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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the non-provisional application filed 08/07/2024.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8-18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 2 recities wherein the first thread take-up wheel and the second thread take-up wheel both comprise: a gear body, a first gear disk, and a second gear disk, wherein the gear body, the first gear disk, and the second gear disk are arranged coaxially, wherein the first gear disk is arranged at a space from the second gear disk; the first gear disk and the second gear disk are separately connected to the gear body; and a thread winding groove is formed between the first gear disk and the second gear disk. Claim 9 recites wherein a first clamping arm and a second clamping arm are movably mounted on the thread gear support, and a clamping area is formed between the first clamping arm and the second clamping arm.
The Office agrees the art of record fail to teach or suggest these features.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 5,350,385 (Christy) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0146843 (Smith)
Regarding claim 1, Christy discloses a suture tightening device comprising: a first thread take up wheel (spool 56) and a second thread take up wheel (spool 58), and a thread gear support (body 16), where the first and second wheels are spaced apart and each rotatably connected to body 16 (Fig. 5; col. 3, ll. 53–64; col. 4, ll. 26–39).
Christy does not disclose the thread gear support being detachably connected to an endoscope handle.
Smith, from the same field of endeavor (endoscopic tools) teaches a similar device as shown in Figure 1, which includes a support/handle (116) detachably connected to an endoscope handle (103) via adapter guide unit 112 to enable endoscopic operation (Fig. 1; ¶[0019], ¶[0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Christy’s body 16 to include a detachable adapter as taught by Smith, to mount and stabilize the suture tightening device on a standard endoscope handle for improved ergonomics and integration during endoscopic suturing, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.”
Regarding claim 7, Christy does not disclose the recited angular relationship between the axes of the first and second take up wheels and the endoscope working cavity axis.
A POSITA would have oriented the spool axes such that their bisector intersects the endoscope working cavity axis to reduce the thread’s lateral offset into the working channel, minimizing bend induced friction and snagging and improving feed reliability. This reorientation is a predictable design optimization that does not alter device function or produce unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI) (design choice) and § 2143 (predictable results). Therefore, claim 7 would have been obvious over Christy in view of Smith.” to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is 571-270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 – 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771