DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim limitation “a surgical instrument” in line 6 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “a surgical instrument” in line 1 of the claim which raises a question of if two of surgical instruments are required by the claim or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one surgical instrument is required by the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3:
The claim recites the limitation "the surgical tool" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8:
The claim recites the limitation "the one or more classifiers" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11:
The claim recites the limitation "the mode" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim limitation “the visualization mode” in line 19 is unclear. The limitation is unclear since several visualization modes have been introduced in the claim (see line 6 and 15) and it’s unclear which one this refers to. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that all of these limitations refer to the same visualization mode however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
The claim recites the limitation "the extravasation mode" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim limitation “the one or more characteristics” in line 4 is unclear. The limitation is unclear since several one or more characteristics have been introduced in the claim 11 (see line 4 and 26; on which this claim depends) and it’s unclear which one this refers to. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that all of these limitations refer to the same one or more characteristics however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 14:
The claim recites the limitation "the surgical pump" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15:
The claim recites the limitation "the surgical pump" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim limitation “a surgical instrument” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “surgical instrument” in line 5 of claim 13 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two of surgical instrument are required by the claim 17 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one surgical instrument is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 18:
The claim recites the limitation "the surgical pump" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19:
The claim recites the limitation "the surgical pump" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140006049 A1 to Moctezuma de la Barrera.
Moctezuma de la Barrera discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A method (figure 6; ¶0022) for coordinating the operation of a surgical instrument (tool that includes a suction feature as described in ¶0022) and a surgical pump (device creating the suction as described in ¶0022) to control fluid pressure in an internal anatomy of a patient during a surgical procedure, the method comprising:
receiving video data (data from the video camera as described in ¶0022) captured by an imaging device (video camera as described in ¶0022) configured to image the internal anatomy of the patient (see the video camera as described in ¶0022 which tracks the position of the suction device or tool and its proximity to an incision);
automatically determining a presence of a surgical instrument (tool that includes a suction feature as described in ¶0022) in the internal anatomy of the patient based on the received video data (see the video camera as described in ¶0022 which tracks the position of the suction device or tool and its proximity to an incision); and
in response to determining that the surgical instrument is present in the internal anatomy of the patient, initiating a suction associated with the surgical instrument prior to activation of the surgical instrument (see ¶0022 which indicates the suction is turned on as the tool/suction device approaches in the incision but before the tool with the suction feature is within the incision indicates it is before the tool is activated since it is outside the incision).
Regarding claim 3:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the surgical instrument has been deactivated (“If the tool is not located near to the surgical incision, the block 326 will branch to the block 328 that will display an indication that suction is not on” ¶0022);
in response to determining that the surgical tool has been deactivated:
determining whether the surgical instrument is still present in the internal anatomy of the patient based on the received video data (step 326; “If the tool is not located near to the surgical incision”, ¶0022), and
in response to determining that the surgical instrument is still present in the internal anatomy of the patient, maintaining at least some of the suction associated with the surgical instrument (“As the tool is place closer to the incision location, the block 328 will pass control to the block 330 that will activate the suction”, ¶0022).
Regarding claim 4:
The method of claim 3, wherein maintaining at least some of the suction comprises reducing an amount of the suction (“If the tool is not located near to the surgical incision, the block 326 will branch to the block 328 that will display an indication that suction is not on” ¶0022).
Regarding claim 5:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the surgical instrument has been removed from the internal anatomy of the patient based on the received video data (“If the tool is not located near to the surgical incision, the block 326 will branch to the block 328 that will display an indication that suction is not on” ¶0022); and
in response to determining that the surgical instrument has been removed from the internal anatomy of the patient, deactivating the suction associated with the surgical instrument (“If the tool is not located near to the surgical incision, the block 326 will branch to the block 328 that will display an indication that suction is not on” ¶0022).
Regarding claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein automatically determining a presence of a surgical instrument in the internal anatomy of the patient based on the received video data comprises using one or more classifiers (see the tool identified as a reamer in ¶0019) to determine the presence of the surgical instrument in the internal anatomy of the patient (“If the tool is not located near to the surgical incision, the block 326 will branch to the block 328 that will display an indication that suction is not on” ¶0022).
Regarding claim 7:
The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more classifiers are configured to identify at least one of a radio frequency (RF) probe, a bur tool, and a cutter tool (see the tool identified as a reamer in ¶0019).
Regarding claim 13:
A system comprising one or more processors, memory, and one or more programs stored in the memory for execution by the one or more processors (see the computer controller system/program as described in ¶0016) and including instructions for:
receiving video data (data from the video camera as described in ¶0022) captured by an imaging device (video camera as described in ¶0022) configured to image the internal anatomy of the patient (see the video camera as described in ¶0022 which tracks the position of the suction device or tool and its proximity to an incision);
automatically determining a presence of a surgical instrument (tool that includes a suction feature as described in ¶0022) in the internal anatomy of the patient based on the received video data (see the video camera as described in ¶0022 which tracks the position of the suction device or tool and its proximity to an incision); and
in response to determining that the surgical instrument is present in the internal anatomy of the patient, initiating a suction associated with the surgical instrument prior to activation of the surgical instrument (see ¶0022 which indicates the suction is turned on as the tool/suction device approaches in the incision but before the tool with the suction feature is within the incision indicates it is before the tool is activated since it is outside the incision).
Regarding claim 15:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 3 by Moctezuma de la Barrera.
Regarding claim 16:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 5 by Moctezuma de la Barrera.
Regarding claim 17:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 6 by Moctezuma de la Barrera.
Regarding claim 19:
The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more programs include instructions for:
receiving a user selection to switch a mode of operation of the surgical pump (removing or inserting the tool into the patient is a form of user selection as indicated in ¶0022); and
in response to receiving the user selection, switching the mode of operation by adjusting at least one of: (i) the suction associated with the surgical instrument (“If the tool is not located near to the surgical incision, the block 326 will branch to the block 328 that will display an indication that suction is not on” ¶0022) and (ii) one or more characteristics of fluid inflow to the internal anatomy generated by the surgical pump.
Regarding claim 20:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of a computing system (see the computer controller system/program as described in ¶0016) for causing the computing system to perform a method comprising:
receiving video data (data from the video camera as described in ¶0022) captured by an imaging device (video camera as described in ¶0022) configured to image the internal anatomy of the patient (see the video camera as described in ¶0022 which tracks the position of the suction device or tool and its proximity to an incision);
automatically determining a presence of a surgical instrument (tool that includes a suction feature as described in ¶0022) in the internal anatomy of the patient based on the received video data (see the video camera as described in ¶0022 which tracks the position of the suction device or tool and its proximity to an incision); and
in response to determining that the surgical instrument is present in the internal anatomy of the patient, initiating a suction associated with the surgical instrument prior to activation of the surgical instrument (see ¶0022 which indicates the suction is turned on as the tool/suction device approaches in the incision but before the tool with the suction feature is within the incision indicates it is before the tool is activated since it is outside the incision).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140006049 A1 to Moctezuma de la Barrera as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20110237880 A1 to Hamel et al. (Hamel).
Regarding claim 2:
Moctezuma de la Barrera fails to disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting one or more characteristics of fluid inflow to the internal anatomy generated by the surgical pump.
Hamel teaches:
A method that includes a fluid pump (50) that adjusts the flow of fluid into a cavity to remove debris from the cavity (¶0003). The reference further teaches the flow can be increased to further clean out a cavity (¶0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moctezuma de la Barrera to further include a fluid pump and regulate the flow of fluid into the incision as taught by Hamel in order to remove debris from the incision (Hamel, ¶0009).
Regarding claim 14:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2 by Moctezuma de la Barrera to Hamel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following is pertinent prior art:
US-20220265121-A1
FOUTS
See the method shown in figure 2
WO-2018175583-A1
MAHADIK
See figure 2 and 3
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-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, 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights