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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Priority to the international application DE 10 2022117 992.3 has been acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 1,
The claim recites a generic placeholder of a “drive unit for axial displacement of a piston rod”, emphasis added to highlight the claim limitation in question, but does not recite sufficient structure for performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the “drive unit”
From applicant’s disclosure:
“ When the syringe pump is started up, the drive unit moves onto the piston rod.”
“The control device and/or regulation device is used to meter the liquid pumped from the syringe cylinder via the syringe pump. For this purpose, the control device and/or regulation device is preferably also connected to the drive unit in terms of control technology. A drive signal can be transmitted to the drive unit and a brake signal to the brake actuator via the control device and/or regulation device.”
“a drive unit 4 for axial displacement of a piston rod 3.2 of the syringe 3,”
Applicant’s fig 1+3 illustrate the drive unit 4 as a physical structure which mates with a part of piston rod.
Accordingly, the claimed “drive unit” will be interpreted as covering the corresponding structure of being a physical structure which mates with a part of the piston rod.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5
The claim recites claim language of: “wherein a size of the syringe is determinable by a pressure transmitted from the brake element to the piezo element, by a pressure measurement signal transmitted from the piezo element to the control device and/or regulation device, and by software executable via the control device and/or regulation device.” Which examiner notes appears to be supported by page 3 line 16-19 and page 6 line 25 to page 7 line 5, which recite the language of the claim and the following, respectively:
“A size of the syringe 3 can be determined with the aid of the pressure transmitted from the brake element 6 to the piezo element 7, the resulting pressure measurement signal transmitted from the piezo element 7 to the control device and/or regulation device 9, and via software executable via the control device and/or regulation device 9. In particular, a diameter of the syringe cylinder 3.1 can be determined. Preferably, a table is available in the control device and/or regulation device 9 for determining the size of the syringe 3, in which different pressure measurement values are assigned to different syringe sizes. Such a table is determined, for example, before the syringe pump 1 is used via this or an identically constructed syringe pump and corresponding syringes 3 and stored in the control device and/or regulation device 9. Alternatively, a corresponding functional, modeled dependence of syringe size on pressure measurement signal could also be stored in the control device and/or regulation device 9.”, emphasis added.
Applicant’s claim recites functional language wherein a size of a syringe may be determined from a pressure transmitted from one element to a second element, a signal transmitted from that second element to a control element, and software executed by the control element. However, applicant’s written description does not detail the source of the pressure from which this determination may be made, for instance this may be a pressure/force of the brake element mating with the piston, a contract/expansion pressure of the piezo element as it initiates/releases braking, pressure feedback from fluid within the syringe or from resisting flow through its nozzle, a specific material compression profile of a number of elements (e.g. piston rod, braking element, piezo element, etc.), a change from atmospheric pressure on the brake element to contact pressure, or a number of other possible sources of pressure. Further, due to the lack of antecedent basis in applicant’s written disclosure regarding “the pressure measurement signal” and as well as not explicitly reciting the signals providence, it is unclear what element(s) performs the measuring function as a “piezo element” nor “brake element” ,inherently make a measurement of pressure in terms of degree (i.e. distinguishing 100N vs 400N, measuring 19.5 atm, calculating a range of 30-40 mmHg, etc.) and the disclosure does not state the manner by which this specific signal is transmitted the piezo element to the control device, whether it be electronically, fluidically, wired/wirelessly, through mechanical interaction, or a number of different mechanisms for conveying information/signals. The disclosure does recite that some software is relied upon for making this determination, possibly relying on a table or model stored in the control device which relates the pressure measurement signal value to a syringe size, however the written description does not provide sufficient detail as to how this signal, and its numerous possible sources and scope, may be considered by such a software to determine a syringe size other than a relationship between the value of the signal and syringe size. As this signal has only been described in limited detail, it may be any number of values based on the pressure source above and further including signals indicative of an impact of pressure/force, such as a displacement distance of the piezo element/brake element, a magnitude of signal required to fully engage the brake element against the piston rod, a contact reaction force of the brake element transmitted through piezo element, and more.
Accordingly, applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not provide adequate written description of the manner by which it determines a size of syringe based on a pressure to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to make use of the invention without undue experimentation such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
For examination purposes, the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim terms “pressure transmitted from the brake element to piezo element” and “pressure measurement signal” may be construed as a number of types of signals (e.g. electrical, optical, magnetic, fluidic, mechanical, etc.) which are indicative of, therein measured, some pressure being conferred between elements (e.g. atmospheric pressure on the brake element, contact pressure of the brake element mating with the piston rod, force to contract/expand a piezo element, etc.).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030149402 A1, henceforth written as Gerlach, in view of US 20230398308 A1, henceforth written as Ali.
Regarding Claim 1,
Gerlach discloses:
A syringe pump comprising:
(syringe pump (not enumerated) of the invention illustrated in fig 1-8)
a syringe holder for holding
(paragraph 30+35; syringe bearing 15 and syringe holding head 25 are considered the claimed syringe holder)
a syringe cylinder of an inserted syringe;
(syringe cylinder 11 of syringe 10; fig 1)
a drive unit for axial displacement of a piston rod of the syringe;
(paragraph 28+34+37; drive head 16 engages piston plate 14 to discharge the contents of syringe 10; fig 1)
and a brake element,
(brake element 33; fig 1)
the brake element being moveable transversely to a longitudinal direction of the syringe via a brake actuator from a release position into a brake position and back,
(paragraph 32; brake element 33 moves perpendicular relative to the discharge axis of syringe 10 as acted upon by a linear drive 23, the claimed brake actuator, comprising a motor 20 which rotates a gear wheel 21 to bias threads on rod 22, which carries brake element 33, through a tube 24 to bias brake element 33 toward piston rod 12; fig 1-4)
the brake element contacting the piston rod in the brake position, and
(fig 3-4 demonstrate the brake position of brake element 33 contacting piston rod 12)
Gerlach discloses the elements of the present claim, as described above. Yet, its present embodiment is silent on:
the brake actuator comprising a piezo element for moving the brake element
However Ali teaches a medicament delivery device with piezoelectric actuating means comprising:
[A plunger rod clamping] actuator which comprises a piezo element for moving the [clamping] element [to clamp a plunger rod]
(paragraph 22-25; piezo stack actuator 20 is expanded/contracted at the instruction of an electric controller 18 such that clamp 12 retains plunger 14 in a fixed position relative to clamp 12, as caused by the action of arms 22 being biased linearly to open/close jaw 24 around plunger 12 and retain its position; fig 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the screw driven linear actuator disclosed by Gerlach with the piezoelectric linear actuator taught by Ali, such that Ali’s electronic controller 18 sends control signals to Ali’s actuator 20 -replacing Gerlach’s motor 20 and gear wheel 22, and therein being disposed partially on Gerlach’s slide 19- to linearly expand/contract to consequently linearly translate Gerlach’s rod 22 to apply/release a clamping/braking pressure applied to Gerlach’s piston rod 12 by Gerlach’s brake element 33, in order to advantageously arrive at an invention which relies upon by an art recognized equivalent linear actuator, see paragraph 31 of Ali, for providing a clamping/braking pressure on a circumferential surface of a plunger rod which utilizes a type of linear actuator with a high degree of accurate control over its actuation, see paragraph 28+39 of Ali and MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Gerlach in view of Ali discloses:
The syringe pump according to claim 1, wherein the brake element comprises a knife or a pin for axial locking of the piston rod in the brake position of the brake element.
Gerlach: (paragraph 32; brake element 33 having a cutting edge for engaging piston rod 12 to prohibit its displacement relative to cylinder 11; fig 1-4)
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Gerlach in view of Ali teaches:
The syringe pump according to claim 1, wherein the piezo element is connected to a control device and/or regulation device.
Ali: (piezo stack actuator 20 receives expansion/contraction instructions from electric controller 18; fig 1)
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Gerlach in view of Ali discloses:
The syringe pump according to claim 1, wherein: the syringe cylinder is supportable on one side over a circumferential region of less than 180° of the syringe cylinder in a radial direction via the syringe holder,
Gerlach: (fig 3 illustrates that syringe cylinder 11 is supported on one side, over a region less than 180deg, by syringe bearing 15, and fig 4 illustrates that syringe cylinder 11 is supported on one side, over a region less than 180deg, by syringe holding head 25)
the syringe holder is arranged on a first side of the syringe cylinder,
Gerlach: (when viewing the invention from the perspective illustrated in fig 4, the syringe bearing 15, an element of the claimed syringe holder, is arranged on a right side of syringe cylinder 11)
the brake element is arranged on a second side of the syringe cylinder opposite the first side,
Gerlach: (when viewing the invention from the perspective illustrated in fig 4, the brake element 33 is on a left side of syringe cylinder 11)
and a brake piston rod connects the syringe holder and the brake element to one another.
Gerlach: (paragraph 30-32; spindle rod 22 carries brake element 33 and spindle rod 22 is carried within tube 24, which fastens holding head 25 and bearing 15 together, and thus indirectly connects brake element 33 and the claimed syringe holder; fig 1+3)
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Gerlach in view of Ali discloses:
The syringe pump according to claim 6, wherein the brake actuator is arranged on the second side of the syringe cylinder.
Gerlach: (when viewing the invention from the perspective illustrated in fig 4, the rod 22, a component of the claimed brake actuator, extends such that its leftward most end is disposed, therein arranged, on the left side of syringe cylinder 11)
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Gerlach in view of Ali teaches:
The syringe pump according to claim 6, wherein the brake actuator is arranged on the first side of the syringe cylinder, and
Examiner notes in light of the modification of Gerlach in view of Ali, made in claim 1 above, the piezo stack actuator 20 of Ali would be disposed in the position of Gerlach's gear wheel 21 and motor 20, and therein would be disposed on the right side of the invention when view the invention from the perspective illustrated in Gerlach's fig 4)
the brake piston rod is movable transversely to the longitudinal direction of the syringe via the brake actuator in order to move the brake element from the release position to the brake position and back.
Examiner notes in light of the modification of Gerlach in view of Ali, made in claim 1 above, Ali's piezo stack actuator 20 expands/contracts to linearly translate Gerlach's rod 22 to bias Gerlach's brake element 33 between a release and brake position, such positions illustrate by fig 1-4 of Gerlach.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach in view of Ali as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6023980 A, henceforth written as Owen.
Regarding Claim 2,
The modified invention of Gerlach in view of Ali discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The syringe pump according to claim 1, wherein the piezo element comprises a stack of piezo plates electrically connected.
Ali: (piezo stack actuator 20; fig 1)
However, Gerlach in view of Ali is silent regarding:
a stack of piezo plates electrically connected in parallel.
However, Owen teaches a piezoelectric actuator comprising:
a stack of piezo plates electrically connected in parallel.
(page 6 line 39-47; piezo electric actuator 16 is arranged into discs which are electrically connected in parallel to provide a low-voltage mechanical series displacement; fig 1)
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Owen’s teachings of parallelly connected piezo electric plates to the stack of piezo plates of Gerlach in view of Ali in order to advantageously arrive at an invention which can elicit mechanical displacement of a piezo electric actuator at lower voltages, see page 6 line 39-47 of Owen, and therein reduces risks associated with overloading electrical components that may be damaged or excessively fatigued by regular/incidental exposure to high voltages.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach in view of Ali as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210045950 A1, henceforth written as Connell.
Regarding Claim 5,
Gerlach in view of Ali discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The syringe pump according to claim 4, wherein a size of the syringe is determinable by a pressure transmitted from the brake element to the piezo element,
Examiner notes that the above claim language is being interpreted such that the size of the syringe is /can be determined by an action of the brake element applying a pressure/force/load against the piezo element, such that mechanical interaction between the elements conveying this pressure/force constitutes transmitting the pressure.
by a pressure measurement signal transmitted from the piezo element to [a measuring device],
Examiner notes that the above claim language is being interpreted a signal which is indicative of a presence or application of pressure, therein the signal may interpreted as comprising a mechanical interaction between elements measuring/indicating that pressure has been/is being applied.
Thus Gerlach can be considered to disclose the above claim limitations in the manner by which Ali's piezo stack actuator 20 contracts to move Gerlach's brake 33 into its active braking position against Gerlach's piston rod 12, as illustrated in Gerlach's fig 3-4, such that Gerlach's brake 33 contacts/clamps/brakes against Gerlach's piston rod 12 and the consequent contacting force/pressure, therein the claimed pressure measurement signal, is transmitted by Gerlach's brake 33 through Gerlach's rod 22 toward Ali's piezo stack actuator 20 such that Ali's actuator 20's disposition on Gerlach's slide 19 moves both Gerlach's slide 19 and slider 19a such that moving Gerlach's slider 19a adjusts the position of Gerlach's tap 32 on Gerlach's potentiometer 31 and permits Gerlach's sensor 30 to produce a signal indicative of a size of the syringe. Examiner has demonstrated that such a signal indicative of a size of the syringe, originates from the transmission of contact pressure from Gerlach's piston rod 12 to Gerlach's brake 33, the claimed brake element, and from that claimed brake element to the claimed piezo element which communicates this signal to a part of an electronic sensor for the sensor to make a determination of syringe size. See paragraph 29-31+35 which describes this manner a contact/pressure signal from the claimed brake element, indicative of its position braking against the claimed piston rod, being transmitted through the aforementioned elements such that a size of the syringe can be determined once this contact/pressure signal has been received.
However, Gerlach in view of Ali is silent regarding:
a pressure measurement signal transmitted -- to the control device and/or regulation device, and software executable via the control device and/or regulation device.
Notably, Gerlach did disclose that its sensor 30 performs some operation which relates how the claimed pressure measurement signal to syringe size, however it is silent as to how slide position on its potentiometer and the electrical resistance indicative thereof is utilized to determine a syringe size, whether it be through analog, digital, software-implementations or other means.
However, Connell teaches a potentiometer wherein:
[a signal indicative of a size of an element] is transmitted to a control/regulation device, wherein software executed via the control/regulation device utilizes this signal for determining a size of an element.
(paragraph 251-260; slide potentiometer 3032 measures the movement of the slide 3034 to a position with a correlating output voltage which is communicated to and utilized by the controller system 330 and its software to determine the width of the deck, as the changing the width of the deck varies the position of the potentiometer’s slide; fig 43-45)
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Connell’s teachings of analyzing slide potentiometer data with software in a programmable controller to determine an objects size based on the displacement/position of an element of the potentiometer to the invention of Gerlach in view of Ali, such that Gerlach’s sensor 30 communicates the change in electrical resistance data of Gerlach’s potentiometer 31 to the programmable controller system of the modified invention, Ali’s electric controller 18, for corresponding software to determine a size of the syringe, implemented software to analyze potentiometer data for determining size of an object to a known device such as a potentiometer measuring size of a syringe with clamps which bias the potentiometer would only involve routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2143(I)(D), and would arrive at the predictable result of an invention which can determine the size of a syringe and benefit from the advantages of a software controlled implementation, such as improved digital data transmission/storage and improved modifiability of the invention when environmental factors impacting the calibration of the potentiometer must be adjusted.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerlach in view of Ali as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 6514077 B1, henceforth written as Wilk.
Regarding Claim 8,
Gerlach in view of Ali discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The syringe pump according to claim 7, wherein the brake actuator is connected to the control device and/or regulation device
Ali: (paragraph 28; piezo stack actuator 20 is connected with the electronic controller 18 in the manner by which it receives electronic commands to contract/relax, however the disclosure does not recite whether these controls are communicated with wires, wirelessly, or another transmission means)
However, Gerlach in view of Ali is silent regarding:
wherein the brake actuator is [disposed on an opposite side of the brake piston rod from the] control device and/or regulation device
However, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) details that such a modification of an invention only involving a rearrangement of parts such that shifting the position of those parts would not modify the operation of the device are unpatentable as they pertain to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose Ali’s piezo stack actuator 20 at a left end of Gerlach’s rod 22, when viewing the invention from Gerlach’s fig 2+4, such that the right end of Gerlach’s rod 22 is fixed to slide 19 and Ali’s piezo stack actuator 20 is fixed to the left end of Gerlach’s rod 22 and disposed in head 25, which still permits the linear actuation of Ali’s piezo stack actuator 20 by Ali’s controller 18 and the resultant braking/clamping action, as an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), and advantageously arrive at invention with reduced risks of electrical field interference between electrical components in close proximity to one another.
However, Gerlach in view of Ali is silent regarding:
a cable running through the rod.
However, Wilk teaches a piezoelectric stack at the end of a tube receiving control signals wherein:
a cable running through the tube couples the piezo electric stack and the controller
(col 5 line 10-43; wires 78 convey controlling energy from a controller 100 to a transducer, piezo electric crystal stack 68, within head 76 by passing down a hollow interior of shaft 46; fig 4)
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Wilk’s teachings of conveying control signals through a wire within a rod to the presently modified invention of Gerlach in view of Ali, by connecting Ali’s electric controller 18 to Ali’s piezo stack actuator 20 through a rod such as Gerlach’s rod 22, in order to advantageously arrive at an invention which mitigates risks associated with non-wired electronic communication, such as hacking of a medical device which could result in death of a patient, and further embedding the communication wire within an element reduces risks associated with the wire being damaged by an operator during incidental contact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST DIPERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm eastern.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/FORREST B DIPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783