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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated July 27, 2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 27, 2026. These drawings are unacceptable. Fig. 3, in particular, represents new matter. Because of the new matter, these drawings are not the drawing of record and the objection below is maintained.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the forceps lifter control module, knob control module, catheter drive module, and water vapor suction control module as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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.
The terms “large-knob” and “small-knob” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no way to determine what would be large enough or small enough to be a large-knob control motor or a small-knob control motor. The Examiner is not entirely sure what such a thing even is, and the disclosure does not provide sufficient clarity to resolve the issue.
The scope of the terms “forceps lifter straight-rod motor”, “instrument push control motor”, “air-and-water-supply button straight-rod motor” and “suction button straight-rod motor” are indefinite. The Examiner does not know the structure of these elements and whether or not they are terms of art. The disclosure fails to provide any clarification by way of the Specification or Drawings. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claims because these terms are indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Replacement Drawings are proper and do not present New Matter. The Examiner disagrees. The new Fig. 3 shows details not shown in the original drawings and a view that was not presented. The details of these elements were not discernable in the original filing. This is not the case where details were previously shown and have been highlighted or enlarged. These details were completely absent before. They are also necessary for a complete understanding of the invention, either claimed or disclosed. Because the Drawings include features not previously shown, they are still under objection.
The Examiner also notes that this entire disclosure is full of terms without clear meaning. What is a “small-knob control motor”? What does it control and how does it work? Between the disclosure and lack of clear drawings, this application is basically incomplete. One of the foundations of US patent law is the quid pro quo between inventors and the public where the inventor provides an enabling disclosure of an invention. The public then may grant the inventor an exclusive right to the invention. That principle has not been met here. Without more details and further explanation, the disclosure is utterly deficient in fully explaining the alleged invention.
The application is not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY JAY NEAL whose telephone number is (313)446-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/TIMOTHY J NEAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights