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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/24/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 uses the term “whose.” The Examiner suggests amending the claim to avoid use of this terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 1 recites “the cranial ring is provided with a through hole penetrating through the ring portion and the extension portion…” in lines 4-5. Lines 6-7 recite “the electrode lock is disposed in a through hole of the extension portion…” It is unclear if this is referring to the same through hole recited in lines 4-5 or a different through hole. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 also recites “causing a positional lock of the electrode lock and/or causing the clamping opening to contract to clamp the electrode…” in lines 13-14. The use of “and/or” has rendered the claim indefinite because it creates an ambiguous scope, and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, prevents from determining the metes and bounds of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-14 are all dependent on claim 1, thus are also rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf, II (US 2018/0093094 A1) (“Wolf”).
Regarding claim 1, Wolf discloses (Figures 6A-9) a device capable of securing an electrode in a cranial hole, comprising: a cranial ring (600/601/611) capable of being secured on a cranium, wherein the cranial ring comprises a ring portion (608/638/648) and an extension portion (portion including 604/634/644), the extension portion is connected to a bottom end of the ring portion, and the cranial ring is provided with a through hole (612/642/652) penetrating through the ring portion and the extension portion; an electrode lock (700/710, Figures 7A-7D) configured to clamp an electrode, wherein at least part of the electrode lock is disposed in a through hole (606/636/646) of the extension portion, and the electrode lock is provided with a clamping opening (704/714) configured for the electrode to penetrate through; and a locking assembly (800/801/802) movably disposed at the bottom end of the ring portion and sleeved on an outer side of the extension portion; wherein when the locking assembly is moved from a first position (Figure 9) to a second position (Figure 24), the locking assembly applies an acting force to the extension portion, and an opening at a bottom end of the through hole contracts and compresses the electrode lock, causing a positional lock of the electrode lock and/or causing the clamping opening to contract to clamp the electrode (500; paragraph 0134); and when the locking assembly is moved from the second position (Figure 24) to the first position (Figure 9), the acting force applied by the locking assembly on the extension portion disappears or decreases, the opening at the bottom end of the through hole does not compress the electrode lock, causing the positional lock of the electrode lock to be released or causing the constraint of the electrode lock on the electrode to be released.
Regarding claim 11, Wolf discloses that a material of the locking assembly is metal (paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 12, Wolf discloses (Figures the material of the locking assembly is a titanium alloy (paragraph 0074).
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chavez et al. (US 2014/0257325 A1) (“Chavez”).
Regarding claim 1, Chavez discloses (Figures 1-15) a cranial hole electrode securing device, comprising: a cranial ring configured to be secured on a cranium, wherein the cranial ring comprises a ring portion (top surface 600 of 110, including pads 112) and an extension portion (portion 612 extending below top surface 600 and pads 112), the extension portion is connected to a bottom end of the ring portion (Figure 6), and the cranial ring is provided with a through hole (128) penetrating through the ring portion and the extension portion; an electrode lock (160) configured to clamp an electrode (203), wherein at least part of the electrode lock is disposed in a through hole of the extension portion (Figures 13A-14B), and the electrode lock is provided with a clamping opening (310) configured for the electrode to penetrate through; and a locking assembly (180/186) movably disposed at the bottom end of the ring portion and sleeved on an outer side of the extension portion (at 180/186); wherein when the locking assembly is moved from a first position (Figures 13A, 13B) to a second position (Figures 14A, 14B), the locking assembly applies an acting force to the extension portion (paragraph 0074), and an opening at a bottom end of the through hole contracts and compresses the electrode lock, causing a positional lock of the electrode lock and/or causing the clamping opening (310) to contract to clamp the electrode (Figures 14A and 14B); and when the locking assembly is moved from the second position to the first position, the acting force applied by the locking assembly on the extension portion disappears or decreases, the opening at the bottom end of the through hole does not compress the electrode lock, causing the positional lock of the electrode lock to be released or causing the constraint of the electrode lock on the electrode to be released (paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 13, Chavez discloses (Figures 2B and 7) that the ring portion (at 112) is provided with at least two threaded holes (114), and each of the at least two threaded holes is configured to be penetrated through by a screw (1310) to secure the cranial ring on the cranium (paragraph 0047.
Regarding claim 14, Chavez discloses (Figures 3-5, 7, and 15) that the ring portion is provided with a plurality of securing slots (130) configured to secure the electrode, and the plurality of securing slots are evenly distributed about a central axis of the cranial ring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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 2 recites a sidewall of the extension portion is provided with at least one contraction groove extending upward from a bottom of the extension portion and penetrating through an inside and an outside of the extension portion, the extension portion is evenly divided into at least two connected parts by the at least one contraction groove, an outer sidewall of each of at least one part of the extension portion is provided with at least one first protrusion, and an inner sidewall of the locking assembly is provided with at least one second protrusion corresponding in position to the at least one first protrusion; when the locking assembly is rotated such that each first protrusion abuts against a respective second protrusion, the locking assembly applies an acting force on each first protrusion of the extension portion through a respective second protrusion, parts of the extension portion with the at least one first protrusion converge toward a central axis of the extension portion and compress the electrode lock to contract the clamping opening to clamp the electrode; and when the locking assembly is rotated such that each first protrusion is away from a respective second protrusion, each part of the extension portion does not compress the electrode lock. These features, in combination with the features recited in claim 1, are not disclosed or suggested in the prior art of record. Both of the Wolf reference and the Chavez reference fail to disclose or suggest the additional features recited in claim 2.
Claims 3-6 are dependent on claim 2, thus would also 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.
Claim 7 recites that an inner wall of the through hole in the extension portion is provided with a ring-shaped slot structure extending outward and transitioning smoothly to a rest part of the inner wall of the through hole, a part of the electrode lock located in the through hole of the extension portion has a universal ball joint structure which snugly fits against the inner wall of the through hole in the extension portion, a part of the electrode lock extending below the through hole tapers from top to bottom, and a size of an opening at a lower end of the clamping opening is not greater than a size of an opening at an upper end of the clamping opening. These features, in combination with the features of claim 1, are not disclosed or suggested in the prior art of record. Both of the Wolf reference and the Chavez reference fail to disclose or suggest the additional features recited in claim 7.
Claim 8 recites that the electrode lock comprises a tightening portion and a clamping portion that communicate with each other, the tightening portion and the clamping portion are integrally connected to each other, the tightening portion is at least partially disposed in the through hole of the extension portion, and a lower-end part of the clamping portion is located outside and below the through hole. These features, in combination with limitations of claim 1, are not disclosed or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claims 9 and 10 are dependent on claim 8, thus would also 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Errico et al. (US 6,356,792) disclose (Figures 3-5) a similar cranial electrode securing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN D KNAUSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:30-8:30.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.D.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights