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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the first argument, examiner points out that the claim language can be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to mean the midsection of the body. When people mention the stomach colloquially they usually mean the section of the torso below the ribcage. Examiner recommends amending the claim to include a more detailed description of the configuration of the device. Regarding the second argument, Examiner asserts that force read by measurer of pressure applied to stomach can be easily converted and/or equated to the pressure applied to the resection guide by the stomach (newton’s third law). Regarding the third argument, Examiner asserts that if the measurer can easily denote the pressure applied to the resection guide, therefore the monitor cited in the rejection would be able to show the pressure to the user. For compact prosecution purposes, it is noted that different embodiments (e.g. figures 8A-8B) of Thompson would potentially read on a narrower construction of “inside a stomach organ”, though this is not being relied upon in the current rejection. Hence, the Examiner suggests adding structural limitations to overcome the Thompson reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2016/0324527 hereinafter Thompson.
Regarding Claim 1: A sleeve gastrectomy assisting device (Thompson, Paragraph 126; Figures 2A & 2D)comprising:
a resection guide configured to be inserted into a stomach of a patient (Thompson Paragraphs 126; Figure 2D Item 40) and have a changeable form (Thompson, Paragraph 25);
a measurer configured to be installed at the resection guide and measure a pressure applied to the resection guide (Thompson, Paragraph 189 & 280; “one or more device[s] capable of measuring the clamping force”); and
a monitor configured to be connected to the measurer and provide at least one of a resection length information or a resection position information through a pressure value measured by the measurer (Thompson, Paragraph 280).
In regards to Claim 2: The sleeve gastrectomy assisting device of claim 1, wherein the measurer is provided as a plurality of measurers and disposed in a longitudinal direction of the resection guide (Thompson, Paragraph 189; “one or more device[s] capable of measuring the clamping force”), and each of the measurers independently measures the pressure applied to the resection guide (Thompson, Paragraph 189).
In regards to Claim 3: The sleeve gastrectomy assisting device of claim 2, wherein the measurer is made of a flexible material, and a shape of the measurer is changed according to a form of the resection guide (Thompson, Paragraph 189).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 4-5, & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/032427 hereinafter Thompson Embodiments shown in Fig. 10A-10C and Paragraph 187.
In regards to Claim 4: Thompson teaches all of Claim 1 & 2, and a display configured to display the information determined by the controller (Thompson, Paragraph 280). but does not teach a communication device connected to the measurer to receive the pressure value;
a controller configured to determine the at least one of the resection length information or the resection position information based on the pressure value transmitted to the communication device; and
a display configured to display the information determined by the controller.
The embodiment shown in Figures 10A-10C teaches a communication device connected to the measurer to receive the pressure value (Thompson, Paragraph 175);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the communication device taught in the Embodiment of Fig 10A-10C to the device of Thompson, the motivation being to transmit the data collected by the resection guide.
The embodiment of Paragraph 187 teaches a controller configured to determine the at least one of the resection length information or the resection position information based on the pressure value transmitted to the communication device (Thompson, Paragraph 187; “In this regard, the clamp member and instrument may be operatively coupled to a controller to provide the distance measurement.”); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add controller taught in the Embodiment of paragraph 187 to the resection guide of a modified Thompson, the motivation being to provide a device that can receive and analyze the data provide.
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Thompson teaches all of claim 4, but does not teach the sleeve gastrectomy assisting device of claim 4, wherein the resection position information is information on a distance from the resection guide to a resection tool (Thompson, Paragraph 187).
In regards to Claim 8: A modified Thompson teaches the sleeve gastrectomy assisting device of claim 4, wherein the resection length information is information on a length of the resection guide inserted into the stomach (Thompson, Paragraphs 26 & 187; Examiner interprets the two reference points to be at opposite ends of the expanding reference guide.).
Claim(s) 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0324527 hereinafter Thompson in view of Embodiments of Thompson in view of US 8,992,561 hereinafter Brister.
In regards to Claim 6: A modified Thompson teaches all of claim 5 and the controller (Thompson, Paragraph 187), but does not teach determining the resection position sections according to a size of the pressure value measured by the measurer.
Brister teaches determining the resection position sections according to a size of the pressure value measured by the measurer (Brister, Column 18 lines 49- 67, Column 19 Lines 1 -4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add determination of the resection position taught in Brister to the resection line guide taught in Thompson, the motivation being to provide an indication the degree of inflation of the volume occupying subcomponent.
In regards to Claim 7: A modified Thompson teaches all of claim 6, and wherein the resection position sections include:
an approach-necessary section indicating a case in which the size of the pressure measured by the measurer is lower than or equal to a first set pressure (Brister, Column 28 Lines 35- 61);
a separation-necessary section indicating a case in which the size of the pressure measured by the measurer is higher than or equal to a second set pressure (Brister, Column 28 Lines 35- 61); and
a resection-possible section indicating that the size of the pressure measured by the measurer is between the first set pressure and the second set pressure (Brister, Column 28 Lines 35- 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the different pressure zones taught in Brister to the resection guide of a modified Thompson, the motivation being to provide an indication of what the state of the procedure is.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0324527 hereinafter Thompson in view of Embodiments of Thompson in view of 2012/0232361 hereinafter Birk.
In regards to Claim 9: A modified Thompson teaches all of claims 1, 4, & 8, but does not teach wherein the controller calculates a number of measurers measuring an initial pressure inside the stomach.
Birk teaches wherein the controller calculates a number of measurers measuring an initial pressure inside the stomach (Birk, Paragraph 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the controller calculations taught in Birk to resection guide taught in a modified Thompson, the motivation being to provide an accurate map of where pressure is being applied across the stomach.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0324527 hereinafter Thompson in view of US 8,992,561 hereinafter Brister in further view of 2012/0232361 hereinafter Birk.
In regards to Claim 10: A modified Thompson teaches all of claim 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6, but does not teach wherein the display displays different colors according to the resection position sections.
Birk teaches all of claim wherein the display displays different colors according to the resection position sections (Birk, Paragraph 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the color display of Birk to the resection guide taught in a modified Thompson, the motivation being to provide improved visualization of the pressure profile.
Conclusion
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 NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
