DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA the first inventor to file provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16-17, 19-21, 25-28, and 30-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, Line 3 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 16, Line 6 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 16, Line 8 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 17, Line 2 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 19, Line 2-3 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 20, Line 3 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 25, Line 1 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 26, Line 1 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 27, Line 2 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 28, Line 2 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 30, Line 1 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 31, Line 3 the term “the at least the portion ” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 31, Line 5 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 31, Line 7 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 31, Line 10 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 31, Line 13 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 32, Line 1 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 33, Line 1 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 34, Line 1 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 35, Line 3 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 35, Line 5 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 35, Line 8 the term “the at least the portion” should be changed to “for typographical/grammar issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more nor an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention simply performs obtaining images and tracking with them. See analysis below for more details.
Regarding Independent Claim 16 and its dependent claims 17-30,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a Method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Please see MPEP §2106.04.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 16 recites, in part:
“processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Please see MPEP §2106.04. The limitations of:
“processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking” is an intended use.
Notes: under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), mental process (thinking) “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011): "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 [1972]). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, generic circuit or device, or the likes. See " Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’).
Because both product/device and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
“imaging a surface discontinuity”
The additional elements imaging a surface discontinuity - include steps of insignificant extra-solution/post-solution activities of data gathering [obtaining data/information of an image].
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(d).III.C.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, such as for these additional elements as indicated above, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.05
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 16 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 17-30 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 16.
Moreover, claim 17 recites, in part,
“creating a first identifier based on the first processed image”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing observation of an identifier that can used to track on an object.
Moreover, claim 18-23 recites, in part,
“verifying serialization of the first serialized part”
“imaging the surface discontinuity”
“processing the second digital image into a second processed image”
“comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier”
“linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory”
“linking the first assembly with a second assembly in the memory”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing observation of identifier being a crack or discontinuity that can used to track on an object and associating that object with the same identifier and using that to track the object.
Moreover, claim 24 recites, in part,
“detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing observation of discontinuity in an object or image.
Moreover, claim 25-27, 29-30 are claims that further specify to what the abstract ideas and/or additional elements are based on.
Moreover, claim 28 recites, in part,
“removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea; particularly observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing the removal of a gate from an injection mold.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 17-30 are not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding Independent Claim 31 and its dependent claims 32-35,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 31 is directed to a Method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Please see MPEP §2106.04.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 31 recites, in part:
“removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument;
detecting the surface discontinuity;
processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Please see MPEP §2106.04. The limitations of:
“removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument” is a mental process activity abstract idea; particularly observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing the removal of a gate from an injection mold.
“detecting the surface discontinuity” is a mental process activity abstract idea; particularly observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing observation of discontinuity in an object or image.
“processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking” is an intended use.
Notes: under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), mental process (thinking) “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011): "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 [1972]). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, generic circuit or device, or the likes. See " Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’).
Because both product/device and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
“imaging a surface discontinuity”
The additional elements imaging a surface discontinuity - include steps of insignificant extra-solution/post-solution activities of data gathering [obtaining data/information of an image].
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(d).III.C.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, such as for these additional elements as indicated above, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.05
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 31 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 32-35 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 31.
Moreover, claim 32-34 are claims that further specify to what the abstract ideas and/or additional elements are based on.
Moreover, claim 35 recites, in part,
“creating a first identifier”
“imaging the surface discontinuity”
“processing the second digital image into a second processed image”
“comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier”
“Linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing observation of some identifier that can used to track on an object and associating that object with the same identifier and using that to track the object.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 32-35 are not patent eligible under 101.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 16-22, 24-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) hereafter referenced as Maibach and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) hereafter referenced as Price and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) hereafter referenced as Withrow.
Regarding claim 16, Maibach teaches a method of tracking at least a portion of a instrument (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0009]- Maibach discloses the object of the invention is to propose a method and the corresponding system for the optical inspection of molded parts, by means of which a reliable, fast and very simple inspection is possible, based on a virtually reflection-free image.),
comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity (Fig. 2 paragraph [0049]- Maibach discloses the processor 42 can include an image processing device which subjects the recorded images to appropriate processing, which is necessary in order to be able to detect the defects in the molded part 10 and/or in order to detect any statistical deviations even from defect-free molded parts. These defects can be, for example, inclusions in the form of air pockets, foreign bodies and/or solidified material, which can be detected in the interior and/or in the walls of the molded parts 10. In addition or alternatively, defects in the form of color deviations, streaks, holes, indentations, burns, foreign material and/or cracks can be detected. Any existing engravings and/or markings can also be checked.) on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station (Fig. 2 paragraph [0052]- Maibach discloses a transport device 50 is provided for this purpose, which allows the molded part 10 to be inspected or checked to be transported. In the illustrated embodiment example, the transport device 50 can comprise two parallel conveyor belts 52, which engage laterally on the molded part 10 (wherein the transport device is considered the first station).), wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding (Fig. 2 paragraph [0049]- Maibach discloses As will be explained below, the area of the injection point, which experience has shown to be particularly susceptible to defects, can be checked in particular.)
Maibach is silent to explicitly teach of the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
However, Price explicitly teaches of the at least the portion of the surgical instrument. (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0023]- Price discloses surgical instrument (50) of the present example includes a multi-piece handle assembly (60), an elongated transmission assembly (70), and a transducer (100).);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Price of the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein of the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach (b) processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches (b) processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0044]- Withrow discloses while the most common applications of our system may be in the authentication of manufactured goods and documents, the system is designed to be applicable to any object that can be identified, characterized, quality tested, or authenticated with a digital fingerprint.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow (b) processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein (b) processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 17, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 16, Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach further comprising: creating a first identifier based on the first processed image thereby serializing the at least the portion of the surgical instrument as a first serialized part.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches further comprising: creating a first identifier based on the first processed image thereby serializing the at least the portion of the surgical instrument as a first serialized part (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0078]- Withrow discloses an image 250 is acquired; in this illustration a U.S. passport is used. The next step is to identify or generate an authentication region, block 204. For example, the authentication region may be example 252. The authentication region may be identified, as discussed above, from a fingerprint template (see Table 1, supra). Next an object class of the object is determined, block 206. The result is used to check a database for a corresponding object class template, decision 208. If there is no matching template, the process proceeds to extract features, block 210, without the aid of a template. A digital fingerprint is created based on the extracted feature, block 212, and the digital fingerprint is stored in a database at 220 (wherein creation of a digital fingerprint is seen as serializing).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow further comprising: creating a first identifier based on the first processed image thereby serializing the at least the portion of the surgical instrument as a first serialized part.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein further comprising: creating a first identifier based on the first processed image thereby serializing the at least the portion of the surgical instrument as a first serialized part.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 18, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 17, Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach further comprising: verifying serialization of the first serialized part at a second station.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches further comprising: verifying serialization of the first serialized part at a second station (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0065]- Withrow discloses subsequently, the object is later re-fingerprinted, and the two sets of fingerprints are compared to establish authenticity of the object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow further comprising: verifying serialization of the first serialized part at a second station.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein further comprising: verifying serialization of the first serialized part at a second station.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 19, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 18, Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: imaging the surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the surgical instrument into a second digital image at the second station.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: imaging the surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the surgical instrument into a second digital image at the second station (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0065]- Withrow discloses subsequently, the object is later re-fingerprinted, and the two sets of fingerprints are compared to establish authenticity of the object (wherein re-fingerprinting requires a new image to be taken).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: imaging the surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the surgical instrument into a second digital image at the second station.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: imaging the surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the surgical instrument into a second digital image at the second station.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 20, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 19, Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: processing the second digital image into a second processed image for further tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: processing the second digital image into a second processed image for further tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0065]- Withrow discloses subsequently, the object is later re-fingerprinted, and the two sets of fingerprints are compared to establish authenticity of the object (wherein re-fingerprinting requires a fingerprint to be created).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: processing the second digital image into a second processed image for further tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: processing the second digital image into a second processed image for further tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 21, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 20, Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0065]- Withrow discloses subsequently, the object is later re-fingerprinted, and the two sets of fingerprints are compared to establish authenticity of the object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein verifying serialization of the first serialized part further includes: comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 22, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 18, Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach further comprising: linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches further comprising: linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory (Fig. 21, Paragraph [0149]- Withrow discloses at block 2142, additional information may be added to the fingerprint, for example identifying other fingerprints associated with the same object. In some embodiments, a relationship, such as relative location of the other fingerprints to the current fingerprint may be used.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow further comprising: linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments further comprising: linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 24, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 16, Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach further comprising detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches further comprising detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image (Fig. 2 paragraph [0049]- Maibach discloses the processor 42 can include an image processing device which subjects the recorded images to appropriate processing, which is necessary in order to be able to detect the defects in the molded part 10 and/or in order to detect any statistical deviations even from defect-free molded parts. These defects can be, for example, inclusions in the form of air pockets, foreign bodies and/or solidified material, which can be detected in the interior and/or in the walls of the molded parts 10. In addition or alternatively, defects in the form of color deviations, streaks, holes, indentations, burns, foreign material and/or cracks can be detected. Any existing engravings and/or markings can also be checked. As will be explained below, the area of the injection point, which experience has shown to be particularly susceptible to defects, can be checked in particular.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow further comprising detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments further comprising detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 25, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 16, Maibach in view of Withrow fails to explicitly teach further comprising detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image.
However, Price explicitly teaches further comprising detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0049]- Price discloses in some versions, ratcheting teeth (412, 422) of end effector (400) may be formed via injection molded plastic while ratcheting teeth (462, 472) may be formed via metal injection molding.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Price further comprising detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein further comprising detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Regarding claim 26, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 16, Maibach in view of Withrow fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a plastic material.
However, Price explicitly teaches wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a plastic material (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0049]- Price discloses in some versions, ratcheting teeth (412, 422) of end effector (400) may be formed via injection molded plastic while ratcheting teeth (462, 472) may be formed via metal injection molding.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Price wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a plastic material.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a plastic material.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Regarding claim 27, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 16, Maibach in view of Withrow fails to explicitly teach further comprising injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
However, Price explicitly teaches further comprising injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the surgical instrument (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0049]- Price discloses in some versions, ratcheting teeth (412, 422) of end effector (400) may be formed via injection molded plastic while ratcheting teeth (462, 472) may be formed via metal injection molding.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Price further comprising injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein further comprising injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Regarding claim 29, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 16, Maibach in view of Withrow fails to explicitly teach wherein the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic surgical instrument.
However, Price explicitly teaches wherein the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic surgical instrument (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0022]- Price discloses FIG. 1 shows an exemplary ultrasonic surgical system (10) comprising an ultrasonic surgical instrument (50), a generator (20), and a cable (30) coupling generator (20) to surgical instrument (50).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Price wherein the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic surgical instrument.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic surgical instrument.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Regarding claim 30, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 16, Maibach in view of Withrow fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic blade.
However, Price explicitly teaches wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic blade (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0024]- Price discloses in the present example, with blade (82) being coupled to the waveguide, blade (82) thereby oscillates at the ultrasonic frequency.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Price wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic blade.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic blade.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) hereafter referenced as Maibach and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) hereafter referenced as Price, Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) hereafter referenced as Withrow, and Saeed et al. (US 20250061420 A1) hereafter referenced as Saeed.
Regarding claim 23, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 22, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow fails to explicitly teach further comprising linking the first assembly with a second assembly in the memory.
However, Saeed explicitly teaches further comprising linking the first assembly with a second assembly in the memory (Fig. 3, paragraph [0030]- Saeed discloses two-way searching, in some embodiments, allows for hierarchical organization of more than one BOM that can be combined to form a vehicle. For instance, the search module 340 may organize parts within the database 210 into a hierarchical tree of different BOMs incorporated into a vehicle, which may allow searching between BOMs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Saeed further comprising linking the first assembly with a second assembly in the memory.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein further comprising linking the first assembly with a second assembly in the memory.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to increase the efficiency of the organization of products, since both Maibach and Saeed are both systems that use multiple items. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Saeed’s system provides a way improve the efficiency of the organization. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Saeed et al. (US 20250061420 A1) Paragraph [0026].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) hereafter referenced as Maibach and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) hereafter referenced as Price, Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) hereafter referenced as Withrow, and Jol et al. (US 20140051301 A1) hereafter referenced as Jol.
Regarding claim 28, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow teaches the method of claim 16, Maibach in view of Price and Withrow is silent to explicitly teach further comprising removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument thereby forming the gate scar.
However, Jol explicitly teaches further comprising removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument thereby forming the gate scar (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0034]- Jol discloses the gate region 603 may remain attached to the part 600 after removal from a mold (e.g., as a remnant), and may be removed prior to or during machining processes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Jol further comprising removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument thereby forming the gate scar.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein further comprising removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument thereby forming the gate scar.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to increase the quality of the final product, since both Maibach and Jol are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Jol’s system provides a way to reduce weakness of injection molded material. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Jol et al. (US 20140051301 A1) Paragraph [0004].
Claims 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) hereafter referenced as Maibach and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) hereafter referenced as Price, Jol et al. (US 20140051301 A1) hereafter referenced as Jol, and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) hereafter referenced as Withrow.
Regarding claim 31, Maibach teaches a method of tracking at least a portion of a instrument (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0009]- Maibach discloses the object of the invention is to propose a method and the corresponding system for the optical inspection of molded parts, by means of which a reliable, fast and very simple inspection is possible, based on a virtually reflection-free image.),
comprising: (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the instrument (Fig. 1, paragraph [0003]- Maibach discloses in the injection molding process, plasticized plastic is injected into a mold with at least one cavity using an injection unit. The molded injection-molded parts are removed from the mold and transported away by a conveyor system. In order not only to detect defects in good time, but also to be able to assign them to the corresponding cavity of the mold, it is known to maintain the relative sequential order of the injection molded parts up to an inspection system);
(c) imaging a surface discontinuity (Fig. 2 paragraph [0049]- Maibach discloses the processor 42 can include an image processing device which subjects the recorded images to appropriate processing, which is necessary in order to be able to detect the defects in the molded part 10 and/or in order to detect any statistical deviations even from defect-free molded parts. These defects can be, for example, inclusions in the form of air pockets, foreign bodies and/or solidified material, which can be detected in the interior and/or in the walls of the molded parts 10. In addition or alternatively, defects in the form of color deviations, streaks, holes, indentations, burns, foreign material and/or cracks can be detected. Any existing engravings and/or markings can also be checked.) on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station (Fig. 2 paragraph [0052]- Maibach discloses a transport device 50 is provided for this purpose, which allows the molded part 10 to be inspected or checked to be transported. In the illustrated embodiment example, the transport device 50 can comprise two parallel conveyor belts 52, which engage laterally on the molded part 10 (wherein the transport device is considered the first station).),
wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within the gate scar formed from injection molding (Fig. 2 paragraph [0049]- Maibach discloses as will be explained below, the area of the injection point, which experience has shown to be particularly susceptible to defects, can be checked in particular.);
(d) detecting the surface discontinuity in the first digital image (Fig. 2 paragraph [0049]- Maibach discloses the processor 42 can include an image processing device which subjects the recorded images to appropriate processing, which is necessary in order to be able to detect the defects in the molded part 10 and/or in order to detect any statistical deviations even from defect-free molded parts. These defects can be, for example, inclusions in the form of air pockets, foreign bodies and/or solidified material, which can be detected in the interior and/or in the walls of the molded parts 10. In addition or alternatively, defects in the form of color deviations, streaks, holes, indentations, burns, foreign material and/or cracks can be detected. Any existing engravings and/or markings can also be checked. As will be explained below, the area of the injection point, which experience has shown to be particularly susceptible to defects, can be checked in particular.);
Although Maibach teaches comprising: (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the instrument Maibach fails to explicitly teach (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the surgical instrument and of the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
However, Price explicitly teaches (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the surgical instrument (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0049]- Price discloses in some versions, ratcheting teeth (412, 422) of end effector (400) may be formed via injection molded plastic while ratcheting teeth (462, 472) may be formed via metal injection molding.);
of the at least the portion of the surgical instrument (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0023]- Price discloses Surgical instrument (50) of the present example includes a multi-piece handle assembly (60), an elongated transmission assembly (70), and a transducer (100).);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising: (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the instrument with the teachings of Price wherein (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the surgical instrument and of the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the surgical instrument and of the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Maibach in view of Price fails to explicitly teach (b) removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument thereby forming a gate scar.
However, Jol explicitly teaches (b) removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument thereby forming a gate scar (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0034]- Jol discloses the gate region 603 may remain attached to the part 600 after removal from a mold (e.g., as a remnant), and may be removed prior to or during machining processes.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Jol (b) removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument thereby forming a gate scar.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein (b) removing a gate from the at least the portion of the surgical instrument thereby forming a gate scar.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to increase the quality of the final product, since both Maibach and Jol are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Jol’s system provides a way to reduce weakness of injection molded material. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Jol et al. (US 20140051301 A1) Paragraph [0004].
Maibach in view of Price and Jol fails to explicitly teach and (e) processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
However, Withrow discloses and (e) processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0044]- Withrow discloses while the most common applications of our system may be in the authentication of manufactured goods and documents, the system is designed to be applicable to any object that can be identified, characterized, quality tested, or authenticated with a digital fingerprint.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow and (e) processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein (e) processing the first digital image into a first processed image for tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 32, Maibach in view of Maibach in view of Price, Jol, and Withrow teaches the method of claim 31, Maibach fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a metal material.
However, Price explicitly teaches wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a metal material (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0049]- Price discloses in some versions, ratcheting teeth (412, 422) of end effector (400) may be formed via injection molded plastic while ratcheting teeth (462, 472) may be formed via metal injection molding.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price, Jol, and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising: (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the instrument with the teachings of Price wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a metal material.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a metal material.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Regarding claim 33, Maibach in view of Price, Jol, and Withrow teaches the method of claim 32, Maibach fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic blade.
However, Price explicitly teaches wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic blade (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0024]- Price discloses in the present example, with blade (82) being coupled to the waveguide, blade (82) thereby oscillates at the ultrasonic frequency.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price, Jol, and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising: (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the instrument with the teachings of Price wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic blade.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is an ultrasonic blade.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Regarding claim 34, Maibach in view of Price, Jol, and Withrow teaches the method of claim 31, Maibach fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a plastic material.
However, Price explicitly teaches wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a plastic material (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0049]- Price discloses in some versions, ratcheting teeth (412, 422) of end effector (400) may be formed via injection molded plastic while ratcheting teeth (462, 472) may be formed via metal injection molding.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price, Jol, and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising: (a) injection molding material to form the at least the portion of the instrument with the teachings of Price wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a plastic material.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein the at least the portion of the surgical instrument is formed of a plastic material.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to a control the creation of a surgical device, since both Maibach and Price are both systems that use injection molding to form instruments. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Price’s system provides a way to improve creation of a surgical device. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Price et al. (US 20120116396 A1) Paragraph [0022-23].
Regarding claim 35, Maibach in view of Price, Jol, and Withrow teaches the method of claim 31, Maibach in view of Price and Jol fails to explicitly teach further comprising: (a) creating a first identifier based on the first processed image thereby serializing the at least the portion of the surgical instrument as a first serialized part; (b) imaging the surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the surgical instrument into a second digital image at a second station; (c) processing the second digital image into a second processed image for further tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument; (d) comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier; and (e) linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory.
However, Withrow explicitly teaches further comprising: (a) creating a first identifier based on the first processed image thereby serializing the at least the portion of the surgical instrument as a first serialized part (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0078]- Withrow discloses an image 250 is acquired; in this illustration a U.S. passport is used. The next step is to identify or generate an authentication region, block 204. For example, the authentication region may be example 252. The authentication region may be identified, as discussed above, from a fingerprint template (see Table 1, supra). Next an object class of the object is determined, block 206. The result is used to check a database for a corresponding object class template, decision 208. If there is no matching template, the process proceeds to extract features, block 210, without the aid of a template. A digital fingerprint is created based on the extracted feature, block 212, and the digital fingerprint is stored in a database at 220 (wherein creation of a digital fingerprint is seen as serializing).);
(b) imaging the surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the surgical instrument into a second digital image at a second station (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0065]- Withrow discloses subsequently, the object is later re-fingerprinted, and the two sets of fingerprints are compared to establish authenticity of the object (wherein re-fingerprinting requires a new image to be taken).);
(c) processing the second digital image into a second processed image for further tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0065]- Withrow discloses subsequently, the object is later re-fingerprinted, and the two sets of fingerprints are compared to establish authenticity of the object (wherein re-fingerprinting requires a fingerprint to be created).);
(d) comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0065]- Withrow discloses subsequently, the object is later re-fingerprinted, and the two sets of fingerprints are compared to establish authenticity of the object.);
and (e) linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory (Fig. 21, Paragraph [0149]- Withrow discloses at block 2142, additional information may be added to the fingerprint, for example identifying other fingerprints associated with the same object. In some embodiments, a relationship, such as relative location of the other fingerprints to the current fingerprint may be used.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Maibach in view of Price, Jol, and Withrow a method of tracking at least a portion of a surgical instrument, comprising:(a) imaging a surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the instrument into a first digital image at a first station wherein the surface discontinuity is positioned within a gate scar-formed from injection molding with the teachings of Withrow further comprising: (a) creating a first identifier based on the first processed image thereby serializing the at least the portion of the surgical instrument as a first serialized part; (b) imaging the surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the surgical instrument into a second digital image at a second station; (c) processing the second digital image into a second processed image for further tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument; (d) comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier; and (e) linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory.
Wherein having Maibach’s system of detecting defects in injection molded instruments wherein further comprising: (a) creating a first identifier based on the first processed image thereby serializing the at least the portion of the surgical instrument as a first serialized part; (b) imaging the surface discontinuity on the at least the portion of the surgical instrument into a second digital image at a second station; (c) processing the second digital image into a second processed image for further tracking the at least the portion of the surgical instrument; (d) comparing the second processed image from the first station to the first identifier; and (e) linking the first serialized part with a second serialized part as a first assembly in a memory.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for the creation of cheaper more secure tagging, since both Maibach and Withrow are both systems that detect information about a surface of an object. Wherein Maibach’s system provides a way to increase accuracy and ease of detecting flaws in an injection molded item, while Withrow’s system provides a way to reduce costs and increase security. Please see Maibach et al. (US 20250321195 A1) Paragraph [0037] and Withrow et al. (US 20170344823 A1) Paragraph [0042].
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered
pertinent to applicant`s disclosure.
Denton et al. (US 20170100862 A1)- A physical unclonable function formed by an injection molding machine is disclosed. A highly random distribution of magnetic particles is created by magnetizing magnetizable particles before feeding the particles into the injection molding machine due to turbulence within the injection molding machine. Plastic is also fed into the injection molding machine to suspend the particles. Other devices and processes are disclosed......................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Shelton, IV et al. (US 20240041488 A1)- A surgical instrument comprising an end effector is disclosed. The end effector comprises a surgical dissector. The surgical dissector can apply mechanical and/or electrosurgical energy to treated tissue......................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Gaathon et al. (US 12214613 B2)- In a general aspect, unique unclonable physical identifiers are applied and used. A method of applying the unique marker can include receiving an object having a surface feature and forming a unique marker on the surface feature of the object. The unique marker includes a distribution of elements and conforms with a morphology of the surface feature. The method further includes extracting orientation information from the unique marker. The orientation information can indicate relative spatial orientations of the respective elements. The method additionally includes generating a unique code for the object based on the orientation information. The surface feature can be facets, surface patterns, textures, or other indentations of the object. The surface feature can include a region of the object that is susceptible to tampering......................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Osterday et al. (US 20160375701 A1)- A system for printing a label for a molded object is provided. The system includes a molding machine. A mold is provided having a first part and a second part, the mold being removably coupled to the molding machine. The mold first part and second part being movable between an open and closed position. An RFID module is coupled to the mold first part. An RFID reader is arranged to receive a signal from the RFID module when the mold first part is in the closed position. A controller is operably coupled to the RFID reader, wherein the controller includes a processor that is responsive for receiving an object identification data in response to the RFID reader receiving the signal from the RFID module. A printer configured to print a label including the object identification data in response to the controller receiving the signal.......................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Nanolnk et al. (US 20120104660 A1)- A method for forming a pharmaceutical container portion comprises providing a pharmaceutical container portion mold comprising a surface with at least one identification region, the at least one identification region comprising at least one identification feature that has a lateral dimension of 100 microns or less; and molding a pharmaceutical container portion from a moldable material using the mold, such that the at least one identification region is transferred to a surface of the pharmaceutical container portion. Applications include anti-counterfeiting........................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Seshayya et al. (US 20220101510 A1)- A system is configured to receive an indication that an apparatus in a first assembled state should comprise a component with a first digital fingerprint and a component with a second digital fingerprint. The system is configured to receive video footage of apparatuses in the first assembled state. The system is configured to isolate an image of an apparatus in the first assembled state. The system is configured to split the image into a frame comprising a first component and a frame comprising a second component. The system is configured to generate first and second filtered images. The system is configured to identify feature points in the filtered images. The system is configured to determine that the first set of feature points matches the first digital fingerprint and that the second set of feature points matches the second digital fingerprint. The system is configured to update a component database........................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Messerly et al. (US 20180055529 A1)- Disclosed is a method of fabricating an ultrasonic medical device. The method includes machining a surgical tool from a flat metal stock, contacting a face of a first transducer with a first face of the surgical tool, and contacting a face of a second transducer with an opposing face of the surgical tool opposite the first transducer. The first and second transducers are configured to operate in a D31 mode with respect to the longitudinal portion of the surgical tool. Upon activation, the first transducer and the second transducer are configured to induce a standing wave in the surgical tool and the induced standing wave comprises a node at a node location in the surgical tool and an antinode at an antinode location in the surgical tool........................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIUS C.G. ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5987. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5pm (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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571)272-9752. 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 unpuregarblished 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.
/LUCIUS CAMERON GREEN ALLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights