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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 11, 17, and 21 are objected to because of the following
informalities: in claims 1 and 17, “analysis” should be –analyze--. In claims 6 and 11, “centred” should be –centered--. In claim 21, “principle component analysis” should be –principal component analysis--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a radio-frequency or microwave transmission system,” “a sensing system,” and “a processing system” recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, “the knife blade” is confusing as claim 29 does not explicitly recite or require a knife blade. In other words, claim 29 neither positively nor implicitly claims a knife blade, while claim 30, which depends from claim 29, introduces the knife blade as a claimed element. As a result, the scope of claim 30 is indefinite, because one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the boundaries of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-7, 10-11, 17-21, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hancock (8,795,267 B2), hereinafter Hancock ‘267. Regarding claim 1, Hancock ‘267 teaches a knife blade (104 or 304 or 600). The knife blade is defined by a cutting element having a cutting edge at the distal end of the instrument, cutting edge / cutting element, Fig. 1; Fig. 3; Fig. 6; col. 6, lines 1-20. Hancock ‘267 also teaches a radio-frequency or microwave transmission system for transmitting a radio-frequency or microwave signal to the knife blade. Hancock ‘267 teaches a microwave transmission system comprising a microwave source (102, 202; Figs. 2A-2B), a treatment channel (A-B; Fig. 1; Figs. 2A-2B), and a transmission path (126, 326) conveying microwave energy to an antenna located at the cutting edge (Figs. 3A-3B; col. 4, lines 10-45; col. 6, lines 5-15). The antenna is located at the knife blade and receives the microwave signal. Hancock ‘267 also teaches a sensing system for sensing a parameter of a reflection of the radio-frequency or microwave signal. Hancock ‘267 discloses a measurement channel and reflected power monitor configured to sense parameters of reflected microwave signals, including magnitude and phase (Figs. 2A-2B; col. 5, lines 1-20; col. 7, lines 10-30). These parameters correspond to reflections of the microwave signal from the antenna at the cutting edge. Handcock also teaches a processing system configured to analyse the parameter to determine a property of an environment adjacent the knife blade. Hancock ‘267 teaches a control and processing system configured to analyze the reflected microwave signal parameters to determine tissue characteristics and conditions adjacent the cutting edge, including determining when higher power may be safely applied (Figs. 2A-2B; col. 5, lines 21-40; col. 7, lines 31-55). The tissue adjacent the cutting edge constitutes the environment adjacent the knife blade.
Regarding claim 2, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the knife blade (104, 304, or 600) provides a waveguide for guiding radio-frequency or microwave signals along the knife blade. Hancock ‘267 discloses that the cutting edge and associated structure form an element that conveys microwave energy from the source (102, 202) through a treatment channel (A-B) and radiates it along the cutting edge (antenna) to tissue, such that the instrument’s blade and associated load structure can function as a waveguide for guiding microwave signals.
Regarding claim 3, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the knife blade comprises a first electrical conductor 614 and a second electrical conductor 618 (Fig. 6), wherein the first electrical conductor 614 provides a first cutting edge of the knife blade, wherein the second electrical conductor 618 is separated from the first electrical conductor by a first insulator region 616, and wherein the first electrical conductor, the second electrical conductor, and the first insulator region form a first radio-frequency or microwave waveguide. Hancock ‘267 discloses embodiments in which the antenna and feed structure comprise conductors and dielectric materials that carry and emit microwave energy, including embedded blade/antenna structures where metallized and dielectric regions are arranged to propagate microwave energy into the tissue. The microwave feed structure and blade form part of a waveguide structure with conductive and dielectric components configured to guide microwave energy to and along the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 4, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the first electrical conductor 614, the second electrical conductor 618, and the first insulator region 616 are elongate and each extend along an axis of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 5, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the first electrical conductor, the second electrical conductor, and the first insulator region are formed of respective substantially planar elements and arranged to be coplanar within a plane of the knife blade. Hancock ‘267 discloses embodiments in which the blade structure and radiating elements are integrated with planar conductive and dielectric surfaces (e.g., metallized blade surfaces and dielectric loads) that propagate microwave energy and emit a uniform field along a blade edge.
Regarding claim 6, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the second electrical conductor 618 provides a second cutting edge of the knife blade and wherein the first insulator region is centered along an axis of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 7, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the knife blade comprises a third electrical conductor 608 (defined by the metalized layer), separated from the second electrical conductor 618 by a second insulator region 612, wherein the second electrical conductor, the third electrical conductor, and the second insulator region form a second radio-frequency or microwave waveguide, and wherein the third electrical conductor provides a second cutting edge of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 10, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the first, second and third electrical conductors, and the first and second insulator regions, are elongate and each extend along an axis of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 11, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the second electrical conductor is centered along an axis of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 17, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the radio-frequency or microwave transmission system is configured to transmit a sweep signal over a range of frequencies, and wherein the processing system is configured to analyze the parameter for a plurality of different frequencies (up to 18 GHZ) when determining the property of the environment (tissue properties). See Fig. 6; col. 7, lines 10-55; and the abstract.
Regarding claim 18, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the processing system is configured to compare the parameter to a set of one or more predetermined parameter templates stored in a memory of the processing system (the memory of processing unit 116; Fig. 1) when determining the property of the environment. Hancock ‘267 discloses comparing sensed reflected microwave signal parameters to known or predetermined signal behaviors stored or implemented in the control system in order to classify tissue and determine operating conditions (Fig. 6; col. 5, lines 21-40; col. 7, lines 31-55). Such known behaviors constitute predetermined parameter templates under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 19, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the processing system is configured to identify one or more peaks in the parameter over frequency when determining the property of the environment.
Hancock ‘267 discloses analyzing reflected signal parameters as a function of frequency and identifying characteristic features in the frequency response when determining tissue properties (Fig. 6; col. 7, lines 10-40). These characteristic features include peaks in the reflected signal response over frequency.
Regarding claim 20, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the processing system is configured to determine a frequency or an amplitude of the identified one or more peaks and to determine the property of the environment at least partly in dependence on the frequency or amplitude of the identified one or more peaks. Hancock ‘267 teaches determining frequency-dependent characteristics of reflected microwave signals, including signal magnitude at particular frequencies (Fig. 6; col. 7, lines 20-45). Hancock also teaches discloses determining tissue properties and operating conditions based at least in part on the magnitude and frequency behavior of reflected signals (Fig. 6; col. 7, lines 31-55).
Regarding claim 21, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the processing system is configured to perform principle component analysis on parameter data representative of values of the parameter determined at a plurality of different respective frequencies. Hancock ‘267 discloses performing multi-frequency signal analysis and classification on reflected signal parameter data to determine tissue properties (Fig. 6; col. 7, lines 31-55). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, performing multivariate analysis on parameter data obtained at multiple frequencies encompasses principal component analysis.
Regarding claim 26, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the determined property of the environment adjacent the knife blade (by determining the properties if the tissue adjacent the blade) is an extent of contact (between the cutting edge and the tissue) between the knife blade and material adjacent the knife blade.
Regarding claim 27, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the determined property of the environment adjacent the knife blade is the presence of material adjacent the knife blade. It should be noted that Hancock ‘267 inherently determines whether tissue is present adjacent the cutting edge, as reflected microwave signals differ depending on whether tissue is present or absent.
Regarding claim 28, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including that the determined property of the environment adjacent the knife blade is a type of material adjacent the knife blade. It should be noted that Hancock ‘267 discloses distinguishing between different tissue types and conditions based on reflected microwave signal behavior (col. 7, lines 31-55).
Regarding claim 29, Hancock ‘267 discloses a method of operating a surgical cutting apparatus including a cutting edge (defined by the cutting edge of the cutting blade 104, 304, or 600; Fig. 1, Fig. 3; Fig. 6; col. 4, lines 10-45; col. 6, lines 5-15). Hancock further discloses transmitting a microwave signal to the cutting edge (col. 4, lines 10-45; col. 6, lines 5-15), sensing parameters of the reflected microwave signal using a measurement channel and reflected power monitor (Fig. 2, Fig. 6; col. 5, lines 1-20; col. 7, lines 10-30), and analyzing the reflected signal to determine properties of tissue adjacent the cutting edge (Fig. 2; Fig. 6; col. 5, lines 21-40; col. 7, lines 31-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-7, 10-11, 17-22, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (GB 2472012 A), hereinafter Hancock ‘012, in view of Hancock (2010/0030207 A1), hereinafter Handcock ‘207, both references are provided in the IDS submitted on 12/14/2023. Regarding claim 1, Hancock ‘012 teaches a cutting system comprising: a knife blade 10 (defined broadly as a surgical blade or spatula 10); a radio-frequency or microwave transmission system (defined by a system that transmits RF/microwave energy to the microwave circuit 16; Figs. 1) for transmitting a radio-frequency or microwave signal (as RF/microwave energy) to the knife blade 10; a sensing system (defined by the spatula’s reflected microwave signal, which varies depending on the material contacted by the spatula,) for sensing a parameter of a reflection (defined by the microwave signal that bounces back or reflects from the spatula) of the radio-frequency or microwave signal.
Hancock ‘012 does not explicitly teach a processing system configured to analyze the parameter to determine a property of an environment adjacent the knife blade. However, Hancock ‘207 teaches sensing return loss or reflected parameters of a microwave blade (elements 1110, 1112, 1114; Fig. 25) and analyzing the reflected parameter to determine whether the blade is in contact with tissue versus air (paragraphs [0040]–[0045]), thereby teaching a processing system configured to analyze the parameter to determine a property of the environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the surgical blade of Hancock ‘012 with the reflection analysis and processing system taught by Hancock ‘207 in order to determine material contact based on reflected RF/microwave signals, thereby enabling enhanced monitoring of the tissue interface. Such a combination represents the predictable use of known techniques to achieve a known result.
Regarding claim 2, Hancock ‘012 teaches everything noted above including that the knife blade 10 provides a waveguide (defined by conductive elements 12, 20 in combination with dielectric region 14; Fig. 1) for guiding radio-frequency or microwave signals along the knife blade 10.
Regarding claim 3, Hancock ‘012 teaches everything noted above including that the knife blade comprises a first electrical conductor 12 and a second electrical conductor (16 or 20), wherein the first electrical conductor 12 provides a first cutting edge of the knife blade, wherein the second electrical conductor is separated from the first electrical conductor by a first insulator region 14, and wherein the first electrical conductor, the second electrical conductor, and the first insulator region form a first radio-frequency or microwave waveguide (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Hancock ‘012 teaches everything noted above including that the first electrical conductor 12, the second electrical conductor 16, and the first insulator region 14 are elongate and each extend along an axis of the knife blade 10 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hancock ‘012 teaches everything noted above including that the first electrical conductor, the second electrical conductor, and the first insulator region are formed of respective substantially planar elements and arranged to be coplanar within a plane of the knife blade 10. See Figs. 1-2 in Hancock ‘012.
Regarding claim 6, Hancock ‘012 teaches everything noted above including that the second electrical conductor 20 provides a second cutting edge of the knife blade 10 and wherein the first insulator region 14 is centered along an axis of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 7, Hancock ‘012 teaches everything noted above including that the knife blade comprises a third electrical conductor (defined as layer 20 and the second electrical conductor define as the layer 16), separated from the second electrical conductor 16 by a second insulator region 18, wherein the second electrical conductor 18, the third electrical conductor 20, and the second insulator region 18 form a second radio-frequency or microwave waveguide, and wherein the third electrical conductor provides a second cutting edge of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 10, Hancock ‘012 teaches everything noted above including that the first, second and third electrical conductors (12, 16, 20), and the first and second insulator regions (14, 18), are elongate and each extend along an axis of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 11, Hancock ‘012 teaches everything noted above including that the second electrical conductor 16 is centered along an axis of the knife blade.
Regarding claim 17, Hancock ‘012, as modified by Handcock ‘207, teaches everything noted above including that the radio-frequency or microwave transmission system is configured to transmit a sweep signal over a range of frequencies (Figs. 28-29 and paragraphs [0040]-[0045] of Handcock ‘207), and wherein the processing system is configured to analyze the parameter for a plurality of different frequencies when determining the property of the environment.
Regarding claim 18, Hancock ‘012, as modified by Hancock ‘207, teaches
analyzing reflected microwave parameters by comparing measured reflection data to known or expected reflection behaviors corresponding to different environments (e.g., tissue versus air). While Handcock ’207 does not explicitly disclose storing predetermined parameter templates in memory, it would have been obvious to implement such known reflection behaviors as stored templates to facilitate automated comparison and environment determination.
Regarding claim 19, Hancock ‘012, as modified by Hancock ‘207, teaches
everything noted above including that the processing system is configured to identify one or more peaks (Figs. 28-29 in Handcock) in the parameter over frequency when determining the property of the environment. It should be noted that Handcock ’207, teaches analyzing reflected microwave parameters over frequency, including identifying resonant features or peaks in the reflection response when determining a property of the environment (see Figs. 28–29 of Hancock ’207).
Regarding claim 20, Hancock ‘012, as modified by Hancock ‘207, teaches everything noted above including that the processing system is configured to determine a frequency or an amplitude of the identified one or more peaks and to determine the property of the environment at least partly in dependence on the frequency or amplitude of the identified one or more peaks. It should be noted that Handcock ’207 teaches determining the frequency and amplitude characteristics of identified resonant features in the reflected microwave signal and determining the property of the environment at least partly based on such characteristics, as is standard in microwave reflection analysis.
Regarding claim 21, Hancock ’012, as modified by Hancock ’207, does not explicitly disclose performing principal component analysis on reflected parameter data. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply known multivariate data analysis techniques, such as principal component analysis, to reflection data collected at multiple frequencies in order to improve discrimination between different environmental conditions.
Regarding claim 22, Hancock ‘012, as modified by Hancock ‘207, teaches everything noted above except a mechanical actuator for moving the knife blade in space, wherein the processing system is configured to output data to a mechanical control system for controlling the mechanical actuator. However, it is well known in the art of surgical systems to employ mechanical actuators to move surgical blades, and it would have been obvious to integrate such a mechanical actuator and control system to automate or assist blade movement based on sensed conditions.
Regarding claims 26-28, Hancock ‘012, as modified by Hancock ‘207, does not explicitly teaches that the determined property of the environment adjacent the knife blade is inherently an extent of contact between the knife blade and material adjacent the knife blade; the determined property of the environment adjacent the knife blade is inherently the presence of material adjacent the knife blade; and the determined property of the environment adjacent the knife blade is a type of material adjacent the knife blade. However, Hancock ’012, as modified by Hancock ’207, teaches determining whether material is present adjacent the blade and whether the blade is in contact with tissue versus air based on reflected microwave parameters. It would have been obvious to further interpret such reflection data to determine the extent of contact and to distinguish between different types of material, as reflection-based material discrimination is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 29, Hancock ‘012, as modified by Hancock ‘207, teaches a method of operating a knife blade 10 (taught by Handcock ‘012), comprising: transmitting a radio-frequency or microwave signal to the knife blade; sensing a parameter of a reflection of the radio-frequency or microwave signal; and analyzing the parameter (a taught by Handcock ‘207; see paragraphs [0040]-[0045]) to determine a property of an environment adjacent the knife blade.
Regarding claim 30, as best understood, Hancock ‘012, as modified by Hancock ‘207, teaches everything noted above including that the step of determining property of the environment adjacent the knife blade while using the knife blade against a tissue of the human or animal body (page 1, lines 1-7 in Handcock ‘012). It could be argued that Handcock ‘012, as modified by Hancock ‘207, does not explicitly teach that the knife blade is used to butcher an animal carcass. It should be noted that the recited step merely specifies an intended use of the method of claim 29. The method steps of transmitting, sensing, and analyzing radio-frequency or microwave signals remain unchanged regardless of whether the issue is living tissue or animal carcass tissue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the knife of Handcock ‘012, as modified by Handcock ‘207, to butcher an animal carcass, since animal tissue exhibits electromagnetic properties similar to those of biological tissue generally.
9. Claims 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock ‘267. Regarding claim 22, Hancock ‘267 teaches a cutting system including a knife blade, a radio-frequency or microwave transmission system, a sensing system for sensing parameters of reflected microwave signals, and a processing system configured to analyze the parameters to determine properties of tissue adjacent the knife blade (see, e.g., Fig. 1; Fig. 6; col. 4-7). Hancock ‘267 does not expressly disclose a mechanical actuator for moving the knife blade in space, nor a mechanical control system receiving output data from the processing system to control such an actuator. However, it is well known in the art of surgical and cutting systems to provide a mechanical actuator, such as a motorized or robotic actuator, for moving a cutting blade in space, and to control such an actuator using control signals generated by a processing system. Examples include powered surgical tools and robotically assisted surgical systems in which a controller outputs commands to mechanical actuators to move cutting elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting system of Hancock ‘267 to include a mechanical actuator for moving the knife blade in space, and to configure the processing system of Hancock ‘267 to output data to a mechanical control system for controlling the mechanical actuator, in order to automate or assist blade positioning and movement based on sensed tissue conditions, thereby improving precision, safety, and control during cutting procedures.
Regarding claim 30, as best understood, Hancock ‘267 teaches everything noted above including a method of operating a knife blade including transmitting a radio-frequency or microwave signal to the knife blade, sensing a parameter of a reflection of the signal, and analyzing the parameter to determine a property of tissue adjacent the knife blade (see, e.g., Fig. 6; col. 5-7). Hancock ‘267 is directed to surgical applications and does not expressly disclose using the knife blade to butcher an animal carcass. However, it is well known that knife blades and cutting systems are used in butchery and meat-processing applications to cut animal carcasses, and that techniques for monitoring contact, presence, or type of material adjacent a cutting blade are desirable in such contexts for control and safety.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Hancock ‘267 to the analogous context of butchering an animal carcass, since both surgical cutting and butchery involve cutting biological tissue, and the use of sensing and analysis to determine properties of material adjacent a blade would predictably function in the same manner. The application of the method of Hancock ‘267 to butchery merely represents the use of a known technique in a closely related field involving similar materials and cutting operations.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Morgan et al. (8,623,012 B2), Hancock (2012/0172865 A1), Blumenjranz et al. (2020/0138514 A1), Shaw (4,185,632), Heim et al. (2006/0241589 A1), Bonn (2012/0203218 A1), Turner et al. (11,253,316), and Hood (5,695,510) teach a cutting system including a radio-frequency or microwave system.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Boyer Ashely can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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./GHASSEM ALIE/ /GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 January 7, 2026