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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savall et al (US 2019/0380802).
Regarding claim 1, Savall discloses:
A medical apparatus (100; Fig. 1) comprising: a medical device (104) capable of maneuvering within a patient (102); an input device (126) configured to be operated by a hand of a user (107); one or more sensors (214; Fig. 2) for sensing whether the hand of the user is interacting with the input device (126; ¶0069 – touch sensitive surfaces to generate a signal in response to a user’s touch); and a controller (1206; Fig. 12; ¶0099) configured to: determine whether the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is interacting with the input device (126); prevent actuation of the medical device (104) in a case that the controller (1206) determines that the one or more sensors (214; ¶0077 – the drop detection sensor can be the tracking sensor 214) is sensing that the hand of the user is not interacting with the input device (126) (¶0094 – a change in capacitance can signal a drop state, which generates an interlock off signal, preventing the input device 126 from actuating the medical device 104); and allow actuation of the medical device (104) in a case that the controller (1206) determines that the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is interacting with the input device (126) (¶0102 – input device 126 uses link 1210 to control movement of the apparatus 100).
Regarding claim 3, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the input device comprises one or more actuators (216) configured to send one or more signals to the controller (1206) upon operation of the one or more actuators (216) (¶0040-0041); and wherein the controller (1206) is further configured to actuate the medical device (100) based on the one or more signals (¶0026).
Regarding claim 4, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more actuators (216) comprises one or more levers (218) and/or one or more buttons.
Regarding claim 5, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more sensors (214) is disposed on a surface of the one or more actuators (216) (¶0069 – touch sensitive surfaces to generate a signal in response to a user’s touch).
Regarding claim 6, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors (214) is an optical sensor (¶0039 – tracking sensor 214 may include an optical sensor).
Regarding claim 7, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors (214) is a mechanical sensor (¶0039 – position/orientation sensors).
Regarding claim 8, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors (214) is an electrical sensor (¶0069 – capacitive sensing pad).
Regarding claim 9, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in a case that the controller (1206) determines that the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is interacting with the input device (126), the controller (1206) is further configured to allow actuation of the medical device based on an input received by the input device (126) (¶0102 – signals from movement of the input device 126 can only be translated to movement of the medical device 100 when the interlock of the system is not disconnected, which only happens when the input device is being interacted with as required).
Regarding claim 10, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors (214) is further configured to sense whether the hand of the user is not interacting with the input device (126) as a result of the input device (126) being dropped (¶0094 – a change in capacitance can signal a drop state, which can occur when the capacitive elements are released by the user).
Regarding claim 11, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors (214) comprises an accelerometer (¶0039 – accelerometer) configured to detect acceleration or deceleration of the input device (¶0039).
Regarding claim 13, Savall discloses:
The medical apparatus of claim 1, wherein one or more sensors (214) comprises a first sensor (806; Fig. 8) located at a first location on the input device (126) and a second sensor (810) located at a second location on the input device (126) (¶0080).
Regarding claim 19, Savall discloses:
A method for a medical apparatus (100; Fig. 1), the method comprising: maneuvering a medical device (104) within a patient (102); operating an input device (126) by a hand of a user (107); sensing, using one or more sensors (214; Fig. 2), whether the hand of the user (107) is interacting with the input device (126) (¶0029); determining whether the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is interacting with the input device (126) (¶0037); preventing actuation of the medical device (104) in a case that the determining determines that the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is not interacting with the input device (126), preventing actuation of the medical device (¶0094 – a change in capacitance can signal a drop state, which generates an interlock off signal, preventing the input device 126 from actuating the medical device 104); and allowing actuation of the medical device (104) in a case that the determining determines that the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is interacting with the input device (126) (¶0102 – input device 126 uses link 1210 to control movement of the apparatus 100).
Regarding claim 20, Savall discloses:
A storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a method for a medical apparatus (100; Fig. 1), the method comprising: maneuvering a medical device (104) within a patient (102); operating an input device (126) by a hand of a user (107); sensing, using one or more sensors (214; Fig. 2), whether the hand of the user (107) is interacting with the input device (126) (¶0029); determining whether the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is interacting with the input device (126) (¶0037); and preventing actuation of the medical device (104) in a case that the determining determines that the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is not interacting with the input device (126) (¶0094 – a change in capacitance can signal a drop state, which generates an interlock off signal, preventing the input device 126 from actuating the medical device 104); and allowing actuation of the medical device (104) in a case that the determining determines that the one or more sensors (214) is sensing that the hand of the user is interacting with the input device (126) (¶0102 – input device 126 uses link 1210 to control movement of the apparatus 100).
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 (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 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savall in view of Verner et al (US 2022/0382364).
Regarding claim 2, Savall discloses the medical apparatus of claim 1 but is silent regarding “the medical device is a catheter.” However, Verner teaches a surgical system for minimally invasive surgery (Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, that remotely controls a catheter (¶0043) to perform a desired procedure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the apparatus of Savall to control a catheter as taught by Verner in order to provide sufficient structure to perform a desired procedure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571)272-3383. 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.
/TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783