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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 10/8/2025 and 11/10/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 21, applicant argues that Germain in view of Willyard does not disclose the claim language. First, applicant argues that the previous office action asserts that Willyard discloses preventing the driver module from activating the end effector in response to any signal related to fluid in an ablation device. This is incorrect. The previous office action and this one both assert that Willyard discloses preventing the driver module from activating the end effector with RF electrical energy for tissue ablation in response to a signal related to fluid in an ablation device. Willyard specifically uses the pressure level of fluid is a fluid parameter, which is indicative of fluid amount. In combination with Germain, which discloses the claim language “the driver module being configured to… shut off the pump to stop flow of the fluid from the fluid reservoir … in response to the signal when the measured absolute weight of the fluid within the fluid reservoir reaches a predetermined threshold absolute weight”, the alarm signal output by control device 405 of Germain when the absolute weight of the fluid within the fluid reservoir reaches a predetermined threshold amount would emit an audible alarm and disable the pump as in paragraph [0092] of Germain and prevent the end effector for being activated with RF electrical energy as in paragraph [0052] of Willyard. Applicant also argues that the combination is improper because the purpose of fluid introduction in Willyard is different than the purpose in Germain. However, stopping the device when there isn’t enough fluid to operate effectively is applicable to Germain, thus there is motivation to combine Germain and Willyard.
Finally, applicant argues that Germain does not disclose shutting off the pump in response to a simple measurement of the weight of fluid in the reservoir. However, the claim language states “a signal indicative of the measured absolute weight”, which is a fairly broad statement that definitely includes the fluid deficit parameter of Germain because this value is comparing the measured weight (the absolute weight) to the initial weight (the initial absolute weight) so the difference between those two values is indicative of the measured absolute weight. There is no requirement in the claim language that the pump is shot off in response to only a simple measurement of weight, so the additional calculation is within the scope of the current claim language. Also, performing a calculation using the absolute weight to determine whether the pump should be shut off does disclose the claim language “the driver module of the electrophysiology console being configured to… shut off the pump to stop flow of the fluid from the fluid reservoir… in response to the signal when the measured absolute weight of the fluid within the fluid reservoir reaches a predetermined threshold absolute weight” because the fluid deficit parameter of Germain is equivalent to a threshold absolute weight with an additional calculation (subtraction). Additionally, there does not appear to be support in the specification for the claim language “a signal indicative of the measured absolute weight” and “predetermined threshold absolute weight” because all instances where weight is mentioned do not include the term “absolute”. Paragraph [0052] of applicant’s specification describes how the weight is indicated to the receiver and it is unclear if the weight is the absolute weight or not. Thus, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the previous rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain in view of Willyard stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 21-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 6, 18, and 21, there does not appear to be support in applicant’s specification for the claim language “a signal indicative of the measured absolute weight” and “predetermined threshold absolute weight”. The phrase “absolute weight” is not found anywhere in the specification. Additionally, in the description of how the weight is indicated to the receiver in paragraph [0052] of applicant’s specification, it is unclear if the weight is the absolute weight or not. Additionally, the threshold value is described as a “threshold volume/weight” throughout the specification, so there is no support for this value specifically being an absolute value. Thus, claims 6, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17, 20, and 22-25, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies from the claims from which they depend and are similarly rejected over 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 7-11, 15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain et al., US 20170055810, herein referred to as "Germain", in view of Willyard, US 20120232544, herein referred to as “Willyard”.
Regarding claim 21, Germain discloses a system (Figure 11: fluid management system 400), comprising: a catheter (Figures 1 and 11: endoscope or hysteroscope 50) with an end effector (Figure 1: electrosurgical working end 145); a fluid reservoir (Figure 11: fluid source or reservoir 401) in communication with the catheter ([0073]: “control device 405 may be configured to control peristaltic pump 407A to provide positive pressure at the outflow side 408 of the pump to provide inflows of distention fluid 403 through first flow line or inflow line 406A which is in communication with luer fitting 410 and fluid flow channel 108a in hysteroscope 50”) and with a fluid pump ([0073]); an electrophysiology console (Figure 1: controller 155 and Figure 11: control device 405) remote from the end effector (Figure 1: controller is connected to hysteroscope 50 via electrical cable 156), the electrophysiology console comprising a driver module (Figure 1: RF source 150, electrical cable 156, and controller 155 and Figure 11: control device 405) configured to activate the end effector with RF electrical energy for tissue ablation ([0050]: “Where tissue-resecting device 100 is an electrosurgical device, tissue-resecting device 100 may have subsystems coupled to its handle 142 to enable electrosurgical resecting of targeted tissue. In these embodiments, a radiofrequency generator or RF source 150 and controller 155 may be coupled to at least one RF electrode carried by the working end… The electrical cable 156 couples the RF source 150 to the electrosurgical working end 145.”) and to activate and deactivated the fluid pump (Figure 11: control device 405 and [0073]); a fluid monitor apparatus (Figure 11: fluid management system 400) remote from the end effector (Figure 11: fluid management system 400 is remote from hysteroscope 50) and removably supporting the fluid reservoir ([0088]: “Upon connection of the fluid reservoir 401 to the fluid management system 400, the fluid management system 400 may be purged of air.”; the fluid reservoir can be connected and disconnected thus it is removably supported), the fluid monitor apparatus configured to monitor and measure an absolute weight of fluid within the fluid reservoir ([0089]: “the control device 405 may periodically or continuously monitor the signals communicated from the weight-measuring device 480 in order to determine a current weight of the fluid reservoir 401”), the fluid monitor apparatus comprising: a signal generating assembly (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480 and [0086]) remote from the end effector (Figure 11: weight measuring device 480 is remote from hysteroscope 50) configured to generate a signal indicative of the measured absolute weight of fluid within the fluid reservoir ([0086] and [0087]: “ In some embodiments, the weight-measuring device 480 may communicate a signal representing the weight of the fluid reservoir 401, while in other embodiments the weight-measuring device 480 may communicate an electrical signal related to the weight of the fluid reservoir 401” ); and a signal output driver circuit (Figure 11: control device 405 includes a signal output driver circuit; [0071]: “The control device 405 may be similar to control device 200 in some respects. For instance, control device 405 may include a control module similar to control module 201” and [0056]: “the control module 201 may include a pre-programmed chip, such as a very-large-scale integration (VLSI) chip or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)”) in electrical communication with the signal generating assembly (Figure 11: cable 482 and [0087]), the signal output driver circuit (Figure 11: control device 405 contains a pre-programmed chip (see above)) being electrically coupled to transmit the signal from the signal generating assembly (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480 and [0086]) to both: the pump in communication with the fluid reservoir (Figure 11: pumps 407A and 407B and [0071] and pump 407A is in fluid communication with fluid reservoir 401 via fluid valve 416 and pump 407B is in fluid communication with fluid reservoir 401 via filter system 409), and the driver module of the electrophysiology console (Figure 11: control device 405 and [0089]: “the control device 405 may periodically or continuously monitor the signals communicated from the weight-measuring device 480 in order to determine a current weight of the fluid reservoir 401.”), the driver module of the electrophysiology console being configured to shut off the pump to stop the flow of fluid from the fluid reservoir in response to the signal when the measured absolute weight of the fluid within the fluid reservoir reaches a predetermined threshold absolute weight ([0089]-[0090] and [0091]: “once the control device has determine that the fluid deficit parameter has equaled or exceeded the fluid deficit alarm threshold, the control device 405 may output an alarm signal.” and [0092]: “the alarm signal may cause the control device 405 to cease pumping the distension fluid 403 into uterine cavity 402, for example by disabling pump 407A.” and [0092]: “For instance, the control device 405 may prevent pumps 407A, 407B from operating.”). Germain does not explicitly disclose a signal output drive circuit that also prevents the driver module of the electrophysiology console from activating the end effector with RF electrical energy for tissue ablation in response to the signal when the measured absolute weight of the fluid within the fluid reservoir reaches a predetermined threshold absolute weight.
However, Willyard teaches a signal output drive circuit (Figure 1: processor unit 82) that also prevents the driver module of the electrophysiology console (Figure 1: flow-control device 50) from activating the end effector (Figure 1: probe 100) with RF electrical energy for tissue ablation ([0033]: “FIG. 1 shows an electrosurgical system 10 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure that includes an energy applicator or probe 100, an electrosurgical power generating source 28, e.g., a microwave or RF electrosurgical generator” and [0039]) in response to the signal when the measured value of the fluid (Figure 1 and [0057]) reaches a predetermined threshold amount ([0052]: “in response to a determination that the pressure level of fluid in the probe 100 and/or conduit fluidly-coupled to the probe 100 is below the predetermined threshold, the processor unit 82 may be configured to decrease the amount of power delivered to the antenna assembly 112 and/or to stop energy delivery between the electrosurgical power generating source 28 and the probe 100”). In combination with Germain, the capabilities of processor unit 82 of Willyard are added to control device 405 of Germain. Thus, in addition to outputting an alarm signal and shutting off the pump, in combination, Germain would also prevent the driver module from activating the end effector when the measured absolute weight of the fluid within the fluid reservoir reaches a predetermined threshold absolute weight. Thus, the measured absolute weight of the fluid within the fluid reservoir would prevent the driver module from activating the end effector when the weight reaches a threshold absolute weight.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain so that the signal output drive circuit that also prevents the driver module from activating the end effector with RF electrical energy for tissue ablation in response to the signal when the measured unit of the fluid reaches a predetermined threshold amount as taught by Willyard to ensure that the end effector is receiving a flow of fluid while it is activated (Willyard [0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, with Germain disclosing the signal generating assembly comprising a load cell assembly (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480 and [0086]: “the weight-measuring device 480 may comprise a load cell or other device configured to translate weight into an electrical signal”).
Regarding claim 7, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, and Willyard further discloses a system (Figure 1: flow-control device 50) further comprising a user input assembly (Figure 1: user interface 121) configured to calibrate the signal generating assembly ([[0036]: “Processor unit 82 may be communicatively-coupled to one or more components or modules of the electrosurgical power generating source 28, e.g., a user interface 121” and [0079]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain with the user input assembly as taught by Willyard to allow the user to control and selectively monitor various system parameters (Willyard [0079]).
Regarding claim 8, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 7, with Germain further disclosing the user input assembly further comprising a power button configured to activate the fluid monitor ([0083]: “the third foot-pedal switch may be a simple on/off switch which, when switched on, causes pump 407A to operate at a static flow rate.” Turning on the pump is considered turning on the apparatus because the pump is the working element of the apparatus.).
Regarding claim 9, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 7, with Germain further disclosing the user input assembly further comprising an alarm button configured to deactivate the audible alarm ([0092]: “the control device 405 may additionally allow reception of input into user interface 430 to override the alarm signal” and [0080]: “User interface 430, in addition or alternatively to including a touch screen, may further include one or more foot-pedal switches which may be places apart from control device 405 but connected to control device 405”, thus the touch screen of the user interface has a button that can deactivate the audible alarm. This is the alarm button.).
Regarding claim 10, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, with Germain disclosing the signal generating assembly (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480) comprising a run dry sensor ([0086]: “In other embodiments, instead of including weight-measuring device 480, the fluid management system 400 may include a sensor adapted for sensing the volume of the distension fluid 403 in the fluid reservoir 401, such as a float or level sensor in the distension fluid 403.” and[0091]: “once the control device has determine that the fluid deficit parameter has equaled or exceeded the fluid deficit alarm threshold, the control device 405 may output an alarm signal.” and [0092]: “the alarm signal may cause the control device 405 to cease pumping the distension fluid 403 into uterine cavity 402, for example by disabling pump 407A.” wherein the fluid deficit alarm threshold is a volume of zero).
Regarding claim 11, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, with Germain disclosing a system wherein the pump (Figure 11: pumps 407A and 407B) is configured to pump fluid out of the fluid reservoir (Figure 11: pump 407A and [0073]).
Regarding claim 15, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising a body housing at least a portion of the signal generating assembly (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480 has a body housing surrounding it, as shown in the figure).
Regarding claim 17, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, with Germain disclosing the signal generating assembly comprising a load cell (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480 and [0086]: “the weight-measuring device 480 may comprise a load cell or other device configured to translate weight into an electrical signal”).
Regarding claim 18, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, with Germain disclosing a system further comprising an audible alarm ([0091]), the signal generating assembly (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480 and [0086]) being configured to activate the audible alarm when the fluid reservoir reaches the predetermined threshold absolute weight ([0087] and [0091]).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain in view of Willyard, as applied to claim 21, further in view of Petillo, US 5876410, herein referred to as "Petillo".
Regarding claim 3, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose a system with the signal generating assembly comprising a power source.
However, Petillo teaches an apparatus (Figure 7) with the signal generating assembly (Figure 7: load cell 172 and Col. 8, lines 47-50) comprising a power source (Figure 7: load cell electronics 174 and Col. 8, lines 57-60: “The load cell electronics 174 normally will include a power source of, for example, a battery, and other electronics necessary to provide the desired output signal on line 177 to a display unit 176.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain with the power source taught by Petillo so that the signal generating assembly can provide the desired output signal to a display unit (Petillo Col. 8, lines 57-60), so that a user can monitor the progress of the procedure more accurately.
Regarding claim 4, Germain in view of Willyard and Petillo discloses the system of claim 3, with Germain disclosing the signal generating assembly (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480 and [0086]) comprising a receiver (Figure 11: control device 405) in electrical communication with the load cell assembly (Figure 11: weight-measuring device 480). Petillo further discloses the signal generating assembly (Figure 7: load cell 172 and Col. 8, lines 47-50) comprising a receiver (Figure 7: force display 176) in electrical communication with the load cell assembly (Figure 7: load cell 172) and the power source (Figure 7: load cell electronics 174 and Col. 8, lines 57-60: “The load cell electronics 174 normally will include a power source of, for example, a battery, and other electronics necessary to provide the desired output signal on line 177 to a display unit 176.” And Figure 7: The load cell 172 and the power source 174 are in electrical communication with each other and the power source 174 is in electrical communication with the receiver 176, so both the load cell assembly 172 and the power source 174 are in electrical communication with the receiver 176.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain with the receiver in electrical communication with the load cell assembly and the power source as taught by Petillo so that the receiver can provide a graphics and/or numerical display of the force measured by the load cell (Col. 8, lines 60-74), so that a user can monitor the progress of the procedure more accurately.
Regarding claim 5, Germain in view of Willyard and Petillo discloses the system of claim 4, with Germain further disclosing the system (Figure 11: fluid management system 400) further comprising a digital display ([0084]), the receiver being configured to transmit the signal to the digital display ([0085] and [0089]).
Regarding claim 6, Germain in view of Willyard and Petillo discloses the system of claim 4, with Germain further disclosing the system (Figure 11: fluid management system 400) further comprising an audible alarm ([0092]: “In at least some of these embodiments, the alarm signal may cause the speaker to emit an audible alarm indicating that the fluid deficit parameter has equaled or exceeded the fluid deficit alarm threshold.”), the receiver being configured to activate the audible alarm when the absolute weight of the fluid within the fluid reservoir reaches the predetermined threshold absolute weight ([0091]: “once the control device has determine that the fluid deficit parameter has equaled or exceeded the fluid deficit alarm threshold, the control device 405 may output an alarm signal.” And [0092]: “In at least some of these embodiments, the alarm signal may cause the speaker to emit an audible alarm indicating that the fluid deficit parameter has equaled or exceeded the fluid deficit alarm threshold.”).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain in view of Willyard, as applied to claim 21, further in view of Zacharias, US 5720742, herein referred to as "Zacharias".
Regarding claim 13, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose the signal generating assembly comprising a strain gauge.
However, Zacharias teaches a system with the signal generating assembly (Figure 3a: miniature conditioning amplifier 35) comprising a strain gauge (Figure 3a: strain gauges 36).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain with the strain gauge taught by Zacharias so that the signal generating assembly can deform proportionally to the force applied to it (Zacharias Col. 6, lines 23-31). In addition, a load sensor is similar to a strain gauge because they both measure pressure or load.
Regarding claim 14, Germain in view of Willyard and Zacharias discloses the system of claim 13, with Zacharias further teaching a system with the signal generating assembly (Figure 3a: miniature conditioning amplifier 35) comprising an elastic body (Figure 3a: elastic cover 38) fixed to the strain gauge (Figure 3a: strain gauges 36).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain with the strain gauge taught by Zacharias so that the signal generating assembly can deform proportionally to the force applied to it (Zacharias Col. 6, lines 23-31). In addition, a load sensor is similar to a strain gauge because they both measure pressure or load.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain in view of Willyard, as applied to claim 21, further in view of Hertzmann, US 4580557, herein referred to as "Hertzmann".
Regarding claim 20, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 21, with Germain disclosing the signal output driver circuit (Figure 11: control device 405 includes a signal output driver circuit; [0071]: “The control device 405 may be similar to control device 200 in some respects. For instance, control device 405 may include a control module similar to control module 201” and [0056]: “the control module 201 may include a pre-programmed chip, such as a very-large-scale integration (VLSI) chip or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)”) coupled with a cable (Figure 11: cable 482 and [0087]), the cable being configured to couple with the driver module (Figure 11: control device 405). Germain in view of Willyard does not explicitly disclose an apparatus wherein a cable can be selectively coupled to these two elements.
However, Hertzmann teaches an apparatus (Figure 2) wherein the cable (Figure 2: optical fiber cable) can be selectively coupled to two elements (Col. 6, lines 27-36).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain so that the cable can selectively couple to two elements, as taught by Hertzmann, so that many different types of tools can be coupled to the apparatus (Hertzmann Col. 6, lines 37-57), thereby increasing the versatility and usefulness of the apparatus in surgical procedures.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain in view of Willyard, as applied to claim 7, further in view of Aljuri et al., US 20150313666, herein referred to as "Aljuri".
Regarding claim 22, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 7, with Germain disclosing a user input assembly ([0079]: “a selected pressure can be set at the control device 405, for example via a user interface 430 by a user, which may include a touch screen.”). Germain in view of Willyard does not explicitly disclose system wherein the user input assembly includes a zeroing button.
However, Aljuri teaches a system (Figure 1) wherein the user input assembly (Figure 18) includes a zeroing button ([0252]-[0252] and Figure 18: inputs 591, 592, 598, and 599).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain so that the user input assembly includes a zeroing button as taught by Aljuri to ensure proper alignment of the treatment probe (Aljuri [00252]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain in view of Willyard, as applied to claim 7, further in view of Elia et al., US 20160143817, herein referred to as "Elia".
Regarding claim 23, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 7, with Germain disclosing a user input assembly ([0079]: “a selected pressure can be set at the control device 405, for example via a user interface 430 by a user, which may include a touch screen.”). Germain in view of Willyard does not explicitly disclose system wherein the user input assembly includes a spanning button.
However, Elia teaches a system (Figure 2) wherein the user input assembly (Figure 2: user interface 224) includes a spanning button ([0100]: “The baseline stomach fluid level and/or volume may be measured automatically, for example, by detecting a pattern from stomach sensors 210, such as by pressing a calibration button to capture the initial baseline pattern (which may be stored in data repository 220).”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain so that the user input assembly includes a spanning button as taught by Elia to set a baseline fluid level before the procedure (Elia [0100]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain in view of Willyard, as applied to claim 7, further in view of Dalke et al., US H001324, herein referred to as "Dalke".
Regarding claim 24, Germain in view of Willyard discloses the system of claim 7, with Germain disclosing a user input assembly ([0079]: “a selected pressure can be set at the control device 405, for example via a user interface 430 by a user, which may include a touch screen.”). Germain in view of Willyard does not explicitly disclose a system wherein the user input assembly includes an adjustment control.
However, Dalke teaches a system (Figure 1) wherein the user input assembly (Figure 4) includes an adjustment control (Col. 12, lines 45-57 and Col. 13, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Germain so that the user input assembly includes an adjustment control as taught by Dalke so that the user can choose a desired delivery volume (Dalke Col. 13, lines 15-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nora W Rhodes whose telephone number is (571)272-8126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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 on 3032974276. 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.
/N.W.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794