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
Claims 1-29 pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument on page 4 of the brief that one would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Azegami with the teachings of Swayze due to Azegami being silent regards to disclosing packetized data transmissions in a medical context is understood, but the examiner disagrees. Azegami (paragraph 13) was cited for disclosing CoaxPress protocol allowing the surgical imaging data, the control signal, and the power to be transmitted on a single coax cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Swayze with the teachings of Azegami. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the references. One would be motivated to combine due to the CoaxPress protocol disclosed by Azegami.
Affidavit filed under 1.132
Regarding applicant’s argument on pages 4-5 of the brief and the affidavit that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Swayze and Azegami with the teachings of Bolea due to the fact that Bolea dealt with a connection for a hearing aid is understood, but the examiner disagrees. The Bolea reference was cited for disclosing the new limitation of a silicone jacket having a diameter of 0.200" or less, which was obvious at the time of the invention disclosed. As evidence of this Huang (2016/0254075) paragraphs 5-8 discloses endoscope cables, which are used for surgical operation, etc., a jacket made of a silicone rubber is used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Swayze and Azegami with the teachings of Bolea.
While the examiner has produced the citations with motivation appeasing the TSM test, KSR supports other rationales to combine the analogous references together.
According to MPEP 2143, Exemplary KSR rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to KSR rationale (B), the examiner asserts that the simple substitution of Swayze’s surgical imaging device with the CoaxPress disclosed in Azegami, with the silicone jacket disclosed in Bolea is obvious.
With respect to KSR rationale (C), the examiner asserts that the utilizing of a known surgical device of Swayze with the CoaxPress disclosed in Azegami with the silicone jacket disclosed in Bolea is obvious.
With respect to KSR rationale (D), the examiner asserts that the applying the known surgical device of Swayze with the CoaxPress disclosed in Azegami with the silicone jacket disclosed by Bolea is also obvious.
The Examiner’s combination of Swayze, Azegami and Bolea clearly meet the claimed limitations and satisfies at least rationales (B), (C), (D), and (G) as established above the exemplary KSR rationales. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/27/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-29 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the last Office action because: Applicant states opinions as opposed to facts regarding one of ordinary skill in the art not being motivated to combine the cited references. The examiner disagrees for reasons cited earlier.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of non-obviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swayze (US 2018/0168733), hereinafter referred to as Swayze, in view of Azegami (US 2017/0338909), hereinafter referred to as Azegami, in further view of Bolea (2015/0224307), hereinafter referred to as Bolea.
8. Regarding claim 1, Swayze discloses a system for acquiring surgical imaging data, comprising: a surgical imaging device (fig. 1-2, paragraphs 32-33 wherein a camera module configured to capture visible-light images of the surgical instrument);
an imaging controller (fig. 1-2, paragraphs 32-33 wherein surgical system configured to generate modified images of a surgical environment);
and a communication cable for connecting the surgical imaging device to the imaging controller, comprising: a distal end for connecting with the surgical imaging device (fig. 1-2, paragraph 44-45 wherein the distal end of the endocutter so that it is most easily viewed by a surgeon);
a proximal end for connecting with the imaging controller (fig. 1-2, paragraph 49 wherein the surgical instrument in the modified image (e.g., at the proximal or distal ends of the surgical instrument).
However, Swayze is silent in regards to disclosing a single conductor extending between the distal end and the proximal end of the communication cable, the single conductor configured to: transmit surgical imaging data from the surgical imaging device to the imaging controller, and transmit a control signal and power from the imaging controller to the surgical imaging device.
Azegami discloses a single conductor extending between the distal end and the proximal end of the communication cable, the single conductor configured to: transmit surgical imaging data from the surgical imaging device to the imaging controller, and transmit a control signal and power from the imaging controller to the surgical imaging device (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable). Azegami (paragraph 5) provides motivation to combine the references wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable. All of the elements are known. Combing the reference would yield the instant claims wherein cable is used to deliver control and energy to surgical device as well as receives images from surgical instrument. Therefore the invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
However, Swayze and Azegami are silent in regards to disclosing a silicone jacket having a diameter of 0.200" or less.
Bolea discloses a silicone jacket having a diameter of 0.200" or less (paragraph 61 wherein the tubular jacket may comprise extruded silicone having an outside diameter of approximately 0.047 inches and an inside diameter of approximately 0.023 inches). Bolea provides motivation to combine the references wherein the housing may include one or more isolated electrodes, and/or if a conductive material is used for the housing, the housing may comprise an electrode, which may be used for respiratory sensing (paragraph 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Swayze and Azegami with the silicone jacket of Bolea (paragraph 57).
9. Regarding claim 2, Swayze discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the surgical imaging data comprises at least one of pixel data and voxel data (fig. 1-2, paragraph 7 wherein a surgical system includes a detector comprising an array of pixels configured to detect light reflected by a surgical instrument).
10. Regarding claim 3, Azegami discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the surgical imaging data comprises data acquired by a plurality of sensors of the surgical imaging device (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
11. Regarding claim 4, Swayze discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the control signal is a first control signal, and wherein the single conductor is further configured to transmit a second control signal from the surgical imaging device to the imaging controller (fig. 1-3, paragraphs 40 wherein controller can transmit a signal to the processor that includes information related to the operating parameters and identity of the surgical instrument).
12. Regarding claim 5, Azegami discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the surgical imaging data, the control signal, and the power are transmitted according to CoaXPress protocol (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
13. Regarding claim 6, Azegami discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the single conductor is configured to transmit the surgical image data at around or over 12 gigabits per second (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
14. Regarding claim 7, Azegami discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the single conductor is configured to transmit the control signal at around or over 40 megabits per second (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
15. Regarding claim 8, Azegami discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the single conductor is insulated, the communication cable further comprising a cable shielding wrapped circumferentially around the insulated single conductor (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
16. Regarding claim 9, Azegami discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the cable shielding is configured to provide ground to the power (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
17. Regarding claim 10, Azegami discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the single conductor is made of at least copper (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
18. Regarding claim 11, Swayze discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communication cable comprises a first connector at the proximal end (fig. 1-2, paragraph 49 wherein the surgical instrument in the modified image (e.g., at the proximal or distal ends of the surgical instrument).
19. Regarding claim 12, Swayze discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communication cable comprises a second connector at the distal end (fig. 1-2, paragraph 44-45 wherein the distal end of the endocutter so that it is most easily viewed by a surgeon).
20. Regarding claim 13, Azegami discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the distal end of the communication cable is connected to a transmitter of the surgical imaging device (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
21. Regarding claim 14, Azegami discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the surgical imaging data according to the CoaXPress protocol (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
22. Regarding claim 15, Azegami discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the transmitter includes a clock (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
23. Regarding claim 16, Swayze discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the proximal end of the communication cable is connected to a receiver of the imaging controller (fig. 1-2, paragraph 49 wherein the surgical instrument in the modified image (e.g., at the proximal or distal ends of the surgical instrument).
24. Regarding claim 17, Swayze discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the receiver is housed in a connector board of the imaging controller (fig. 7-9, paragraph 58 wherein the computer system 700 can be provided as a single unit, e.g., as a single server, as a single tower, contained within a single housing).
25. Regarding claim 18, Azegami discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the receiver is configured to receive the surgical imaging data according to the CoaXPress protocol (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
26. Regarding claim 19, Swayze discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the receiver is configured to perform equalization on the received surgical imaging data (fig. 1-2, paragraphs 32-33 wherein surgical system configured to generate modified images of a surgical environment).
27. Regarding claim 20, Swayze discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communication cable is a first cable and the surgical imaging data is a first set of surgical imaging data, and wherein the system further comprises: a second cable for connecting the surgical imaging device to the imaging controller, wherein the second cable is configured to transmit a second set of surgical imaging data from the surgical imaging device to the imaging controller (fig. 1-3, paragraphs 10-11 wherein processor is also configured to receive a second signal representative of information related to the surgical instrument).
28. Regarding claim 21, Swayze discloses a surgical imaging device configured to be connected to a communication cable, comprising: a camera component for obtaining surgical imaging data (fig. 1-2, paragraphs 32-33 wherein surgical system configured to generate modified images of a surgical environment).
However Swayze is silent in regards to disclosing a transmitter configured to be connected to the communication cable, the transmitter configured to simultaneously: transmit the surgical imaging data via the single conductor of the communication cable, and receive a control signal and power via the single conductor of the communication cable.
Azegami discloses a transmitter configured to be connected to the communication cable, the transmitter configured to simultaneously: transmit the surgical imaging data via the single conductor of the communication cable, and receive a control signal and power via the single conductor of the communication cable (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable). Azegami (paragraph 5) provides motivation to combine the references wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable. All of the elements are known. Combing the reference would yield the instant claims wherein cable is used to deliver control and energy to surgical device as well as receives images from surgical instrument. Therefore, the invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
However, Swayze and Azegami are silent in regards to disclosing wherein the communication cable comprises a distal end, a proximal end, a single conductor extending therebetween, and a silicone jacket having a diameter of 0.200" or less.
Bolea discloses wherein the communication cable comprises a distal end, a proximal end, a single conductor extending therebetween, and a silicone jacket having a diameter of 0.200" or less (paragraph 61 wherein the tubular jacket may comprise extruded silicone having an outside diameter of approximately 0.047 inches and an inside diameter of approximately 0.023 inches). Bolea provides motivation to combine the references wherein the housing may include one or more isolated electrodes, and/or if a conductive material is used for the housing, the housing may comprise an electrode, which may be used for respiratory sensing (paragraph 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Swayze and Azegami with the silicone jacket of Bolea (paragraph 57).
29. Regarding claim 22, Azegami discloses the device of claim 21, wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the surgical imaging data according to the CoaXPress protocol (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
30. Regarding claim 23, Azegami discloses the device of claim 21, wherein the transmitter includes a clock (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable)
31. Regarding claim 24, Azegami discloses the device of claim 21, wherein the control signal is a first control signal, and wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit a second control signal via the single conductor of the communication cable (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable)
32. Regarding claim 25, Swayze discloses a imaging controller configured to be connected to a communication cable, comprising: a control component for generating a control signal (fig. 1-2, paragraphs 32-33 wherein surgical system configured to generate modified images of a surgical environment).
However, Swayze is silent in regards to disclosing a receiver configured to be connected to the communication cable, the receiver configured to simultaneously: receive surgical imaging data via a single conductor of the communication cable, and transmit the control signal and power via the single conductor of the communication cable.
Azegami discloses a receiver configured to be connected to the communication cable, the receiver configured to simultaneously: receive surgical imaging data via a single conductor of the communication cable, and transmit the control signal and power via the single conductor of the communication cable (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable). Azegami (paragraph 5) provides motivation to combine the references wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable. All of the elements are known. Combing the reference would yield the instant claims wherein cable is used to deliver control and energy to surgical device as well as receives images from surgical instrument. Therefore, the invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
However, Swayze and Azegami are silent in regards to disclosing wherein the communication cable comprises a distal end, a proximal end, a single conductor extending therebetween, and a silicone jacket having a diameter of 0.200” or less.
Bolea discloses wherein the communication cable comprises a distal end, a proximal end, a single conductor extending therebetween, and a silicone jacket having a diameter of 0.200” or less (paragraph 61 wherein the tubular jacket may comprise extruded silicone having an outside diameter of approximately 0.047 inches and an inside diameter of approximately 0.023 inches). Bolea provides motivation to combine the references wherein the housing may include one or more isolated electrodes, and/or if a conductive material is used for the housing, the housing may comprise an electrode, which may be used for respiratory sensing (paragraph 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Swayze and Azegami with the silicone jacket of Bolea (paragraph 57).
33. Regarding claim 26, Swayze discloses the imaging controller of claim 25, wherein the receiver is housed in a connector board of the imaging controller (fig. 7-9, paragraph 58 wherein the computer system can be provided as a single unit, e.g., as a single server, as a single tower, contained within a single housing).
34. Regarding claim 27, Azegami discloses the imaging controller of claim 25, wherein the receiver is configured to receive the surgical imaging data according to the CoaXPress protocol (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
35. Regarding claim 28, Swayze discloses the imaging controller of claim 25, wherein the receiver is configured to perform equalization on the received surgical imaging data (fig. 1-2, paragraphs 32-33 wherein surgical system configured to generate modified images of a surgical environment).
36. Regarding claim 29, Azegami discloses the imaging controller of claim 25, wherein the control signal is a first control signal, and wherein the receiver is configured to receive a second control signal via the single conductor of the communication cable (fig. 2-4, paragraphs 5 and 28 wherein system sends camera control signals and power supply over one coaxial cable).
Conclusion
37. 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 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 CHARLES N HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-398272-3982. 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.
/CHARLES N HICKS/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights