the cannula transverse to a longitudinal axis of the cannula has a long and a short axis (Figure 11, 14). Chen et al. fails to disclose long axis is at least twice as long as the short axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the device of Chen et al. with the long axis at least twice as long as the short axis, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 9:00 M-F.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/ANDREW YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights