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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed June 6, 2024. As directed by the preliminary amendment: Claims 1-41 have been amended and presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In ll. 5-6 and ll. 9-10, the phrase “the first opening” should be re-written as --the first access opening--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the end of the main body” in ll. 5, "the blowing flow" in ll. 9, “the operating mode” in ll. 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the suction end" in ll. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the suction end" in ll. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, ll. 3, the phrase “in the form of a tubular conduit” is unclear whether applicant is introducing a different tubular conduit or referring to the previously described tubular conduit. Amendment and clarification are required.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the central position" in ll. 2-3, “the radial direction of the second opening” in ll. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the first position” in ll. 2, “the second position” in ll. 2, "the intermediate positions" in ll. 3, “the operating mode” in ll. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the outlet of the gas flow rate" in ll. 2, “the center of the section of the main body” in ll. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the end of the blowing conduit” in ll. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the end of the suction conduit” in ll. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the wall" in ll. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the suction opening" in ll. 2, “the wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "the outlet of the blowing conduit" in ll. 2, “the suction opening” in ll. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the suction points of the plurality of suction points" in ll. 1-2, “the perimeter” in ll. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the suction intake of the vacuum source" in ll. 3, “the suction point or points” in ll. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “wherein Frcr1 for establishing the cleaning of a void of at least one height H is less than Frcr1 = 3.5 for every 10 mm of height H”, and the claim also recites “and more preferably less than Frcr1 = 3.0 for every 10 mm of height” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 24 recites the limitations "the gas flow rate adjustment device" in ll. 1-2, “the operating mode” in ll. 2, ll. 6-7, “the suction point” in ll. 4, “the characteristic width” in ll. 5, “the density” in ll. 6, “the jet speed” in ll. 6, “the characteristic diameter” in ll. 7, “the cleaning” in ll. 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “wherein Frcr2 = 2.5 for every 10 mm of height H to be cleaned”, and the claim also recites “and more preferably is Frcr2 = 2.0 for every 10 mm of height H to be cleaned, and more preferably is Frcr2 = 1 for every 10 mm of height H to be cleaned” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 25 recites the limitations "the gas flow rate adjustment device" in ll. 1-2, “the operating mode” in ll. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the blowing source" in ll. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the fluid supply" in ll. 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitations "the entry" in ll. 2, “the operating mode” in ll. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the surgical field” in ll. 3-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “the surgical field” in ll. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 32, ll. 3, the phrase “establishes the following second operating mode” is confusing because claim 30 has not established a first operating mode, wherein the first operating mode is present in claim 31. Amendment and clarification are required.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the surgical field” in ll. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 33, ll. 3, the phrase “establishes the following third operating mode” is confusing because claim 30 has not established a first operating mode and a second operating mode, wherein the first operating mode is present in claim 31 and the second operating mode is present in claim 32. Amendment and clarification are required.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the surgical field” in ll. 3 and ll. 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 34, ll. 3, the phrase “establishes the following fourth operating mode” is confusing because claim 30 has not established a first operating mode, a second operating mode, and a third operating mode, wherein the first operating mode is present in claim 31, the second operating mode is present in claim 32, the third operating mode is present in claim 33. Amendment and clarification are required.
Claim 35 recites the limitations “the operating mode” in ll. 2, “the surgical field” in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitations “the operating mode” in ll. 2, “the surgical field” in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitations “the operating mode” in ll. 2, “the surgical field” in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitations “the operating mode” in ll. 2, “the surgical field” in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitations “the operating mode” in ll. 2, “the surgical field” in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim.
Claims 2, 5-8, 16, 21-23, 27, 29, 40, and 41 are rejected on being dependent to a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-21, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geisz (US 2019/0167301).
Regarding claim 1, Geisz discloses a surgical access port (200) (figure 2A) suitable for surgical interventions (Abstract), comprising a main body (206) configured as a tubular conduit (see figure 2A below) extending according to an axial direction X-X' (see figure 2A below) and comprising a first access opening (see figure 2A below) arranged at one end of the main body (206), a second opening (see figure 2A below) arranged at the end of the main body (see figure 2A below) opposite the first opening (see figure 2A below) configured for (i.e. capable of) providing access to a surgical region (figure 2A), a suction conduit (see arrows of element 222), a blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) configured for (i.e. capable of) providing a gas flow rate in the axial direction (see figure 2A below) and according to a direction of the blowing flow (see figure 2A below) in the operating mode (figure 2A) going from the first opening (see figure 2A below) to the second opening (see figure 2A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Geisz discloses wherein the main body (206) comprises a perimetral region (see figure 2A above) configured for (i.e. capable of) being supported on biological tissues in the surgical region establishing leak-tightness with the tissues (considered functional).
Regarding claim 3, Geisz discloses wherein the suction end of the suction conduit (see arrows of element 222) is inside the main body (206) (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 4, Geisz discloses wherein the suction end of the suction conduit (see arrows of element 222) is outside the main body (206) (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 5, Geisz discloses wherein the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) is housed inside the main body (206) (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Geisz discloses wherein the tubular conduit of the main body (206) (figure 2A) comprises in the second opening (see figure 2A above) a support annulus (figure 2A) configured for (i.e. capable of) establishing support on a rigid tissue (considered functional).
Regarding claim 8, Geisz discloses wherein the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) is movable (¶65) according to a radial direction of the tubular conduit of the main body (206).
Regarding claim 9, Geisz discloses wherein the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) comprises at least a first position fitting snugly (figure 2A) against an internal wall of the main body (206) in the form of a tubular conduit (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 10, Geisz discloses wherein the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) comprises at least a second position such that its outlet is established in the central position (figure 2A) according to the radial direction of the second opening (see figure 2A above).
Regarding claim 11, Geisz discloses wherein the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) is movable between the first position (¶65) and the second position (¶65) allowing the blowing in any of the intermediate positions in the operating mode (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 12, Geisz discloses wherein the outlet of the gas flow rate of the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) is mainly in the axial direction (figure 2A) and positioned in the center of the section of the main body (206) (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 13, Geisz discloses wherein the end of the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) is axially spaced from the second opening (see figure 2A above).
Regarding claim 14, Geisz discloses wherein the end of the suction conduit (see arrows of element 222) is axially spaced from the second opening (see figure 2A above).
Regarding claim 15, Geisz discloses wherein the suction conduit (see arrows of element 222) is integrated inside the wall of the tubular conduit (see figure 2A above) formed by the main body (206).
Regarding claim 16, Geisz discloses wherein the suction conduit (see arrows of element 222) comprises a plurality of axially extended channels (elements 214) providing a plurality of suction points (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 17, Geisz discloses wherein the suction opening (figure 2A) is fitted snugly against one side of the wall of the tubular conduit (figure 2A) formed by the main body (206).
Regarding claim 18, Geisz discloses wherein the outlet of the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212) is fitted snugly against the wall of the tubular conduit (figure 2A) formed by the main body (206) and located diametrically opposite the suction opening (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 19, Geisz discloses wherein the suction points of the plurality of suction points (elements 214) are distributed around the perimeter of the tubular conduit formed by the main body (206) (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 20, Geisz discloses wherein the port (200) comprises a distribution ring (portion of element 206) surrounding the first opening (see figure 2A above) and comprising an inlet port (220) for the suction intake of the vacuum source (124) in fluid communication with the suction point or points (elements 214) (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 21, Geisz discloses a fluid draining system (200) for a surgical region (104) comprising a surgical access port (206) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), a vacuum source (124) adapted for (i.e. capable of) providing vacuum conditions (figure 2A) in fluid communication with the suction conduit (see arrows of element 222), a pressurized gas source (170) adapted for (i.e. capable of) providing pressurized gas (102) in fluid communication with the blowing conduit (see arrows of element 212).
Regarding claim 26, Geisz discloses wherein the blowing source is a CO2 source (¶61).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisz (US 2019/0167301) in view of Muller et al. (US 2021/0219994), herein referred to as Muller.
Regarding claim 7, Geisz’s surgical access port discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the main body has a conical configuration converging in the axial direction X-X' and towards the second opening.
However, Muller teaches a main body (810) has a conical configuration (figure 8A) converging in an axial direction X-X' and towards a second opening (figure 8A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisz’s main body with wherein the main body has a conical configuration converging in the axial direction X-X' and towards the second opening as taught by Muller, since such a modification is considered a change in shape that is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisz (US 2019/0167301) in view of Walen et al. (US 2021/0321999), herein referred to as Walen.
Regarding claim 22, Geisz’s surgical access port discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising a suction flow rate adjustment device.
However, Walen teaches a suction flow rate adjustment device (32+50) (¶30, ¶36, figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Geisz’s surgical access port with a suction flow rate adjustment device as taught by Walen, since such a modification would provide feedback allowing the controller to anticipate changes in the level of fluid (¶32).
Regarding claim 23, Geisz’s surgical access port discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising a blowing gas flow rate adjustment device.
However, Walen teaches a blowing flow rate adjustment device (55) (¶36 and figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Geisz’s surgical access port with a blowing flow rate adjustment device as taught by Walen, since such a modification would control a flow rate of fluid being provided by the inflow source (¶36).
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisz (US 2019/0167301) in view of Rezai (US 2005/0245944).
Regarding claim 27, Geisz’s surgical access port discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising an irrigation fluid source adapted for providing pressurized irrigation fluid in communication with an irrigation conduit configured for providing irrigation fluid in the surgical region.
However, Rezai teaches an irrigation fluid source (114) (¶35 and figure 5) adapted for (i.e. capable of) providing pressurized irrigation fluid in communication with an irrigation conduit (70) configured for (i.e. capable of) providing irrigation fluid in a surgical region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisz’s surgical access port with an irrigation fluid source adapted for providing pressurized irrigation fluid in communication with an irrigation conduit configured for providing irrigation fluid in the surgical region as taught by Rezai, since such a modification would irrigate the target area (¶35).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Geisz’s surgical access port has wherein the fluid from the irrigation fluid source (114 of Rezai) comprises an excipient (¶35 of Rezai) and a blood anticoagulant substance (¶35 of Rezai).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisz (US 2019/0167301) in view of Wilk (US 5,183,471).
Regarding claim 35, Geisz’s surgical access port discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks comprising a surgical intervention laser device configured for, in the operating mode, acting on the surgical field through the tubular conduit of the main body of the surgical access port.
However, Wilk teaches a surgical intervention laser device (39) (figure 4) configured for (i.e. capable of), in the operating mode, acting on the surgical field (figure 4) through a tubular conduit of a main body (28) of a surgical access port (26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Geisz’s surgical access port with a surgical intervention laser device configured for, in the operating mode, acting on the surgical field through the tubular conduit of the main body of the surgical access port as taught by Wilk, since such a modification would allow the user to cauterize a surgical area.
Claim(s) 40 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisz (US 2019/0167301) in view of Ortega-Quijano et al. (US 2019/0200870), herein referred to as Ortega-Quijano.
Regarding claim 40, Geisz’s surgical access port discloses all the features/elements as claimed a surgical robot adapted for performing surgical interventions by means of an actuation arm.
However, Ortega-Quijano teaches a surgical robot (¶121) adapted for (i.e. capable of) performing surgical interventions (¶2) by means of an actuation arm (¶121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Geisz’s system with a surgical robot adapted for performing surgical interventions by means of an actuation arm as taught by Ortega-Quijano, since such a modification would control the means for carrying out readings through established paths in the arm or arms, whether a cut is made or if only discrimination operations are performed (¶34).
Thus, the modified Geisz’s surgical robot comprises a system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above) with the arm (¶121 of Ortega-Quijano) being adapted for (i.e. capable of) acting through the surgical access port (200 of Geisz).
Regarding claim 41, the modified Geisz’s surgical robot has comprising a laser sectioning unit (1 of Ortega-Quijano) (¶53 of Ortega-Quijano) that can be operated through the robot arm (¶121 of Ortega-Quijano).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 25, 28, 30-34, and 36-39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SI MING KU whose telephone number is (571)270-5450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-6pm.
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 Truong can be reached at (571)272-4705. 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.
/SI MING KU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775