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 § 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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the controller that is configured to load the medical procedure allowed by the another first portion.” This language is not understood. It will be assumed that this is an algorithm which aids in the use of each individual end effectors use.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swensgard et al. US 2018/0368849.
Regarding claim 1: Swensgard discloses a device 10 (figure 1) which includes a first portion 210 (“instrument”, figure 7) which includes a battery 215 (figure 7) and two proximity sensors 200 (figure 7) disposed at a terminal end (this is the end at which the first and second portions connect) and a second portion 216 (“shaft assembly”, figure 8) which includes proximity targets 202 (figure 8); and a controller 117 (figure 5) which is configured to determine a procedure type to enable the first portion/ instrument and the second portion / shaft assembly are connected. Swensgard further discloses that the control circuit 117 can be configured to detect any kind of shaft assembly (paragraph 0060). In this design by Swensgard the instrument 210 includes hall effect sensors 200 and the shaft assembly 216 includes the proximity targets which are magnets. The hall effect sensors sense the proximity of the magnetic field produced by the magnets in order to determine if the two components are operably engaged (paragraphs 0074-0075). The claim language specifies that the magnets are on the first portion and the hall effect sensors are on the second portions. This would be a simple rearrangement of parts to include the hall effect sensors on the first portion and the magnets on the second portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swensgard to include the hall effect sensors within the instrument 210 frame 228 (figure 7) and the magnets within the shaft assembly, in order to determine that the two components are operably engaged (paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 2: Swensgard discloses two magnets and two hall effect sensors (figures 7-8, paragraphs 0074-75).
Regarding claim 3: Swensgard discloses that the proximity sensor and proximity target 200/202 (figures 7-8) detect when the shaft assembly and the handle are operably attached which would include when they have been removed and a new shaft assembly has been attached (paragraphs 0074-75 also 0078). Swensgard also disclose that the controller can detect different shaft assemblies (paragraph 0060). The shaft assemblies are shown in figure 6 and are considered to allow for different medical procedures.
Regarding claim 4: Swensgard discloses that the controller can detect the type of shaft assembly attached to the instrument 100 (figure 7), and the controller will then select a specific algorithm for that particular shaft assembly (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 5: Swensgard discloses a display (paragraph 0058) which displays various information about the operational state of the device and end effector (paragraph 0058), paragraph 0058 further discloses that the display can “other kinds of information” and the operational state of the end effector, this would indicate that the display is operational to show which end effector is in use and therefore the procedure.
Regarding claim 6: Swensgard discloses a graphical user interface (paragraph 0058), it is established in the art that a GUI includes icons, cursors and buttons i. In a GUI the user can touch the screen to initiate an action.
Regarding claim 8: Swensgard discloses a male adapter 280 (figure 8) extending from the second portion 216 (figure 8), the adapter 280 includes a tapered attachment portion 274 (figure 8) which is considered to be a groove.
Regarding claims 11-12: Swensgard discloses a device 10 (figure 1) which includes a first portion 210 (“instrument”, figure 7) with two proximity sensors 200 (figure 7) disposed at a terminal end (this is the end at which the first and second portions connect) and a second portion 216 (“shaft assembly”, figure 8) which includes proximity targets 202 (figure 8); and a controller 117 (figure 5) which is configured to determine a procedure type to enable the first portion/ instrument and the second portion / shaft assembly are connected. Swensgard further discloses that the control circuit 117 can be configured to detect any kind of shaft assembly (paragraph 0060). In this design by Swensgard the instrument 210 includes hall effect sensors 200 and the shaft assembly 216 includes the proximity targets which are magnets. The hall effect sensors sense the proximity of the magnetic field produced by the magnets in order to determine if the two components are operably engaged (paragraphs 0074-0075). The claim language specifies that the magnets are on the first portion and the hall effect sensors are on the second portions. This would be a simple rearrangement of parts to include the hall effect sensors on the first portion and the magnets on the second portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swensgard to include the hall effect sensors within the instrument 210 frame 228 (figure 7) and the magnets within the shaft assembly, in order to determine that the two components are operably engaged (paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 13: Swensgard discloses a display (paragraph 0058) which displays various information about the operational state of the device and end effector (paragraph 0058), paragraph 0058 further discloses that the display can “other kinds of information” and the operational state of the end effector, this would indicate that the display is operational to show which end effector is in use and therefore the procedure.
Regarding claim 14: Swensgard discloses a graphical user interface (paragraph 0058), it is established in the art that a GUI includes icons, cursors and buttons ii. In a GUI the user can touch the screen to initiate an action.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swensgard et al. US 2018/0368849 and further in view of Liu US 2022/0354596.
Regarding claims 7 and 15: Swensgard discloses the claimed invention however Swensgard does not disclose haptic vibration to confirm selection. Liu however teaches of a system which uses a haptic device generating vibration to confirm operator input via a touch surface (paragraph 0150). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swensgard to include a haptic device which provides vibrational feedback to a suer to confirm touch screen selections, as taught by Liu, in order to insure the user is aware the selection was received.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swensgard et al. US 2018/0368849 and further in view of Houser et al. US 2012/0116363.
Regarding claims 9-10: Swensgard discloses that the male adapter 280 (figure 8) is configured to be inserted in to the terminal end of the first portion (shaft attachment 280 in figure 8 is seated into the shaft attachment cradle 284 in figure 7). However Swensgard does not specifically disclose a spring that sits in a groove of the male adapter when seated together. Houser however teaches of a surgical instrument (figure 10) which includes a spring-loaded lock assembly 472 (figure 10) which includes a biasing spring 476 (figure 10) and a groove 474 (figure 10) in which the biasing spring is seated. When the transmission assembly 450 (figures 9 and 10) enters aperture 452 (figure 9) the transmission assembly then pushes protrusion 474 against the spring 476 thus moving the spring in order to lock the transmission assembly into place (paragraph 0075). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swensgard to include a spring-loaded lock assembly which includes a biasing spring and groove, as taught by Houser, in order to lock the assembly into place.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swensgard et al. US 2018/0368849 and further in view of Liu US 2022/0354596 and further in view of Houser et al. US 2012/0116363.
Regarding claims 16-17: Swensgard/Liu discloses that the male adapter 280 (figure 8) is configured to be inserted in to the terminal end of the first portion (shaft attachment 280 in figure 8 is seated into the shaft attachment cradle 284 in figure 7). However Swensgard/Liu does not specifically disclose a spring that sits in a groove of the male adapter when seated together. Houser however teaches of a surgical instrument (figure 10) which includes a spring-loaded lock assembly 472 (figure 10) which includes a biasing spring 476 (figure 10) and a groove 474 (figure 10) in which the biasing spring is seated. When the transmission assembly 450 (figures 9 and 10) enters aperture 452 (figure 9) the transmission assembly then pushes protrusion 474 against the spring 476 thus moving the spring in order to lock the transmission assembly into place (paragraph 0075). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swensgard/Liu to include a spring-loaded lock assembly which includes a biasing spring and groove, as taught by Houser, in order to lock the assembly into place.
Regarding claims 18-19: Swensgard/Liu discloses the claimed invention Swensgard further discloses that the control circuit detects the type of shaft assembly and runs an algorithm specific to the shaft assembly (paragraph 0060), this can include laser treatment (paragraphs 0001, 0030), this would include the detachment and attachment of various assemblies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST.
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, Carl H Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
PAULA J. STICE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
i https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/g/gui.htm
ii https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/g/gui.htm