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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 7, filed 02 Jun 2026 with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Applicant hereby submits replacement sheets in black and white line drawings. With these replacement sheets, Applicant believes the objections to the drawing are overcome”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 1-4 are photographs, not drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1) and the drawing objections are hereby being maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 02 Jun 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of 02 Mar 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-11, filed 02 Jun 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of 02 Mar 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-16, filed 02 Jun 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections to claims 1, 5-15, and 17-19 of 02 Mar 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims, and these claims are allowable. See the Allowable Subject Matter and the Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter below.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant argues, see pg. 15-16, that “Rue does not teach or suggest an actuator translatable along the housing parallel to an implantation axis … But Rue’s FIG. 5 is merely a top view showing button 262 located alongside the cannula in a static snapshot”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 20 does not specially define “an implantation axis” that a broadest reasonable interpretation of “an implantation axis” includes any axis for the intended use of implantation. Thus, such broadest reasonable interpretation includes Rue’s actuator 262 translatable along handle 220 parallel to line 210 in Fig. 4 and cannula 240 when viewed from top to implant an implantable object. Applicant may consider defining the implantation axis relative to the cannula to overcome at least Rue. See the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 20 hereby being maintained below.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5-15, and 17-22 are currently under examination. Claims 2-4 and 16 have been cancelled and claims 21-22 have been newly added since the Non-Final Office Action of 02 Mar 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02 Jun 2026. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings of 17 Feb 2025; 05 May 2025; and 02 Jun 2026, specifically photographic Fig. 1-4, are objected for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1). Applicant is reminded that “Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications”. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rue et al. (US PG Pub No. 2004/0199140) – hereinafter referred to as Rue.
Regarding claim 20, Rue discloses a device (at least Fig. 3) for implanting a medical device into a patient ([0024]: implanting device for subcutaneously inserting implantable objects) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1-2: handle 220 and base 280) having a proximal end (Fig. 1-2: handle end 222) and a distal end (Fig. 1-2 and [0024]: base 280 is distal to handle end 222);
an obturator (Fig. 3-3a: post 244) removably coupled to the distal end of the housing (Fig. 3-3a and [0031]: post 244 is secured to the housing base 280 through post boss 246 inserted into post retainer recess 284);
an actuator (Fig. 3-3a: flexible actuator 260) slidably coupled to the housing and translatable along the housing parallel to an implantation axis (Fig. 3-3a and [0024]: movement of flexible actuator 260 in a direction toward cannula guide 340 and along track 300 away from handle 200; Fig. 4: button 262 translatable parallel to line 210; Fig. 5 and [0021]: button 262 of actuator 260 parallel to cannula 240 and in locked position),
a cannula (Fig. 3-3a: cannula 240) removably coupled to a distal end of the actuator (Fig. 3-3a: post rod 244; Fig. 1-2 and [0024]: in the retracted position, cannula 240 is drawn into the interior of base 280 and cannula is slid or moved with respect to post rod 244),
wherein the cannula (Fig. 3-3a: cannula 240) is configured to receive the obturator and the medical device ([0024]-[0025]: cannula 240 configured to slide or move with respect to post rod 244 an implantable object positioned within bore 242 of cannula 240), and
wherein a translation of the actuator causes the cannula to slide over the obturator to release the medical device through a distal opening of the cannula (Fig. 1-2 and [0024]: in the retracted position, cannula 240 is drawn into the interior of base 280 and cannula is slid or moved with respect to post rod 244; [0025]: movement of actuator button 262 in a direction away from cannula guide 340 and towards handle 220 causes retraction of cannula 240 and release of an implantable object positioned within bore 242 of cannula 240).
As noted above in the Response to Arguments, a broadest reasonable interpretation has been given to “an implantation axis” as any axis for the intended use of implantation. Thus, such broadest reasonable interpretation includes Rue’s actuator 262 translatable along handle 220 parallel to line 210 in Fig. 4 and cannula 240 in Fig. 5 when viewed from top to implant an implantable object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are allowable.
REASONS FOR INDICATION OF ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
When claims 1, 5-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are considered as a whole, prior arts do not disclose, neither individually nor in combination, at least a guide track configured to receive an actuator; and a latch arm configured to rotate about a hinge between a closed position and an open position to selectively permit the actuator to be axially translated relative to a length of the guide track, wherein the latch arm comprises teeth configured to engage with teeth of the actuator or a housing slidably coupled to an actuator. In particular, Khamis et al. (US PG Pub No. 2010/0274074), a prior art being made of record herein, discloses a latch arm (Fig. 2A-B: lever 60) on a housing (Fig. 2A-B: handle 42), wherein the latch arm is configured to rotate about a hinge between a closed position and an open position to selectively permit a sheath to be axially translated (see Fig. 2A-B and [0038]-[0039]: lever 60 hinging on handle 42 with pins 62, 63 to engage with proximal end of sheath/shaft 46). But Khamis et al. does not disclose at least the latch arm rotating about the hinge to permit the actuator to be axially translated relative to the guide track, wherein the actuator comprises a set of teeth to mate with teeth of the latch arm, nor the guide track being shaped to limit radial and rotating of the actuator. Additionally, Adams et al. (US Patent No. 5325848), a prior art previously made of record, discloses a guide track (Fig. 12-14: handle sections 163, 164) comprising teeth (Fig. 12-14: ratchets 220) and an actuator (Fig. 12-14: actuator slide 200) comprising teeth (Fig. 12-14: pawls 210) to mate to lock a position of the actuator (Fig. 12-14: actuator slide 200). But Adams et al. does not disclose at least a latch arm configured to rotate about a hinge between a closed position and an open position to selectively permit the actuator to be axially translated relative to a length of the guide track.
The technical advantage of the claimed invention is to allow marker implantation at a precise tissue depth and overcome the “the practitioner implanting the medical device may also require the guidance of an imaging device, such as an ultrasound, to properly implant the medical device in an intended location” (see [0002]-[0004] of the specification of the instant application).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
08/18/26
Prosecution Insights