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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-38 are cancelled. Claims 39-50 are new. Claims 39-50 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12, 15-20, 22-23, 33-34 and 38 have been considered but are moot because claims 12, 15-20, 22-23, 33-34 and 38 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 47, ln. 1-2 should read ---engagement of the [[modular]] module dock with the control console and releasable engagement of the [[modular]] module dock with---
Appropriate correction is required.
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 41-44 are 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 41 recites “a communication receiver” in ln. 2. It is unclear whether the communication receiver of claim 41 is the same communication receiver recited in claim 39 from which claim 41 depends.
Claims 42-44 are rejected due to dependency on claim 41.
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.
Claim(s) 39-41, 45, 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Links (Pub. No.: US 2010/0249693 A1) in view of Robinson et al. (Pub. No.: 2017/0368238 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Links discloses (fig. 1-3) a surgical system (10), comprising:
A surgical instrument (handpiece 110) operably coupled to outflow tubing (120) configured to receive fluid, tissue, and debris (¶ 0029);
A valve and collection module (cassette 250) configured to releasably mount to a control console (115) via a module dock (cassette receptacle 100) (fig. 3, ¶ 0048), the valve and collection module operably associated with the surgical instrument (¶ 0029) and the valve and collection module including a controllable valve (valve 58, ¶ 0047) and a collection reservoir (reservoir 204, ¶ 0027);
A valve interface (actuator 58b) operably coupled to the controllable valve and configured to operably couple to the module dock mounted on the control console (¶ 0047, fig. 2B);
An inflow port operably associated with the valve and collection module and configured to receive the outflow tubing (¶ 0029, fig. 1); and
A communication device operably associated with the valve and collection module, the communication device configured to store information regarding the surgical instrument (¶ 0032), wherein, when the valve and collection module is engaged with the module dock, the communication device communicates information to the control console via a communication receiver (¶ 0046).
Links fails to disclose a one-way valve disposed between the inflow port and the collection reservoir, the one-way valve configured to control passage of fluid, tissue and debris therethrough and into the collection reservoir.
Robinson teaches (fig. 2) a surgical system (drain system 10, abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising outflow tubing (collection tube 100) and a collection reservoir (102), and a one-way valve disposed between the outflow tubing and the collection reservoir (¶ 0032) in order to prevent reflux of fluid in the collection reservoir (¶ 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve and collection module of Links, such that it includes a one-way valve disposed between the outflow tubing and the collection reservoir, as taught by Robinson, in order to prevent reflux of fluid in the collection reservoir (Robinson ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 40, Links discloses wherein the surgical instrument includes an end effector assembly (insertable probe tip, ¶ 0029) and a handpiece (110), and wherein an outflow fluid path of the surgical instrument to the outflow tubing extends through the end effector assembly and the handpiece (¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 41, Links discloses wherein the communication device stores information via a communication receiver and communicates the information to the control console (¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 45, Links discloses wherein the valve and collection module further includes a vacuum port configured to couple to a vacuums source (vacuum pump arrangement 207 including pump 208, ¶ 0041) of the control console (fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 47, Links discloses wherein releasable engagement of the module dock with the control console and releasable engagement of the module dock with the valve and collection module is configured to fully support the valve and collection module on the control console and maintain the valve and collection module in engagement therewith ¶ 0048-¶ 0049)
Regarding claim 48, Links discloses wherein the valve and collection module is configured to releasably engage the module dock in a friction-fit or mechanically latching manner (C-channels 86 of control console receive flanges 88 of valve and collection module, ¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 49, Links discloses wherein the outflow tubing coupled between the surgical instrument and the collection reservoir of the collection module defines an outflow fluid path from the surgical instrument to the collection reservoir (fig. 2), and wherein the valve interface is configured to electrically or mechanically control the controllable valve to selectively control the fluid flow along the outflow fluid path (¶ 0047).
Claim(s) 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Links in view of Robinson, as applied to claim 41, and further in view of Adams et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0177929 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Links in view of Robinson fail to disclose wherein the communication receiver is an RFID reader operably associated with the module dock.
Adams teaches (fig. 2A) a surgical system (abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a communication receiver that is an RFID reader (¶ 0060), wherein such connection is suitable for sending and receiving data (¶ 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication receiver of Links in view of Robinson such that it is an RFID reader, as taught by Adams, operably associated with the module dock, as such connection is suitable for sending and receiving data (Adams ¶ 0060).
Regarding claim 43, Links discloses wherein the information communicated to the control console from the communication receiver controls a motor which drives the end effector assembly of the surgical instrument (¶ 0047).
Regarding claim 44, Links discloses wherein the information communicated to the control console from the communication receiver which controls the motor includes at least one of operational settings, operational parameters or configuration settings (¶ 0032, ¶ 0047).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Links in view of Robinson, as applied to claim 39, and further in view of Tout et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0030166 A1)
Regarding claim 46, Links in view of Robinson fail to disclose wherein the valve and collection module further includes a barrier disposed between the vacuum port and the collection reservoir.
Tout teaches (fig. 1) a system (100) comprising a vacuum port (reduced-pressure port 154) and a collection reservoir (fluid collection member 126) and thus in the same field of endeavor, wherein a barrier is disposed between the vacuum port and the collection reservoir (¶ 0028) in order to prevent liquids from entering the vacuum source (¶ 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve and collection module of Links in view of Robinson such that it includes a barrier disposed between the vacuum port and the collection reservoir, as taught by Tout, in order to prevent liquids from entering the vacuum source (Tout ¶ 0028).
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Links in view of Robinson, as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Hamer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011/0065997 A1).
Regarding claim 50, Links discloses wherein the surgical instrument includes an end effector assembly (insertable probe tip, ¶ 0029) and a handpiece (1120), and wherein an outflow fluid path of the surgical instrument to the outflow tubing extends through the end effector assembly (¶ 0045).
Links in view of Robinson fail to disclose wherein the outflow path of the surgical instrument to the outflow tubing is isolated from the handpiece.
Hamer teaches (fig. 1-4) a surgical instrument (¶ 0001) and thus in the same field of endeavor, the surgical instrument including an end effector assembly (surgical instrument 300) and a handpiece (100), and wherein an outflow fluid path of the surgical instrument to the outflow tubing (suction/aspiration passageway 230) extends through the end effector assembly and is isolated from the handpiece (fig. 1-4, ¶ 0023) in order to allow the handpiece to be cleaned and sterilized for reuse (¶ 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handpiece of Links in view of Robinson such that the outflow path of the surgical instrument to the outflow tubing is isolated from the handpiece, as taught by Hamer, in order to allow the handpiece to be cleaned and sterilized for reuse (Hamer ¶ 0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bandhauer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0114301 A1) discloses a valve and collection module. Baxter et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0189231 A1) discloses a valve and collection module and a module dock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights