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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on November 10, 2025. Claims 14, 18, 20, 21 and 23 have been amended. Claims 26-28 have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112 and 103 rejections have been updated and are discussed in further detail below. Claims 14-21 and 23-28 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both “the electronic components” and “the sealed component” (see Amended paragraphs 76 and 51). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The Amended Specification filed on November 10, 2025, is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Amended paragraphs 76 and 51 are provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
135
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
219
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In amended paragraph 76, the electronic components are referenced with numeral (11) and in amended paragraph 51, the sealed component is also referenced with numeral (11). Thus, it is unclear what numeral refers to the electronic components and what numeral refers to the sealed component.
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.
Claims 14-21 and 23-28 are Finally 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 14 discloses, “a sealed component in a central portion…”. However, as previously discussed above, amended paragraph 76 discloses that the electronic components are referenced with numeral (11) and in amended paragraph 51, the sealed component is also referenced with the same numeral (11). Thus, it is unclear what numeral actually refers to the electronic components and what numeral refers to the sealed component. Furthermore, amended paragraph 76, discloses that, “the electronic components 11 are sealed within a compartment (see figure of amended paragraph 76 on page 3 above)” not a component. Does the sealed component in claim 14 form the compartment as described in paragraph 76? What is the structure of the sealed component? Is the sealed component a separate element from the wrench? For example, a monolithic box or housing within the wrench that completely holds/contains the electronic components therein? Is it merely a space within the wrench that holds/contains the electronic components? If so, how does an empty space seal the electronic components from standard autoclave sterilization procedures? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claims 14, 16-19, 23 and 25 are Finally rejected As Best Understood under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier et al. (WO 2014/082087, previously cited) in view of Heyraud (FR 2568009, previously cited) or Picone (7114824), further in view of Chen (2012/0006161) and optionally in view of Foreign Reference (CN 206756372, previously cited and hereafter referred to as FR) and Rocamora (BR PI0514913, previously cited).
In reference to claim 14, As Best Understood, Gauthier et al. disclose an electronic torque wrench (10) for a dental and/or medical device (see Page 6, Lines 4-6 and 17-19), comprising:
- an upper portion comprising a head socket (28) and a ratchet mechanism (not shown, Page 12, Lines 4-8);
- a lower portion (16, see Figure 1);
- a central portion (12) containing electronic components comprising torque sensors (30, Page 12, Line 22), an RF transmitter (see second paragraph on page 37 for disclosing “a transceiver” that is radio frequency also see first paragraph on page 38) a circuit board (20) and a microprocessor circuit (92),
wherein the upper, central and lower portions are connected sequentially (see Figure 1);
wherein the electronic components (i.e. torque sensors, circuit board and microprocessor circuit) are configured to remain operational after repeated exposure to temperatures and pressures associated with autoclave sterilization procedures (Page 12, Lines 20-24) without disassembling the central portion for said standard autoclave procedures (Page 12, Lines 20-24); and
wherein a signal from the torque sensors is scaled by an algorithm (see second paragraph on page 18) that maps voltage to torque using a calibration table (see Abstract) and encrypted (i.e. as the signal is converted) by the microprocessor as data (see second paragraph on page 15 for disclosing that, “An amplified and conditioned electrical signal 796 is then fed to the microcontroller 92 that converts electrical signal 796 to an equivalent torque value in the desired units.”); and
wherein said data is transmitted by the RF transmitter to an external console (i.e. laptop 7004, see second paragraph on page 18 and Figure 58) for decryption, recording, treatment and analysis (second and third paragraph on page 37).
Gauthier et al. lack,
a sealed component in the central portion, the sealed component configured to prevent the electronic components from exposure to moisture from standard autoclave sterilization procedures; and
specifically including an RF antenna in the central portion.
However, Heyraud teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench (Figure 2) comprising an upper portion (3), a lower portion (12) and a central portion (1), wherein the central portion includes a sealed component (formed from component 1, left seal 20 and right seal 20, Figure 3).
In addition, Picone also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench (Figures 1-3d) comprising an upper portion (50), a lower portion (lowermost portion of 34, Figure 3c) and a central portion (formed as the portion extending between the lowermost portion of 34 and upper portion 50, Figures 3a-3d), wherein the central portion includes a sealed component (formed as the central portion of 34 extending between left seal 35a and right seal 35b, Figure 3d and see Column 7, Lines 57-59)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the central portion, of Gauthier et al., with the known technique of providing a central portion including the sealed component, as taught by Heyraud or Picone, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile tool more effectively protects internal mechanisms from dust (see portion of translation disclosing, “The seal (20), shown in FIGS. 2 and 3…to protect the internal mechanism of the dust.”) or that more effectively seals a central portion from opposing sides (Column 7, Lines 57-59 of Picone).
Next, Chen teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench (100) comprising a central portion (see figure below) that includes an RF antenna (43), an RF transmitter (43, paragraph 31 and Figures 1-2), wherein data from said electronic torque wrench is read and sent to an external console (i.e. at 50 or at 300) for recording, treatment and analysis of said data (paragraphs 38, 41-43, 47 and 48).
PNG
media_image3.png
396
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the electronic components in the central portion, of Gauthier et al., with the known technique of providing a central portion that includes the RF antenna, as taught by Chen, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile tool that is capable of wireless transmission of detected data to a remote electronic device for subsequent application and management (see paragraphs 2 and 38).
Assuming arguendo, that Gauthier et al. further lack,
a signal from the torque sensors is scaled by an algorithm that maps voltage to torque using a calibration table and encrypted by the microprocessor as data; and
wherein said data is transmitted by the RF transmitter to an external console for decryption, recording, treatment and analysis
However, FR teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench system that includes scaling a signal (i.e. torque signal, see Abstract) and corrected for calibration (see Abstract) and encrypted in a microprocessor (i.e. computer see Abstract), and once digitized, data points are scaled by an algorithm (i.e. by the Newton difference algorithm) that maps voltage to torque using a calibration table (database, see portion of translation disclosing “reading an initial voltage data in the memory, and obtaining the calibration information in the database by Newton difference algorithm” also see claim 1).
And, Rocamora further teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wireless communications that can encrypt/decrypt a signal (see following portion of translation, “Communications sent and received via the wireless communication interface can be encrypted. Electronic controls can include a microprocessor to encrypt communications sent over the wireless communication interface. The wireless communication interface can allow the transmission of information from the electrical system control device. The transmission of information from the electrical system control device can occur immediately after measurements of electrical system parameters are taken. The information may include oscillography of the electrical system control device, a transcript of events occurring within the electrical system control device, digitized current and voltage measurements, and / or information from a data profile recorder within electronic controls.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the signal, of Gauthier et al., with the known technique of providing the calibrated encrypted signal, as taught by FR and Rocamora, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that dynamically detect the respective torque wrench (see Abstract of FR) and/or that more effectively provides a signal for obtaining sensor sensitivity of the sensor, combining identification information storage, and then determined by the standard moment of sensor sensitivity, combining with the real-time digital voltage signal collected by the interpolation algorithm to obtain the real-time moment (see claim 1, of FR).
In reference to claim 16, Gauthier et al. disclose that the lower portion comprises a battery compartment (19, see Figure 2) and a cover (17) adapted to be screwed on or fit by interference to said lower portion (Page 12, Line 2 and Figures 1 and 2).
In reference to claim 17, the examiner notes that the limitation “suitable for dental, cranio-maxillofacial and orthopedic surgeries” is considered intended use and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this situation, because all of the structural imitations have been met, the device of Gauthier et al. can be used for dental, cranio-maxillofacial and orthopedic surgeries, in addition to prosthetic procedures (also see Page 6, Lines 4-6 disclose “for medical use”…”as well as use in many other technical areas.”).
In reference to claim 18, Gauthier et al. disclose that the electronic components further comprise a combination of one or more of: multicolored LED (22, Page 15, Lines 1-10, Page 18, Lines 21-33 and see Figure 12), Gauthier et al. also disclose a panel (22) and a display sound transducer (90) that present information on torque reading and connection status with the external console (i.e. 7004, Figure 58)
In reference to claim 19, Gauthier et al. disclose a sound transducer (90) provides information on connection or reading (Page 15, Lines 1-10 and Page 16 Lines 1-2).
In reference to claim 23, modified Gauthier et al. disclose a system capable of being used for a dental and/or medical procedure (Page 6, Lines 4-6 and 17-19), said system comprising:
- the torque wrench (10) according to claim 14 (see rejection above with respect claim 14);
- the external console (7004) according to claim 14 with embedded software (note; software must be in external console 7004 otherwise it would not work as intended);
- a ratchet (not shown) fixed to said torque wrench (as previously disclosed by Gauthier et al., see rejection with respect claim 14, Page 12, Lines 4-8) ;
wherein all data obtained through the use of the torque wrench are sent to the console (7004), and the software performs data processing, so that the data read by the torque wrench sensors is processed as follows (as previously taught by FR):
(I) Data from the sensors is amplified (see Abstract of FR);
(II) Data passes through a filter (see portion of translation disclosing, “the processor further comprises an ARM processor, a FPGA by SPI interface receives the ADC chip outputs the digital voltage signal, and stored in the memory, an ARM processor according to the voltage data in the memory by the filter algorithm, the filtered voltage data stored in the memory, as the original data.”);
(III) The signal is then digitized in an analog to digital converter (see Abstract of FR and/or the following portion of the translation disclosing, “torque acquisition unit for carrying out collecting wrench torque signal, the torque signal into an analogue voltage signal and the analogue voltage signal is transmitted to the signal processing unit”);
(IV) The signal is scaled corrected for calibration and encrypted in the microprocessor (computer see Abstract of FR);
(V) Signal flow is fed into a BLE module (see paragraph 48);
(VI) The signal is transmitted via antenna (i.e. at 43 of Chen);
(VII) Signal passes through air waves (see Figure 9 of Chen);
(VIII) Signal is received by gateway antenna (531 of Chen);
(IX) The signal is fed into the gateway (Figure 7 of Chen);
(X) The signal is interpreted in graphical formats for display on a monitor (i.e. at 22 of Gauthier et al.);
the data is obtained and processed as set forth below:
- sensor data is in the form of electrical voltage changes, said changes being amplified by an instrumentation amplifier (see Abstract of FR);
- said data is then filtered using a fourth order bandpass filter of the low voltage front filter, which removes noise before entering an ADC or analog to digital converter (i.e. during normal operation of the electronic components);
- once digitized, data points are scaled and an algorithm is used that maps voltage to torque using a calibration table (see following portion of the translation of FR, disclosing, “the processor further comprises an ARM processor, a FPGA by SPI interface receives the ADC chip outputs the digital voltage signal, and stored in the memory, an ARM processor according to the voltage data in the memory by the filter algorithm, the filtered voltage data stored in the memory, as the original data.”);
- once converted into torque, the data is sent to a low power Bluetooth module through a serial link between the microcontroller and the BLE module (see paragraph 46 of Chen);
- a radio frequency link then transmits the sensor data to a gateway module (50 of Chen) composed of a BLE receiving module and a small computer (300 of Chen similar to computer 7004) which redistributes data to monitors (paragraphs 38, 42, 47 ad 48 of Chen);
wherein the sensor data is presented in an interface (i.e. screen of 300 of Chen) to the attending physician or dentist in the form of torque data or a variant presentation (see Abstract of Chen).
In reference to claim 25, Gauthier et al. disclose that the monitor is a device selected from the group consisting of: a computer; a smartphone; and tablet (laptop 7004, Figure 58).
Claims 15, 27 and 28 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier et al. (WO 2014/082087, previously cited) in view of Heyraud (FR 2568009, previously cited) or Picone (7114824), further in view of Chen (2012/0006161), optionally in view of Foreign Reference (CN 206756372, previously cited and hereafter referred to as FR) and Rocamora (BR PI0514913, previously cited) and further in view of Baumgartner (2008/0070190).
In reference to claims 15, 27 and 28, Gauthier et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack specifically disclosing that,
the wrench is made of titanium or stainless steel.
However, Baumgartner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form an entire torque wrench from titanium or stainless steel (see paragraphs 15 and 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the material of the wrench, of Gauthier et al., with the known technique of forming an entire torque wrench from titanium or stainless steel., as taught by Baumgartner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having increased wear resistance and/or that allows mass production at efficient production costs (see paragraphs 15 and 16).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier et al. (WO 2014/082087, previously cited) in view of Heyraud (FR 2568009, previously cited) or Picone (7114824), further in view of Chen (2012/0006161), optionally in view of Foreign Reference (CN 206756372, previously cited and hereafter referred to as FR) and Rocamora (BR PI0514913, previously cited) and further in view of Day (6722232).
In reference to claim 20, Gauthier et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, and further show that the central portion comprises a window (i.e. the viewing portion of display 22, see Figures 11a and 58).
Gauthier et al. lack specifically disclosing;
welding the window onto said RF transmitter.
However, Chen also teaches of attaching the window by screws (i.e. at 151b or by the non-labeled screws extending below element 40 in Figure 2) onto said RF transmitter (Note; the definition of the term “onto” is defined according to www.dictionary.com as being; “on” and the definition of the term “on” is defined as being; “attached to or unified with”. Since, element 154 is “attached to or unified with “the RF transmitter and the antenna at least through the connection of parts therebetween, it meets the definitions above and thus the limitation of the claim),
In addition, Day teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to attach any separate component of a wrench by using fasteners or welds (see Column16, Lines 36-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fastener attachment of the window, of modified Gauthier et al. (i.e. as suggested by Chen by using fasteners for attaching the window), with the known technique of using a weld attachment, as taught by Day, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a more durable attachment thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation and/or that allows the device to be purchased pre-manufactured or manufactured separately and then assembled together (Column16, Lines 36-46).
In reference to claim 21, Gauthier et al. further disclose that the central portion comprises a plate of circuit plate (i.e. circuit plate/board on 20, Page 17, Line 29) and a microprocessor circuit (circuit of microprocessor 92), both configured to remain operational after repeated exposure to temperatures and pressures of standard autoclave sterilization procedures (see last paragraph on page 12) and further comprises a window (i.e. the viewing portion of display 22, see Figure 11a) covering said sealed compartment in the central portion entirety (Figure 1).
Gauthier et al. lack,
attaching the window with a weld.
However, Day teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to attach any separate component of a wrench by using fasteners or welds (see COlaumn16, lines 36-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fastener attachment of the window, of modified Gauthier et al. (i.e. as suggested by Chen by using fasteners for attaching the window), with the known technique of using a weld attachment, as taught by Day, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a more durable attachment thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation and/or that allows the device to be purchased pre-manufactured or manufactured separately and then assembled together (Column16, Lines 36-46).
Claim 24, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier et al. (WO 2014/082087, previously cited) in view of Heyraud (FR 2568009, previously cited) or Picone (7114824), further in view of Chen (2012/0006161), optionally in view of Foreign Reference (CN 206756372, previously cited and hereafter referred to as FR) and Rocamora (BR PI0514913, previously cited) and further in view of Anjanappa et al. (2014/0326113).
In reference to claim 24, Gauthier et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack specifically disclosing that,
the variant presentation is a color scheme.
However, Anjanappa et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench that includes a variant presentation (i.e. LED’s) as a color scheme (56a-56c, paragraphs 31, 52 and Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Gauthier et al., with the known technique of providing variant presentation as the color scheme, as taught by Anjanappa et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively alerts the user to various parameters (i.e. peak torque) sensed during normal operation (paragraph 52).
Claim 26, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gauthier et al. (WO 2014/082087, previously cited) in view of Heyraud (FR 2568009, previously cited) or Picone (7114824), further in view of Chen (2012/0006161), optionally in view of Foreign Reference (CN 206756372, previously cited and hereafter referred to as FR) and Rocamora (BR PI0514913, previously cited) and particularly in view of Cunningham (1164073).
In reference to claim 26, Gauthier et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack specifically disclosing that,
the wrench has the following dimensions 114 mm x 10 mm x 7mm.
However, Cunningham teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench that can be formed from different dimensions (Page 1, Lines 69-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the dimensions of the wrench, of Gauthier et al., with the known technique of providing a wrench that can be formed from different dimensions obviously including 114 mm x 10 mm x 7mm, as taught by Cunningham, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device wrench that can be made from various sizes in order to more effectively engage with workpieces of different sizes (Page 1, Lines 69-75) or depending on a desire weight for the wrench needed by the user.
In addition, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimensions of the wrench would result in a difference in function of the Gauthier et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the dimensions of Gauthier et al., would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the dimensions are “In a preferred embodiment” (see paragraph 64) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 transition region of Gauthier et al. to have dimensions of 114 mm x 10 mm x 7mm, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discloses that, “However, Gauthier et al. does not make it clear whether the device is completely sealed.”…“Therefore, the features claimed by the Applicant do not result from a mere optimization of Gauthier et al. but represent a distinct technical approach aimed at overcoming specific challenges associated with use in surgical and hospital environments, thereby supporting the novelty and inventive step of the invention.”…[and] “The teachings of Heyraud, Chen, Foreign Reference and Rocamora are not designed for autoclaving, as claimed in claim 14 ("autoclave sterilization procedures"). In this sense, the systems presented in those references are not designed to overcome the pressure and humidity of a sterilization procedure. Therefore, the systems of Heyraud, Chen, Foreign Reference and Rocamora don't need to overcome the challenges of a sealed compartment for the electronics.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with these statements. In the rejection above, the examiner admitted that Gauthier et al. lack the sealed component. The teaching of providing the sealed component was taken from references Heyraud (FR2568009) or Picone. While, the applicant contends that the, “The teachings of Heyraud… are not designed for autoclaving”, the examiner notes that it is not clear how the sealed component in the current application structurally differs from the sealed component as taught by Heyraud (FR2568009) or Picone. In other words, what structure forms the sealed component such that it is designed for autoclaving? Is it a completely enclosed component made from a certain material that is designed for autoclaving? If so, further amendments should be made to more clearly and positively distinguish the structure of the sealed component over the seals, as taught by Heyraud, and the sealing handle covers, as taught by Picone. However, since all of the structural limitations of the claims as currently provided have been met, the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Applicant discloses that, “A further distinction for dependent claim 23 lies in the nature of electronic communication and data handling. While in Gauthier et al. the torque readings are transmitted to a remote console for storage and display, the present application implements encrypted transmission and data authentication to ensure the integrity of clinical information, as claimed in dependent claim 23. The proposed system integrates directly into a diagnostic and medical documentation ecosystem, enabling secure recording of torque values associated with each procedure and patient, in accordance with hospital traceability practices. This level of data security and system integration is not contemplated by Gauthier et al., which is limited to conventional wireless communication without encryption or linkage of data to a clinical context.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner believes the applicant is interpreting each reference individually rather than taking what each reference specifically teaches and applying that teaching into the combination and interpreting the combination as a whole. The combination as a whole (i.e. at least of Gauthier in view of Heyraud and Chen) meet the limitations of the claims (see rejection above) therefore the examiner believes the rejection is proper and thus maintained.
Applicant discloses that, “However, claim 15 specifies the use of biocompatible and thermally resistant materials, such as surgical steel and titanium, as well as sealed transparent windows welded or bonded with resin for RF signal transmission, optimized to maintain communication integrity even after multiple autoclaving cycles. In Gauthier et al., the body is described generically as metallic or plastic, without any specification of biocompatibility, thermal resistance, or construction process ensuring compatibility with repeated hospital sterilization cycles.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Again, the examiner believes the applicant is interpreting each reference individually rather than taking what each reference specifically teaches and applying that teaching into the combination and interpreting the combination as a whole. The combination as a whole (i.e. at least of Gauthier in view of Baumgartner) meet the limitations of the claims (see rejection above) therefore the examiner believes the rejection is proper and thus maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant changed “compartment” to “component” and provided an amended Figure 1 and an amended Specification (i.e. at paragraphs 56 and 71), which rendered amended claim 1 unclear as previously discussed in sections 3-6 above.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723