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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 10/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Poland in view of Schönewerk does not disclose the claim language “the transceiver of the foot switch and/or of the medical technology device is designed to transmit a signal in response to a ping signal received from the transceiver of the medical technology device or of the foot switch, on the basis of which the receiver of the medical technology device or of the foot switch can determine the signal strength”. However, Poland discloses the claim language “the transceiver of the foot switch and/or of the medical technology device is designed to transmit a signal in response to a signal received from the transceiver of the medical technology device or of the foot switch, on the basis of which the receiver of the medical technology device or of the foot switch can determine the signal strength” in paragraph [0055]. While the signal received from the transceiver of the medical technology device or of the foot switch is not explicitly a ping signal, Schönewerk discloses sending a ping signal. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, in combination Poland in view of Schönewerk does disclose the claim language of claim 1. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the signal used to determine the signal strength is a ping signal, since applicant has not disclosed that a ping signal solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any other type of signal. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Schönewerk.
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 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.
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 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland et al., US 20100168576, herein referred to as “Poland”, in view of Schönewerk, US 9749776, herein referred to as “Schönewerk”.
Regarding claim 1, Poland teaches a system (Figure 11) comprising a medical technology device (Figure 1a: wireless probe 10) and a foot switch configured to control the medical technology device, ([0062]: “The wireless probe 10 is controlled by a user interface located on the probe itself as shown in FIGS. 9a and 9b. … Another option is a footswitch control.”), the foot switch including a transmitter ([0026]: “The example of a wireless user interface 32 in FIG. 1c contains a transmitter which transmits r.f. or infrared or other wireless control signals 16' either directly to the wireless probe 10 or to the base station host for subsequent relay to the wireless probe. ”) and the medical technology device including a receiver for the wireless transmission of unambiguously assignable signals for the control from the foot switch to the medical technology device ([0023]: “An antenna is located inside the case at the proximal end 14 of the probe which transmits and receives radio waves 16 to and from a base station host.”), wherein: the receiver of the medical technology device is configured to measure the signal strength of signals from the foot switch ([0055]), and the medical technology device is designed to emit a warning if the measured signal strength or the signal-to-noise ratio lies below a predefined threshold value ([0055]: “However if the wireless probe and its host system become separated by a distance beyond this range, such as outside the preferred range 320 but within the maximum range 322, operation of the wireless probe may become unreliable and consistent high quality live images may not be received by the host. In this circumstance the signal strength indicator will begin to show a low or inadequate signal strength and an audible warning may be issued by the probe beeper 102 or by an audible and/or visual indicator on the host system.”); the transmitter of the foot switch and the receiver of the medical technology device are in each case part of a transceiver in each case comprising a transmitter and a receiver for two-way communication between the foot switch and the medical technology device ([0023]: “An antenna is located inside the case at the proximal end 14 of the probe which transmits and receives radio waves 16 to and from a base station host.” And [0028]); and the transceiver of the foot switch and/or of the medical technology device is designed to transmit a signal in response to a signal received from the transceiver of the medical technology device or of the foot switch ([0055] and Figure 11: transmitter or receiver 310), on the basis of which the receiver of the medical technology device or of the foot switch can determine the signal strength ([0055]: “In this circumstance the signal strength indicator will begin to show a low or inadequate signal strength and an audible warning may be issued by the probe beeper 102 or by an audible and/or visual indicator on the host system.”). Poland does not explicitly disclose a system wherein the signal received is a ping signal.
However, Schönewerk teaches a system (Figure 1) wherein the signal received is a ping signal (Col. 5, lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Poland so that the signal received is a ping signal as taught by Schönewerk so that the signal are iteratively exchanged over a particular fixed time period (Schönewerk Col. 5, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 3, Poland in view of Schönewerk discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, and Poland further discloses a system wherein: the transceiver of the foot switch is designed to measure the signal strength of signals from the medical technology device ([0028] and [0055]), and the foot switch is designed to emit a warning if the measured signal strength or the signal-to-noise ratio lies below a predefined threshold value ([0055]: “However if the wireless probe and its host system become separated by a distance beyond this range, such as outside the preferred range 320 but within the maximum range 322, operation of the wireless probe may become unreliable and consistent high quality live images may not be received by the host. In this circumstance the signal strength indicator will begin to show a low or inadequate signal strength and an audible warning may be issued by the probe beeper 102 or by an audible and/or visual indicator on the host system.”).
Regarding claim 5, Poland in view of Schönewerk discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, and Poland further discloses a system wherein: the foot switch and/or the medical technology device is designed to regularly transmit signals independently ([0055]) from a required control of the medical technology device ([0026]: “The example of a wireless user interface 32 in FIG. 1c contains a transmitter which transmits r.f. or infrared or other wireless control signals 16' either directly to the wireless probe 10 or to the base station host for subsequent relay to the wireless probe. ”), on the basis of which the receiver of the medical technology device or of the foot switch can determine the signal strength and/or the signal-to noise ratio ([0055]).
Regarding claim 6, Poland in view of Schönewerk discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, and Poland further discloses a system wherein: the foot switch and/or the medical technology device has visual and/or audible warning elements to emit a warning ([0055]: “In this circumstance the signal strength indicator will begin to show a low or inadequate signal strength and an audible warning may be issued by the probe beeper 102 or by an audible and/or visual indicator on the host system.”).
Regarding claim 7, Poland in view of Schönewerk discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, and Poland further discloses a system wherein: the foot switch and/or the medical technology device has a visual indicator to display the signal strength (Figures 9a-b: signal strength indicator 132).
Regarding claim 8, Poland in view of Schönewerk discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, and Poland further discloses a system wherein: the foot switch comprises an energy store, preferably a battery, for wireless operation (Figures 9a-b: battery charge indicator 134 and [0005] and Figure 5 and [0033]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Schönewerk, further in view of Ma et al., US 8923768, herein referred to as “Ma”.
Regarding claim 9, Poland in view of Schönewerk discloses the system as claimed claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a system characterized in that the foot switch and the medical technology device are designed for communication according to a Bluetooth standard.
However, Ma teaches a system characterized in that the foot switch (Figure 1: foot pedal 103) and the medical technology device (Figure 1: instrument host 120) are designed for communication according to a Bluetooth standard (Col. 4, lines 36-31).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Poland so that the foot switch and the medical technology device are designed for communication according to a Bluetooth standard as taught by Ma to allow for wireless transmission of signals over short distances with better security features (Ma Col. 1, lines 35-41).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Schönewerk, further in view of Mayer et al., US 20200289132, herein referred to as “Mayer”.
Regarding claim 10, Poland in view of Schönewerk discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a system characterized in that the medical technology device which is to be controlled is an HF generator, in particular for endoscopy, an ultrasonic generator and/or a laser system.
However, Mayer teaches a system (Figure 3) characterized in that the medical technology device which is to be controlled is an HF generator, in particular for endoscopy, an ultrasonic generator and/or a laser system ([0056]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by Poland so that the medical technology device which is to be controlled is an HF generator, in particular for endoscopy, an ultrasonic generator and/or a laser system as taught by Mayer so that the system is capable of cutting or punching bones (Mayer [Abstract]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 Nora W Rhodes whose telephone number is (571)272-8126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached on 3032974276. 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.
/NORA W RHODES/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794