DETAILED ACTION
A complete action on the merits of claims 1-10 follows below.
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 .
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 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.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an angle formed by a straight line connecting midpoints (R6) of bottom surfaces of the plurality of second recessed parts and the central axis is smaller than an angle formed by a straight line (K6) connecting midpoints of top edges of the plurality of first tooth parts and the central axis”. It appears that a straight line (K6) should be formed by connecting midpoints of top edges of the plurality of second tooth parts and the central axis since it is regarding the second forceps piece similar to claim 1 directing to the first forceps piece being formed by connecting midpoints of top edges of the plurality of first tooth parts and the central axis. Clarification and 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 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko (US Pub. No. 2015/0148803).
Regarding Claim 1, Kaneko teaches a treatment tool (Fig. 1) comprising: a sheath 10; and forceps having a first forceps piece 30 provided on a distal end of the sheath and a second forceps 30 piece configured to open and close with respect to the first forceps piece ([0023], [0034] and Fig. 1), wherein the first forceps piece has a plurality of first tooth parts 35 ([0009] and [0028]) protruding toward the second forceps piece and a plurality of first recessed parts alternately disposed in a central axis direction (Fig. 1 and annotated figure below), and in a side view from a direction perpendicular to a central axis of the sheath, when the first forceps piece and the second forceps piece are closed, an angle formed by a straight line (R6) connecting midpoints of bottom surfaces of the plurality of first recessed parts and the central axis is smaller than an angle formed by a straight line (K6) connecting midpoints of top edges of the plurality of first tooth parts and the central axis (see R6 and K6 on the annotated figure below, please note that R6 and K6 is only drawn on one of the forceps pieces for ease of seeing the lines, but each forceps piece has a similar R6 and K6 line connecting midpoints (R6) of bottom surfaces of the plurality of recessed parts and the central axis, which is smaller than an angle formed by a straight line (K6) connecting midpoints of top edges of the plurality of tooth parts and the central axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kaneko teaches wherein the second forceps piece has a plurality of second tooth parts protruding toward the first forceps piece and a plurality of second recessed parts alternately disposed in the central axis direction, and in the side view from the direction perpendicular to the central axis of the sheath, when the first forceps piece and the second forceps piece are closed, an angle formed by a straight line connecting midpoints (R6) of bottom surfaces of the plurality of second recessed parts and the central axis is smaller than an angle formed by a straight line (K6) connecting midpoints of top edges of the plurality of first tooth parts and the central axis (see the annotated figure above, please note that R6 and K6 is only drawn on one of the forceps pieces for ease of seeing the lines, but each forceps piece has a similar R6 and K6 line connecting midpoints (R6) of bottom surfaces of the plurality of recessed parts and the central axis, which is smaller than an angle formed by a straight line (K6) connecting midpoints of top edges of the plurality of tooth parts and the central axis).
Regarding Claim 3, Kaneko teaches wherein the length in the width direction of the first forceps piece and the second forceps piece is equal to or less than a maximum outer diameter of the sheath (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
545
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Kaneko teaches wherein a length in the width direction of the forceps is 1.0 times or more and 1.6 times or less a length in the longitudinal direction of the forceps (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
245
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Kaneko teaches wherein in the side view from the direction perpendicular to a central axis of the sheath, when the first forceps piece and the second forceps piece are closed, the top edges of the plurality of first tooth parts extend parallel with the central axis of the sheath (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaneko.
Regarding Claim 5, Kaneko teaches wherein an opening width of the forceps in a state of being opened to the maximum is 1.7 times or more and 2.8 times or less a length in the longitudinal direction of the forceps (please note that an open configuration is not shown in the figures, but since the forceps pivot around pin 21 to open, based on the shape of the forceps, examiner takes the position that either an opening width of the forceps in a state of being opened to the maximum is 1.7 times or more and 2.8 times or less a length in the longitudinal direction of the forceps as claimed, or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention that an opening width of the forceps in a state of being opened to the maximum is 1.7 times or more and 2.8 times or less a length in the longitudinal direction of the forceps in order to allow enough clearance to grasp tissue therebetween and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding Claims 6 and 9, Kaneko teaches wherein a length of the forceps in a thickness direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction when the forceps are closed is 0.2 times or more to 0.6 times or less a length in the longitudinal direction of the forceps/ wherein a length of the forceps in a thickness direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction when the forceps are closed is 0.3 times a length of a forceps piece in the longitudinal direction (as seen on the annotated figure below, it appears a length of the forceps in a thickness direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction when the forceps are closed is more than 0.2-0.6 or 0.3 times a length of a forceps piece in the longitudinal direction; however, since the drawings are not drawn to scale, either the a length of the forceps in a thickness direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction when the forceps are closed is 0.2-0.6 or 0.3 times a length of a forceps piece in the longitudinal direction as claimed here or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the length of the forceps in a thickness direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction when the forceps are closed between 0.2-0.6 or 0.3 times a length of a forceps piece in the longitudinal direction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
PNG
media_image4.png
363
508
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Kaneko teaches wherein a length in the width direction of the forceps is 1.1 times a length in the longitudinal direction of the forceps (as seen on the annotated figure above, it appears the width to length is about 1.5 times and not 1.1; however, since the drawings are not drawn to scale, either the width to length is less and closer to 1.1 times as claimed here or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the width direction of the forceps about 1.1 times a length in the longitudinal direction of the forceps, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding Claim 8, Kaneko teaches wherein an opening width of the forceps in a state of being opened to the maximum is 2.0 times a length of a forceps piece in a longitudinal axial direction (please note that an open configuration is not shown in the figures, but since the forceps pivot around pin 21 to open, based on the shape of the forceps, examiner takes the position that either an opening width of the forceps in a state of being opened to the maximum is 2.0 times a length of a forceps piece in a longitudinal axial direction as claimed, or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention that an opening width of the forceps in a state of being opened to the maximum is 2.0 times a length of a forceps piece in a longitudinal axial direction in order to allow enough clearance to grasp tissue therebetween and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is general recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHADIJEH A VAHDAT whose telephone number is (571)270-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/KHADIJEH A VAHDAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights