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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 11, 2024, fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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 6-10 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 6 recites “wherein the sub-body includes a second motor” where there is no prior recitation of a first motor. It is therefore unclear if the sub-body includes first and second motors or, in another interpretation, a separate second motor than the “first motor” recited in claim 5.
For examination purposes, claim 6 is being interpreted as reciting ---wherein the sub-body includes a motor--- to provide clarity.
Claim 7 is rejected due to dependency on claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “a second elevation part” (in line 2) and “a second fixing lever” (in line 3). There is no prior recitation of a first elevation part or a first fixing lever based on claim 8. It is therefore unclear if the endoscope unit in claim 8includes a first and second elevation part and a first and second fixing lever or, alternatively, if the sub-body includes second elevation part and second fixing lever in addition to the first elevation part and first fixing lever recited in claim 5 and claim 4, respectively.
For examination purposes, claim 8 is being interpreted as reciting ---wherein the endoscope unit includes: an elevation part disposed to be elevated from the sub-body; a fixing lever configured to fix the elevation part on the sub-body; an extension extending from an end of the elevation part of the endoscope unit toward the retraction unit; and a ball joint mounted such that an endoscope is rotatable at an end of the extension---.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected due to dependency on claim 8.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Truckai (US 2023/0355324 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Truckai (US 2023/0355324 A1) teaches a retractor mounting device (100) for a surgery, comprising:
a mounting unit (robotic arm 110, including base platform 118; Fig. 1; para. 0029);
a main body (rotating receiver 180B of tool holder 140; Fig. 1; para. 0030-0031, 0034) provided at an end (126; Fig. 1; para. 0030) of the mounting unit (see Fig. 1);
a retraction unit (second tool 145, which can be a retractor; Fig. 1; para. 0032) installed to be elevated on the main body (due to articulated movement of robotic arm 110, illustrated via arrows in Fig. 1, retraction unit 145 is installed to be elevated relative to the mounting unit, e.g. at least by being elevated relative to base unit 118 of the mounting unit);
a sub-body (rotating receiver 180A of tool holder 140; Fig. 1; para. 0034) disposed to be spaced apart from the main body (180B, as shown; Fig. 1); and
an endoscope unit (endoscope tool 144; Fig. 1; para. 0031) installed to be movable or rotatable on the sub-body (as described in para. 0034, endoscope 144 includes a handle 148 that is rotatable relative to sub-body 180A; Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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.
Claim 2 in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in the claim. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest “wherein the retraction unit includes: a retractor bent on the main body to be inserted into a body; and a mounting part disposed at a lower portion of the retractor, and on which a light or a suction unit is mounted” as required by claim 2. Claims 3-5 would be allowable due to dependency on claim 2.
Claims 6-7 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.
Claim 6 in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in the claim. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest “wherein the sub-body includes: a motor; and a support frame extending in a horizontal direction from the main body to be coupled to pass through the sub-body” as required by claim 6. Claim 7 would be allowable due to dependency on claim 6.
Claims 8-10 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.
Claim 8 in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in the claim. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest “wherein the endoscope unit includes: an elevation part disposed to be elevated from the sub-body; a fixing lever configured to fix the second elevation part on the sub-body; an extension extending from an end of the second elevation part toward the retraction unit; and a ball joint mounted such that an endoscope is rotatable at an end of the extension” as required by claim 8. Claims 9-10 would be allowable due to dependency on claim 8.
Claims 11-17 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.
Claim 11 in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in the claim. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest “, wherein the mounting unit includes: a fixing part fixed onto an installation surface; a pair of first poles extending on the fixing part in a vertically upward direction; link parts, ends of which are connected to the first poles, respectively, and selectively pivoted toward a horizontal direction; and second poles connected to opposite ends of the link parts, respectively, and a lower portion of which is fixed to the main body” as required by claim 11. Claims 12-17 would be allowable due to dependency on claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other relevant references can be found in the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA VICTORIA LITTLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-6p EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571)272-4719. 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.
/ANNA V. LITTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights