DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 26-31 are pending in the application. Claims 1-25 are cancelled. The amendments to the claims and specification overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 4/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stearns et al. (US 9,199,047 B2).
Regarding claim 26, Stearns discloses a manifold assembly for a surgical gas delivery system (see Figs. 10-12, col. 7 lines 36-48) comprising:
a) a three-dimensional manifold body (device housing, see col. 3 lines 46-67, col. 7 lines 8-13) configured for recirculating gas received from an outlet side of a compressor (compressor 130) to an inlet side of the compressor (compressor 130) through internal passageways defined within the manifold body (device housing) (see Figs. 1 and 10-12, col. 3 lines 46-67, col. 7 lines 8-13, col. 7 line 58-col. 8 line 5);
b) a gas quality sensor (sensor in GCU 134) located on the manifold body for monitoring a level of CO2 in the gas recirculating through the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) so that the surgical gas delivery system can adjust gas quality (see Figs. 10-12, col. 3 lines 46-67, col. 8 lines 6-16, col. 8 lines 36-51);
c) a first pressure sensor port (opening/space for pressure sensor RLS, see Fig. 11) on the manifold body (device housing) communicating with the inlet side of the compressor (compressor 130) through the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) and with a first pressure sensor (pressure sensor RLS) of the surgical gas delivery system (see Fig. 11, col. 9 lines 7-18);
d) a second pressure sensor port (opening/space for pressure sensor PLS, see Fig. 11) on the manifold body (device housing) communicating with the outlet side of the compressor (compressor 130) through the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) and with a second pressure sensor (pressure sensor PLS) of the surgical gas delivery system (see Fig. 11, col. 9 lines 7-18); and
e) a bypass valve (bypass valve BPV) located on the manifold body (device housing) and positioned between the outlet side of the compressor (compressor 130) and the inlet side of the compressor (compressor 130) for dynamically controlling the gas recirculating through the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) using feedback from the first pressure sensor (pressure sensor RLS) and from the second pressure sensor (pressure sensor PLS) (see Fig. 11, col. 7 line 58-col. 8 line 5, col. 8 line 52-col. 9 line 32, control of the bypass valve is dependent in part upon sensed pressure).
Regarding claim 27, Stearns discloses the manifold assembly recited in claim 26, wherein the manifold body (device housing) is configured to deliver the gas from the outlet side of the compressor (compressor 130) to a gas sealed access port (gas sealed trocar) and to recirculate the gas from the gas sealed access port (gas sealed trocar) through the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) to the inlet side of the compressor (compressor 130) (see Fig. 11, col. 7 line 58-col. 8 line 5, col. 9 lines 7-18).
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.
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns et al. (US 9,199,047 B2), as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Childers et al. (US 2009/0012448 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Stearns discloses the manifold assembly recited in claim 26, wherein the bypass valve (bypass valve BPV) has an actuator for dynamically controlling the gas recirculating through the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) (see Figs. 10-12, col. 7 line 58-col. 8 line 16, col. 9 lines 7-32, BPV is electrically controlled by a circuit (air seal regulator ASR) to mechanically and dynamically open/close).
However, Stearns is silent as to the structure of the actuator. Specifically, Stearns fails to expressly state that the actuator of the bypass valve is a motorized rotary valve actuator.
Childers teaches valves (occluders 25a-b, see Figs. 5A-B, par. [0044] and [0061]) each comprising an actuator (see par. [0061]), wherein each actuator (see par. [0061]) is a motorized rotary valve actuator (rotation powered by motor 36, see par. [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold assembly of Stearns to include that the actuator of the bypass valve is a motorized rotary valve actuator, as taught by Childers, in order to allow the valves to selectively occlude the flow path through the manifold assembly in response to power supplied to the motor (see Childers par. [0061]).
Regarding claim 29, Stearns discloses the manifold assembly recited in claim 26, wherein the manifold body (device housing) includes a smoke evacuation valve (smoke evacuation valve SEV) having an actuator for dynamically controlling egress of the gas from the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) when the surgical gas delivery system is operating in a smoke evacuation mode (see Figs. 10-12, col. 7 line 58-col. 8 line 16, col. 9 lines 1-32, SEV is electrically controlled by a circuit (air seal regulator ASR) to mechanically and dynamically open/close).
However, Stearns is silent as to the structure of the actuator. Specifically, Stearns fails to expressly state that the actuator of the smoke evacuation valve is a motorized rotary valve actuator.
Childers teaches valves (occluders 25a-b, see Figs. 5A-B, par. [0044] and [0061]) each comprising an actuator (see par. [0061]), wherein each actuator (see par. [0061]) is a motorized rotary valve actuator (rotation powered by motor 36, see par. [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold assembly of Stearns to include that the actuator of the smoke evacuation valve is a motorized rotary valve actuator, as taught by Childers, in order to allow the valves to selectively occlude the flow path through the manifold assembly in response to power supplied to the motor (see Childers par. [0061]).
Regarding claim 30, Stearns discloses the manifold assembly recited in claim 26, wherein the manifold body (device housing) includes an air ventilation valve (air ventilation valve AVV) having an actuator for dynamically controlling ingress of air into the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) from an atmosphere (see Figs. 10-12, col. 7 line 58-col. 8 line 27, col. 9 lines 19-32, AVV is electrically controlled by a circuit (air seal regulator ASR) to mechanically and dynamically open/close).
However, Stearns is silent as to the structure of the actuator. Specifically, Stearns fails to expressly state that the actuator of the air ventilation valve is a motorized rotary valve actuator.
Childers teaches valves (occluders 25a-b, see Figs. 5A-B, par. [0044] and [0061]) each comprising an actuator (see par. [0061]), wherein each actuator (see par. [0061]) is a motorized rotary valve actuator (rotation powered by motor 36, see par. [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold assembly of Stearns to include that the actuator of the air ventilation valve is a motorized rotary valve actuator, as taught by Childers, in order to allow the valves to selectively occlude the flow path through the manifold assembly in response to power supplied to the motor (see Childers par. [0061]).
Regarding claim 31, Stearns discloses the manifold assembly recited in claim 26, wherein the manifold body (device housing) includes a gas fill valve (gas fill valve GFV) having an actuator for dynamically controlling receipt of the gas into the internal passageways of the manifold body (device housing) from a gas source (see Figs. 10-12, col. 7 line 58-col. 8 line 27, col. 8 line 52-col. 9 line 6, GFV is electrically controlled by a circuit (air seal regulator ASR) to mechanically and dynamically open/close).
However, Stearns is silent as to the structure of the actuator. Specifically, Stearns fails to expressly state that the actuator of the gas fill valve is a motorized rotary valve actuator.
Childers teaches valves (occluders 25a-b, see Figs. 5A-B, par. [0044] and [0061]) each comprising an actuator (see par. [0061]), wherein each actuator (see par. [0061]) is a motorized rotary valve actuator (rotation powered by motor 36, see par. [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manifold assembly of Stearns to include that the actuator of the gas fill valve is a motorized rotary valve actuator, as taught by Childers, in order to allow the valves to selectively occlude the flow path through the manifold assembly in response to power supplied to the motor (see Childers par. [0061]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to independent claim 26, Applicant argues that Stearns fails to teach that the bypass valve functions to dynamically control gas recirculation using feedback from the first pressure sensor and from the second pressure sensor as recited in the claim. This argument is not found persuasive. Stearns discusses in col. 7 line 58-col. 8 line 5 and col. 8 line 52-col. 9 line 32 that in the different modes of operation of the system, the bypass valve is opened or closed dependent in part upon pressure sensed by the pressure sensors of the system. See especially col. 9 lines 13-18, where it is discussed that the bypass valve is opened and closed to raise and lower abdominal pressure based on measured abdominal pressure values. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Stearns still appears to teach this feature as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVERY SMALE whose telephone number is (571)270-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8-4 ET.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/AVERY SMALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights