DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 9-14 and 18-36 are pending.
Claims 26-35 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 15-17 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Bales does not teach or suggest the recited limitations, as recited in claim 9 as amended. Specifically, Applicant writes:
. . . neither Bales nor any of the other cited references teach or suggest a printed circuit board being disposed within the interior cavity and positioned within multiple planes around at least two adjacent surfaces of the single battery cell, as called for the amended independent claim 9.
See Remarks at 8.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but it is moot in light of a new ground of rejection.
Claim 9, as amended, recites “wherein the printed circuit board is disposed within the interior cavity and positioned around at least two adjacent surfaces of the single battery cell.”
The conventional definition of the claim term “within” is inside. (Example: “I live within these walls.”) According, Bales teaches a printed circuit board (3002) being disposed within the interior cavity as defined by the multiple bounding walls or planes of the cavity and positioned (within the multiple planes) around (or proximate to) at least two adjacent surfaces (e.g.,701a, 701b, 701n) of the single battery cell (701).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 9-15, 18-25, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bales et. al. (US 20150157354 A1, Feb. 18, 2015) (hereinafter “Bales”) in view of Binder et. al. (US 5426428 A, June 20, 1995) (hereinafter “Binder”) and Kawaji et al. (US 20150044575 A1, 2015-02-12) (hereinafter “Kawaji”).
Regarding claims 9-11, 13, 19-20, and 36, as discussed above (Response to Arguments incorporated by reference herein), Bales teaches a motorized surgical tool, comprising an outer enclosure (e.g., 2802, Fig. 28) defining an interior cavity; a battery assembly consisting of a single battery cell (701, Fig. 31) at least partially disposed within said interior cavity; a control circuit (e.g., 3002, Fig. 30) wherein the battery (e.g., 2804) is directly attached by tabs (e.g., 2906a-n, Fig. 30) to a printed circuit board of the control circuit (e.g., [0343]); and a motor powering a surgical instrument (e.g., [0222]), wherein said motor receives power from the single battery cell, wherein said control circuit dictates the power delivered to the motor from the single battery cell (as recited in claim 9); wherein the control circuit further comprises a boost converter (e.g., [0403]) configured to step up a voltage supplied by the single battery cell (as recited in claim 10); the voltage is stepped up to 10 V (e.g., [0180]) (as recited in claim 11); wherein the surgical instrument is one of a drill or a saw (e.g., [0176], [0258]) (as recited in claim 13); wherein the single battery cell is comprised of a Lithium ion ceramic cell (e.g., [0346]) (as recited in claim 15); wherein the setting is at least one of a maximum or a minimum speed of the motor (e.g., [0180]) (as recited in claim 19); wherein controlling the operation of the motor comprises controlling the speed of the motor (as recited in claim 20). See, e.g., [0222]. See also [0192], [0342]-[0344] and Figs. 7, 28, 30-33, 57-60.
Note that Bales also teaches flexible circuits. See, e.g., [0342]-[0345]. Note further that Bales also teaches that the circuit board in question need not be integral to the smart battery. Instead, the circuit board may merely be coupled to the smart battery (e.g., as port of 303, Fig. 12). See, e.g., [0403] (“In one exemplary embodiment, this power tailoring is performed by controlling the duty cycle of a switched mode power supply, such as buck, buck-boost, boost, or other configuration, integral with or otherwise coupled to and controlled by the smart battery 301.”). In such configuration, the recited tabs at issue would be disposed between the circuit board (e.g., 303) and the battery. Moreover, use of tabs, protrusions, or detachable electrical contacts are well-known in the art. See, e.g., [0464] (“The circuit board connection can be accomplished with solder or, in a simpler form, through sockets mounted to the generator board 5460.”).
Bales does not teach wherein the battery assembly is a high-temperature battery sufficient to withstand the temperatures of the autoclaving process without overheating. Binder teaches wherein the battery assembly is a high-temperature battery sufficient to withstand the temperatures of the autoclaving process without overheating. See, e.g., Fig. 3. Note that Binder also teaches a printed circuit board (24, Fig. 4) at least partially wrapped around said at least one battery cell (18, Fig. 4). Note that the configuration taught by Binder is construed as at least partially wrapped around said at least one battery cell as a layer of thermal insulation because the circuit board inherently provides thermal insulation. Note further that Binder also teaches a hermetic connector extending from the enclosure, wherein the enclosure and hermetic connector are together hermetically sealed, e.g., 8:35-40 and Fig. 3; the power unit further comprises a bulkhead surrounding the hermetic connector, wherein the bulkhead comprises an O-ring, and configured to radially seal a junction between the bulkhead and the enclosure, e.g., 9:5-10 and Fig. 3; multiplexing of signals, e.g., 5:53-58; the interior cavity of the enclosure is a vacuum, e.g., 9:30-33; a transceiver (23, Fig. 9) configured to communicate with a computing device.
Bales and Binder do not teach use of lithium-ion ceramic cell battery. Kawaji teaches use of lithium-ion ceramic cell battery to withstand high temperatures (e.g., [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Binder and Kawaji with the invention taught by Bales such that the invention further comprises a control circuit on printed circuit board, wherein the printed circuit board is disposed within the interior cavity and positioned within multiple planes around at least two adjacent surfaces of the single battery cell, and a motor powering a surgical instrument, wherein said motor receives power from the single battery cell, wherein said control circuit dictates the power delivered to the motor from the single battery cell (as recited in claim 9); wherein the printed circuit board includes
rigid panels and flexible portions, and wherein the rigid panels are connected by the flexible portions (as recited in claim 36) in order to provide a more integrated unit while allowing for more components that are sterilizable.
Regarding claims 12, 14, 18, 21-25, Bales teaches the recited motorized surgical tool, except the specific current and voltage, and the particular wireless protocols. However, as discussed above, Bales teaches a variety of current/voltage ranges of operation. Furthermore, Bales teaches interfacing the tool with a remote component for feedback control. See, e.g., [0236]. Official Notice is given that remote device for feedback control are often user-interface devices (e.g., keyboard, joystick, foot pedal) and/or computing device with wireless communication capabilities that rely on standard protocols, such as Bluetooth, ZigBee, or Wi-Fi.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bales such that the tool further comprises wherein the single cell battery supplies 22 A of current (as recited in claim 12); wherein the single battery cell has a low internal impedance, such that it is capable of producing 22 A at 2.5 V (as recited in claim 14); wherein the control circuit further comprises a wireless receiver and is configured receive a communication from a remote device via the wireless receiver, wherein the control circuit is further configured to control the operation of the motor according to the communication or to adjust at least one setting according to the communication (as recited in claim 18); wherein the remote device is a foot pedal (as recited in claim 21); wherein the remote device is a computing device (as recited in claim 22); wherein the wireless receiver is part of a wireless transceiver (as recited in claim 23); wherein the control circuit is further configured to transmit via the wireless transceiver a metric (as recited in claim 24); wherein the communication is encoded according to a wireless protocol, wherein the wireless protocol is at least one of Bluetooth, ZigBee, or Wi-Fi (as recited in claim 25) in order to satisfy the requirements of a particular treatment application and improve the user-interface of the tool.
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 extension fee 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 SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights