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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites “a second lock member” without including the limitation of a first, or other, lock member; for clarity, claim 6 should be amended to clarify the amount of lock members being claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
The Examiner notes that since the “second lock member” is the only lock member recited in either claims 1 or 6, two lock members are not required by the claim.
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 3 is 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.
The recitation of “…the bending medical device is manually moved relative to the moving stage” is a positively recited method step of using the apparatus. The Examiner recommends amending the language of claim 3 to read “…the bending medical device is configured to be manually moved relative to the moving stage”, or similarly.
As per MPEP 2173.05(p)(ll), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. It is not clear if the claims are drawn only to structures that are capable of performing the method steps or if the claims are intended to be written as method steps. For the sake of examination, the claims have been interpreted as only requiring that the claimed structures be capable of performing the method steps and are not so narrow as to require the method steps to actually be performed.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (US 20210259794 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a medical apparatus (abstract and [0008]) comprising: a bending medical device (bendable medical device 11, [0026] & Fig. 1-2B) including a bendable body (bendable body 3, [0027]-[0028] & Fig. 1-4) and a base part on which the bendable body is disposed (actuation unit 7 attached to body 3, [0028] & Fig. 2A-4); and a support base including a moving stage configured to support the bending medical device in a detachably attachable manner (insertion unit 9 including an insertion slider 15 configured to support device 11 in a detachably attachable manner, [0028]-[0032] & Fig. 1-4) and a support unit configured to support the moving stage so as to be movable linearly in a predetermined direction (the structure denoted by numeral 16 in Fig. 2A is being interpreted as the support unit; “An insertion slider 15, moving along line A,”, [0030]; insertion slider 15 is configured to move linearly along structure 16, in the direction of line A; also see [0028]-[0029]; numeral 18 of Fig. 2A indicates that structure 16 is grounded which indicates that slider 15 moves relative to structure 16), wherein the moving stage supports the bending medical device so as to be movable linearly in the predetermined direction (insertion slider 15 supports device 11 so as to be movable along line A, linearly, see [0028]-[0031] & Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kato discloses the medical apparatus wherein the bending medical device is manually moved relative to the moving stage (device 11 is configured to be manually moved relative to insertion slider 15, [0032] & Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 4, Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kato discloses the medical apparatus wherein the bending medical device includes a first lock member that locks the bending medical device so as not to be detached from the moving stage (lock 20 configured to lock device 11 so as to not be detached from slider 15, [0030] and [0045] & Fig. 1-2AB).
Regarding claim 5, Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kato discloses the medical apparatus wherein the moving stage has an elongated shape in the predetermined direction (as seen in Figures 2A-2B, insertion slider 15 has an elongated, rectangular shape in direction A), and wherein the bending medical device is attachable to the moving stage at any position in the predetermined direction (device 11 is attachable to slider 15 at a position in direction A, [0030]-[0032] & see Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kato discloses the medical apparatus wherein the bending medical device includes a second lock member that locks the bending medical device so as not to move relative to the moving stage (lock 20 is configured to lock device 11 onto insertion slider 15, [0030] and [0045] & Fig. 2A; “In an exemplary embodiment, the physician 10 will facility the input value(s) to the controller 2, via the man-machine interface 21 (ex. Joystick), and the controller 2 will move the actuation unit 7 and/or insertion unit 9 to reflect the physician's 10 intended movement of the bendable body 3.”, [0029]; lock 20 is capable of preventing device 11 from moving relative to insertion slider 15).
Regarding claim 7, Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Kato discloses the medical apparatus wherein the second lock member locks the bending medical device so as not to move in a direction toward a subject (lock 20 is configured to lock device 11 onto insertion slider 15, [0030] and [0045] & Fig. 2A; an operator cannot manually move device 11 in a direction toward a subject, Fig. 1-2B) and does not lock the bending medical device so as to move in a direction away from the subject (in a configuration in which insertion unit 9 has moved device 11 distally along direction A, lock 20 does not lock device 11 so as to move in a direction away from the subject, as insertion unit 9 can move device 11 away from the patient along direction A, [0028]-[0032] & Fig. 1-2B; lock 20 does not prevent slider 15 from moving device 11 proximally, away from a subject).
Regarding claim 8, Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Kato discloses the medical apparatus wherein the bending medical device includes a movement unlock member (“The lock 20 may be unlocked manually with a mechanical unlock structure or with an electrical unlock structure incorporating the controller 2.”, [0030] & Fig. 2A), and wherein the second lock member locks the bending medical device so as not to move when an operator does not press the movement unlock member (lock 20 locks device 11 so as not to move relative to slider 15 when an operator does not interact with, or press, the mechanical unlock structure, [0030] and [0045]), and does not lock the bending medical device so as to move while the operator presses and holds down the movement unlock member (lock 20 allows detachment, or movement, of device 11 when an operator does interact with, or press, the mechanical unlock structure, [0030] and [0045]; an operator would necessarily have to hold down on a mechanical structure for at least a period of time to facilitate interaction with a mechanical unlock structure).
Regarding claim 9, Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kato discloses the medical apparatus further comprising a control unit electrically connected to the bending medical device and the support base (controller 2 electrically connected to device 11 and insertion unit 9, [0026]-[0027] & Fig. 2A), wherein the control unit is always electrically connected to the bending medical device regardless of whether the bending medical device is attached to or detached from the moving stage ([0032] & Fig. 2B).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20210259794 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauck (US 20070185485 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kato discloses the medical apparatus wherein the moving stage is moved relative to the support unit (insertion slider 15 is configured to move linearly along structure 16, in the direction of line A, see [0028]-[0030]; numeral 18 of Fig. 2A indicates that structure 16 is grounded which indicates that slider 15 moves relative to structure 16). Kato discloses that “the physician 10 will facility the input value(s) to the controller 2, via the man-machine interface 21 (ex. Joystick), and the controller 2 will move the actuation unit 7 and/or insertion unit 9 to reflect the physician's 10 intended movement of the bendable body 3.” ([0029]) and that “the physician 10 will control the insertion slider 15 and/or bendable body 3 with man-machine interface 21. “ ([0032]).
However, Kato fails to explicitly disclose the medical apparatus wherein the support unit includes a drive source, and wherein the moving stage is moved relative to the support unit by a driving force of the drive source.
However, Hauck teaches a medical apparatus (abstract) wherein the support unit includes a drive source (track 14 including a translation servo mechanism 18, [0048] & Fig. 1), and wherein the moving stage is moved relative to the support unit by a driving force of the drive source (carriage 48 is moved relative to track 14 by a driving force of mechanism 18, [0048] and [0050] & Fig. 1; “Translation and deflection servo mechanisms 18, 22 may be any type of device for providing mechanical control at a distance, including continuous motors, stepper motors, hydraulic actuators, pulley systems, and other devices known to those of ordinary skill in the art.”, [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the support unit of Kato with Hauck to a drive source, and wherein the moving stage is moved relative to the support unit by a driving force of the drive source since such a modification would provide structure to move the moving stage linearly and provide mechanical control at a distance and would yield predicable results pertaining to moving stage displacement along an axis ([0042], [0048], and [0050] of Hauck).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hasegawa (US-20140148817-A1), Kan (US-20180370045-A1), Diolaiti (US-20200253669-A1), Blumenkranz (US-9839481-B2), and Pivotto (US-20120184955-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN ADAM RADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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 A RADOMSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /EMILY L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights