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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed with the request noted above. As directed by the amendment, the specification has been amended and claims 4-5 have been cancelled. The amendments noted above will be entered.
The amendments noted above are sufficient to overcome the objections to the specification and drawings, as well as the 35 U.SC 112(a) rejections from the previous Office action. The objections or rejections not reiterated in the current Office action are considered overcome by the amendments and are therefore withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102([ 2 ]) as anticipated by previously cited Tahara et al., US 20090259149 A1 ("Tahara") or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara in view of Sakurai et al., US 20040162509 A1 (“Sakurai”)
Regarding claim 1, Tahara discloses a method of discriminating probe among multiple probes of an ultrasonic surgical device([0060-0061] “The surgical instrument recognition circuit lm is the means for recognizing the type of a connected surgical instrument, for example, the type of a hand-piece …The resonant frequency characteristics of the surgical instruments discriminated from each other by the surgical instrument discrimination circuit lm By using the surgical instrument recognition circuit lm … even when different surgical instruments are provided…” – implies multiple probes being discriminated from each other based on resonant frequency, and Fig. 13 regarding surgical instrument recognition/discrimination circuit “1 m” and [0029] regarding hand-piece “2” comprising a probe “2b”), the method comprising: receiving an identification frequency information for discriminating the t probe of the ultrasonic surgical device ([0043] “The resonant frequency detection circuit/setting circuit lh detects a frequency actually applied to the probe 2b from the output voltage and the output current detected by the output voltage/output current detection circuit 1f” - an identification frequency is received); analyzing a feedback signal generated on the basis of the received identification frequency information ([0044] “ The abnormality detection circuit lk chronologically stores the value of the resonant frequency transmitted from the resonant frequency detection circuit/setting circuit lh, the predetermined numerical range, and the variation amount of the resonant frequency in the internal storage part. More specifically, the value of the resonant frequency is saved in a memory which is the storage part at intervals of, for example, 5 msec, and the consecutively measured value of the resonant frequency and the previously saved value of the resonant frequency are compared with each other, and it is monitored whether or not the resonant frequency is within the predetermined numerical range”); discriminating the probe among the multiple probes on the basis of comparison between an analysis result from the analyzing of the feedback signal and preset reference frequency information ([0060-0061] “The surgical instrument recognition circuit lm is the means for recognizing the type of a connected surgical instrument, for example, the type of a hand-piece … The resonant frequency characteristics of the surgical instruments discriminated from each other by the surgical instrument discrimination circuit lm”); and generating a control signal for controlling an operation of the ultrasonic surgical device on the basis of a predetermined value corresponding to the discriminated probe ([0043] regarding resonance frequency detection circuit/ setting circuit “1 h” and Fig. 13, setting circuit “1 h” outputs a signal to the ultrasonic oscillator circuit “1 a” via abnormality detection circuit “1 k” and control circuit “1 c” to control surgical device/hand-piece “2” and [0060-0061]), and wherein the discriminating of the probe is performed based on the different frequency of the multiple probes([0044] “the consecutively measured value of the resonant frequency and the previously saved value of the resonant frequency are compared with each other, and it is monitored whether or not the resonant frequency is within the predetermined numerical range” – this step will discriminate a probe based frequency of each probe detected).
Tahara does not explicitly disclose that each of the multiple probes has at least one difference in a thickness, a length and a groove shape thereof, such that each of the multiple probes has a different frequency at which each of the multiple probes resonates.
However, examiner notes that this may be considered an inherent feature of different surgical instruments that are provided noted in [0061] of Tahara, in view of the teachings of Sakurai in Fig. 14 that shows features of different surgical instrument in the same field of endeavor and associated discussion e.g., in [0155] that probes (203A, 203B, 203C) exhibit different shapes and associated built in transducers (216a, 216b, 216c) exhibit different resonance frequencies dependent on shape, moreover, the resonance frequencies differ with length or thickness of probes (217a, 217b, 217c). It can thus be considered that this is an inherent feature of different surgical instruments in Tahara and therefore the claims are anticipated by Tahara as evidenced by Sakurai, or alternatively, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented different surgical instruments as suggested by Tahara in [0061], for example the multiple probes as disclosed by Sakurai to perform a surgical procedure, and arrive to the claimed invention, since the surgical instrument recognition circuit of Tahara would discriminate a probe based on different frequencies with each of the multiple probes having at least one difference in a thickness, a length and a groove shape thereof, such that each of the multiple probes has a different frequency at which each of the multiple probes resonates.
Regarding claim 2, see [0056] of Tahara regarding control circuit “detects the temperature of a hand-piece 2 in which an ultrasonic vibrator is incorporated by means of a temperature detection circuit lb, and stores the detected data ( step S21). Actually, the temperature detection circuit lb measures the electric capacitance of the hand-piece 2, and calculates the temperature of the handpiece 2 by using a correlation formula of the temperature and the electric capacitance measured in advance”, [0048] “… the temperature of the ultrasonic vibrator can be obtained with high accuracy by measuring, for example, the electric capacitance of the ultrasonic vibrator, and the variation amount of the resonant frequency can also be estimated on the basis of the temperature”, [0050] “… a variation in the resonant frequency resulting from the temperature of the ultrasonic vibrator as a reference variation amount with respect to the variation amount of the resonant frequency per unit time” - by setting a variation of resonant frequency resulting from temperature, frequency error information is corrected, and as noted in claim 1 with reference to [0060-0061] the surgical instrument recognition circuit “1 m” will determine a probe based on the corrected frequency error information.
Regarding claim 3, see [0043] of Tahara regarding detecting a frequency applied to the probe 2b and detecting a resonant frequency reads on a tuning step, and [0044], “The abnormality detection circuit lk chronologically stores the value of the resonant frequency transmitted from the resonant frequency detection circuit/setting circuit lh, the predetermined numerical range, and the variation amount of the resonant frequency in the internal storage part. More specifically, the value of the resonant frequency is saved in a memory which is the storage part at intervals of, for example, 5 msec, and the consecutively measured value of the resonant frequency and the previously saved value of the resonant frequency are compared with each other, and it is monitored whether or not the resonant frequency is within the predetermined numerical range” reads on a tracking step, the receiving of the identification frequency comprise receiving the identification frequency received in the tuning step and tracking step.
Conclusion
Pending claims 1-3 are not patentable in light of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights