DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Acknowledgment
A remark was filed on 6/24/2026 without any amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18-20, 22, 25 and 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Julian et al. (US. 20020042620A1) in view of Millman et al. (US. 20070005002A1) (“Millman”) and further in view of Schena (US. 20070287884A1).
Re claim 18, Julian discloses a method of moving fluids into and out of a surgical field of a patient (¶0117, Figs. 20-21), the method comprising: inserting a flexible probe of a surgical device (150, ¶0117) through a surgical port (152) into the surgical field of the patient (the tube is inserted within the cavity 77.2 of the patient, ¶0117), the flexible probe including a distal probe tip (154); and robotically grasping the distal probe tip with robotic graspers (110) within the surgical field of the patient (using a robotic accessary grasping tool 110, ¶0010, ¶0104); and robotically moving the distal probe tip with robotic graspers in three dimensions within the surgical filed (¶0116, moving the 150 by 110 to the desired location in the patient’s body), a console surgeon is in charge of manipulating the distal probe tip within the surgical field to position or reposition the distal probe tip at a desired location for the irrigation and/or suction (¶0010, ¶0104), and further it discloses that the probe is vacuum source irrigation source (¶0117), but it fails to disclose wherein a user in a room is in charge of controlling a valvular unit of the surgical device to activate or deactivate the valvular unit for the irrigation and/ or suction while concurrently the console surgeon is manipulating the distal probe tip within the surgical field.
However, Millman discloses a method for moving fluids into and out of a surgical field (Fig. 1-14, ¶0065, Fig.5a, ), the method comprising: a probe (¶0004, 404. Fig. 1-14, ¶0215) and a valvular unit (417 in Fig. 4a or in Fig. 14, includes two sections of compliant tubing 106a-b, valves 1304a-b, Y connector 1206, ¶0123, ¶0215), and wherein a user (a nurse or an assistant surgeon “a” in Fig. 1, ¶0123, ¶0227) in a room directly controls a valvular unit (includes two sections of compliant tubing 106a-b, valves 1304a-b, Y connector 1206, ¶0123, ¶0215, ¶0227) while a console surgeon manipulates the position of the distal probe tip within the surgical field (surgeon o in Fig. 1, ¶0055, ¶0123, ¶0227, in ¶0123 the operator can position the arm that carry 400 and the assistant can manually operate the valve or the operator can give verbal instructions to the assistant to control the irrigation/suction last 2 lines of ¶00123 ).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify method of Julian to include a valvular unit so that the probe is used for irrigation and/or suction and a user in the room is in charge of a valvular unit of the surgical device to activate or deactivate the valvular unit for the irrigation and/ or suction as taught by Millman for the purpose of controlling the irrigation and suction system with automatic or manually operation and allowing surgeon focus on tele-operated the surgical filed (Millman,¶0123, ¶0227).
The modified of Julian fails to disclose that the user is in charge of controlling the valvular unit while concurrently the console surgeon is manipulating the distal probe tip within the surgical field.
However, Schena discloses robotic arm for a surgical device (Fig 1-10) and wherein the user (assistant, ¶0045, ¶0024) is in charge of controlling the valvular unit of the surgical device to activate or deactivate the valvular unit for the irrigation and/ or suction (suction, ¶0045) while concurrently the console surgeon is manipulating the distal probe tip within the surgical field (340, ¶0045).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify method of Julian so that the user in the room is in charge of the valvular unit of the surgical device to activate or deactivate the valvular unit for the irrigation and/ or suction while concurrently the console surgeon is manipulating the distal probe tip within the surgical field as taught by Schena for the purpose of using a help from an assistant for turning the valve as preferred (Schena,¶0045).
Re claim 19, Julian discloses wherein a flow of fluid into or out of the surgical field is a flow of fluid into the surgical field via the flexible probe (¶0117).
Re claim 20, Julian discloses wherein the flexible probe is used to aspirate and/or suction fluids out of the surgical field (¶0117).
Re claim 22, Julian fails to disclose wherein the valvular unit comprises a pinch valve.
However, Millman discloses a method for moving fluids into and out of a surgical field (Fig. 1-2B, ¶0065, Fig. 5a, Fig. 14), and wherein a valvular unit (includes two sections of compliant tubing 106a-b, valves 1304a-b, Y connector 1206, ¶0123, ¶0215, ¶0227) comprises a pinch valve (1304a, Fig. 1, ¶0206).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified method of Julian to include a valvular unit so that the valvular unit comprises a pinch valve as taught by Millman for the purpose of controlling the irrigation and suction system with automatic or manually operation and allowing surgeon focus on tele-operated the surgical filed (Millman, ¶0123, ¶0227).
Re claim 25, Julian fails to disclose wherein two sections of compliant tubing are in fluid communication with the flexible probe via a Y connector.
However, Millman discloses a method for moving fluids into and out of a surgical field (Fig. 1-2B, ¶0065, Fig. 5a), and wherein two sections of compliant tubing are in fluid communication with the flexible probe via a Y connector (includes two sections of compliant tubing 106a-b, valves 1304a-b, Y connector 1206, ¶0215, ¶0227) comprises a pinch valve (1304a, Fig. 1, ¶0206).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify method of Julian to include a valvular unit so that two sections of compliant tubing are in fluid communication with the flexible probe via a Y connector as taught by Millman for the purpose of controlling the irrigation and suction system with automatic or manually operation and allowing surgeon focus on tele-operated the surgical filed (Millman, ¶0123, ¶0227).
Re claim 30, Julian in view of Millman discloses wherein irrigation and suction are provided via a single lumen in the flexible probe (Millman, lumen of 404, ¶0198).
Claim 26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Julian in view of Millman and Schena and further in view of Dumot et al. (US. 20090157002A1) (“Dumot”).
Re claim 26, Julian in view of Millman fails to disclose wherein the user in the room controls the valvular unit via a foot pedal.
However, Dumot discloses a method for moving fluids into and out of a surgical field (Fig. 1), and a valvular unit (102, 77, 78) ids controlled via a foot pedal (110, ¶0031).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify method of Julian to include a foot pedal so that the user in the room controls the valvular unit via a foot pedal as taught by Dumot for the purpose of controlling the irrigation and suction system locally as recognized of the valve control and permit of hand free (Dumot, ¶0031).
Claim 27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Julian in view of Millman and Schena and further in view of Davison (US. 4735606).
Re claim 27, Julian in view of Millman discloses lifting the tubing section out of the pinch valve (Millman, 106a may be removed and cleaned or replaced,¶0216), but it fails to disclose mechanically dissolving a clot in a tubing section by lifting the tubing section out of the pinch valve and applying manual pressure to an outer tubing surface of the tubing section.
However, Davison discloses a method for moving fluids into and out of a surgical field (Fig. 1), and mechanically dissolving a clot in a tubing section by lifting the tubing section out of the pinch valve and applying manual pressure to an outer tubing surface of the tubing section (Fig. 1, any suction tubing with clot, Col. 1, lines 50-54 or through a vent see Col. 9, lines 11-25).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify method of Julian to mechanically dissolving a clot in a tubing section by lifting the tubing section out of the pinch valve and applying manual pressure to an outer tubing surface of the tubing section as taught by Davison for the purpose of removing the clot within the tube section as using a commonly practice for clotted tube (Davison, Col. 1, lines 50-54).
Claim 28 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Julian in view of Millman and Schena further in view of Bales et al. (US. 5350356) (“Bales”).
Re claim 28, Julian in view of Millman wherein the valvular unit comprises two valves (Millman, Fig. 14, 1304a-b), the two valves comprising an irrigation valve and a suction valve (Millman, 10304a-b, and one on the irrigation tube and the other on the suction tube ¶0055, ¶0059), but it fails to disclose the method further comprising purging a tubing limb by opening the irrigation valve and the suction valve simultaneously.
However, Bales discloses the method (Fig.1b) comprising purging a tubing limb by opening the irrigation valve (126) and the suction valve (124) simultaneously (Col. 9, lines 24-40).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify method of Julian so that the method further comprising purging a tubing limb by opening the irrigation valve and the suction valve simultaneously as taught by Bales for the purpose of cleaning out the tubing simultaneously (Bales, Col. 9, lines 24-40).
Claim 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Julian in view of Millman and Schena and further in view of Brucker et al. (US. 5643197) (“Brucker”).
Re claim 31, Julian in view of Millman fails to disclose wherein the distal probe tip is a porous surgical mat.
However, Brucker et al. teaches a distal branch (22, Fig. 9) having a distal tip (26, Fig. 9) wherein said distal tip (26) comprises a porous surgical mat (50/58/60, Fig. 9).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify method of Julian to include the distal probe tip is a porous surgical mat as taught by Brucker for the purpose of distributing the fluids evenly that exit from the distal tip (Brucker, Col. 6, lines 65-67 and Col. 7, lines 1-2).
Claim 32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Julian in view of Millman and Schena and further in view of Felix et al. (US. 5,792,098) (“Felix”).
Re claim 32, Julian, in view of Millman fails to disclose wherein the probe tip includes suction relief holes.
However, Felix et al. teaches a probe tip (32, Fig. 2) having suction relief holes (62, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device taught by Julian to include the suction relief holes to the distal tip as taught by Felix for the purpose of preventing trauma to an irrigation surface if the open end of the tip suction lumen becomes occluded (Felix, Col. 4, lines 27-34).
Claim 33 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Julian in view of Millman and Schena and further in view of Vaillancourt (US. 4867743).
Re claim 33, Julian in view of Millman fails to disclose wherein irrigation fluid is pressurized by an inflatable pressure cuff.
However, Vaillancourt teaches wherein irrigation fluid (fluid in 98, Fig. 7) is pressurized by an inflatable pressure cuff (100, Col. 9, lines 59-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device taught by Julian to include a cuff so that irrigation fluid is pressurized by an inflatable pressure cuff.as taught by Vaillancourt for the purpose of using an art recognized container for supplying a fluid to a patient (Vaillancourt, Col. 8, lines 59-61) and the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same results of irrigation source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remark, filed 6/24/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 103 using Julian in view of Millman and further in view of Schena have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Schena fails to disclose that “a user is in charge of controlling he valvular unit while….in the surgical field”. This is found not persuasive as in ¶0045, ¶0024, the assistant can be involved in the valve and suction while the doctor is in charge in manipulating the probe.
The applicant argues that Schena fails to disclose “a console surgeon is in charge of manipulating … the distal probe tip”. This is found not persuasive as Julian discloses such limitation see (¶0010, ¶0104) of Julian.
The applicant argues that if the distal probe end is embedded in the suction surface, then the robotic grasper cannot move in three dimensions. This is found not persuasive as the Julian discloses the structural element of the current device and only the operation of the valvular (Schena) and/ the manipulating the distal probe tip (Millman) are modified as claimed. Also, a person with ordinary skill in the art would modify the manual operation of the valvular unit and probe positioning as used to be in 1900s with ones of robotically controlling the position of the distal probe tip and the nurse is in charge of turning on/off of the valve of suction/ irrigation.
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 HAMZA A. DARB whose telephone number is (571)270-1202. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F (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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
/HAMZA A DARB/Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights