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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 75 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant uses the phrase “terminals connecting engaging a plurality of electrical receptacles”. This should read “terminals connectedly engaging a plurality of electrical receptacles”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 15-20 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald et al. (US 2016/0287265) in view of Wightman (US 10,004,142).
Regarding claim 1, Macdonald et al. disclose a powered surgical tool comprising a handpiece (900) including a motor (950, figure 10); and a battery and control module (100) including a module housing (109) having a recess (see figure below) for removably receiving the handpiece, the module housing defining a void space (figure 1); a rechargeable battery module (101) disposed in the void space (figure 1); a first printed circuit board (103) disposed in the void space; and a controller (901 + 903 + 920 or alternatively “motor controller” ¶58, ¶83) configured to regulate power drawn from the rechargeable battery module based on user input, the controller being mounted to at least one of the first printed circuit board (¶58, ¶83).
Macdonald et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose a second printed circuit board disposed in the void space, the second printed circuit board being coupled to the first printed circuit board, the second printed circuit board and the first printed circuit board being arranged in a stacked configuration, wherein the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are both positioned on a same side of the rechargeable battery module.
Wightman teaches the use of a first printed circuit board (90, figures 15-17) disposed in a void space (46, 48) and a second printed circuit board (118, figures 15-17) disposed in the void space, the second printed circuit board being coupled to the first printed circuit board (figures 15-17, column 7, lines 33-45), the second printed circuit board and the first printed circuit board being arranged in a stacked configuration (figure 17), wherein the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are both positioned on a same side of the rechargeable battery module (figures 15-17). The first circuit board is configured to control electrical distribution within the motor assembly (column 6, lines 4-6) and the second circuit board provides a direct electrical coupling to the sensors and primary circuit board (column 7, lines 23-25). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the surgical power tool of Macdonald et al. to include a second printed circuit board disposed in the void space which is taught by Wrightman as the first circuit board is configured to control electrical distribution within the motor assembly and the second circuit board provides a direct electrical coupling to the sensors and primary circuit board.
Regarding claim 2, Macdonald et al. disclose the battery and control module is constructed so as to isolate the void space from effects of a sterilization process (¶73).
Regarding claim 15, Macdonald et al. disclose a motor sensor (920) being mounted to one of the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board and configured to output a motor sensor signal representative of a state of the motor (¶58, ¶83).
Regarding claim 16, Macdonald et al. disclose the controller is further configured to receive the motor sensor signal and control the motor based on the motor sensor signal (¶58, ¶83).
Regarding claim 17, Macdonald et al. disclose the motor sensor is a Hall effect sensor (¶83) and the first printed circuit board includes a distal portion and a proximal portion, the motor sensor being coupled to the distal portion so that the motor sensor is positioned proximate to the motor in order to sense a motor parameter (figures 1, 10, ¶83).
Regarding claim 18, Macdonald et al. in view of Wightman disclose the motor sensor is further defined as a first motor sensor (112/116, figure 15 of Wightman) and the motor sensor signal is further defined as a first motor sensor signal, the powered surgical tool further comprising a second motor sensor (another 112/116, figure 15 of Wightman) and a third motor sensor (another 112/116, figure 15 of Wightman) being coupled to the distal portion so that the second motor sensor and the third motor sensor are positioned proximate to the motor in order to sense the motor parameter (figures 15-17 of Wightman).
Regarding claim 19, Macdonald et al. in view of Wightman disclose the first printed circuit board including a first surface (“bottom surface) and a second surface (“top surface”), wherein the motor sensor is mounted to the second surface of the first printed circuit board and faces the recess (figures 15-17 of Wightman).
Regarding claim 20, Macdonald et al. in view of Wightman disclose the controller is mounted to the first printed circuit board (figures 1, 10 of Macdonald and column 6, lines 4-16 of Wightman).
Regarding claim 24, Macdonald et al. in view of Wightman disclose the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are rigidly coupled to each other by one or more fixation elements (solder, column 7, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 25, Macdonald et al. in view of Wightman disclose a surface area of the first printed circuit board is greater than a surface area of the second printed circuit board (figures 15-17 of Wightman).
Regarding claim 26, Macdonald et al. in view of disclose both of the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board each have a rigid back layer (¶63 of Macdonald as the proposed modification in view of Wightman provides two rigid printed circuit boards).
Regarding claim 27, Macdonald et al. in view of Wightman disclose the first printed circuit board has a first longitudinal axis (see figure below) and the second printed circuit board has a second longitudinal axis (see figure below), the first longitudinal axis being aligned with the second longitudinal axis (both lie parallel to one another).
Claims 71-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald et al. (US 2016/0287265) in view of Wightman (US 10,004,142) in view Belagli et al. (US 2015/0182230).
Regarding claim 71, Macdonald et al. disclose a powered surgical tool having a grip, the powered surgical tool comprising a handpiece (900) including a motor (950, figure 10); and a battery and control module (100) including a module housing (109) defining a barrel portion (see figure below) and a handle portion (see figure below), the barrel portion having a recess (see figure below) for removably receiving the handpiece, the handle portion extending downwardly from the barrel portion, the module housing defining a void space (figure 1); a rechargeable battery module (101) disposed in the void space; a first printed circuit board (103) disposed in the void space; and a Hall-effect sensor (920, figure 1, ¶83) disposed in the void space and being mounted to one of the first and the second printed circuit board (figure 1) and configured to output a motor sensor signal representative of a state of the motor (¶83-84); and a controller (“motor controller” ¶58, ¶83) disposed in the void space, the controller being configured to regulate power drawn from the rechargeable battery module based on user input, the controller being mounted to at least one of the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board (¶83). Macdonald et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose a second printed circuit board disposed in the void space, the second printed circuit board being coupled to the first printed circuit board, the second printed circuit board and the first printed circuit board being arranged in a stacked configuration, wherein the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are both positioned on a same side of the rechargeable battery module.
Wightman teaches the use of a first printed circuit board (90, figures 15-17) disposed in a void space (46, 48) and a second printed circuit board (118, figures 15-17) disposed in the void space, the second printed circuit board being coupled to the first printed circuit board (figures 15-17, column 7, lines 33-45), the second printed circuit board and the first printed circuit board being arranged in a stacked configuration (figure 17), wherein the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are both positioned on a same side of the rechargeable battery module (figures 15-17). The first circuit board is configured to control electrical distribution within the motor assembly (column 6, lines 4-6) and the second circuit board provides a direct electrical coupling to the sensors and primary circuit board (column 7, lines 23-25). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the surgical power tool of Macdonald et al. to include a second printed circuit board disposed in the void space which is taught by Wrightman as the first circuit board is configured to control electrical distribution within the motor assembly and the second circuit board provides a direct electrical coupling to the sensors and primary circuit board.
Additionally, Macdonald et al. fails to teach or disclose the grip is a pistol grip and rather teaches the grip is a pencil grip. Belagli et al. teaches that the grip can be either a pencil grip (figure 1) or a pistol grip (figure 64, ¶376) is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two gripping handles were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the pistol grip in for the pencil grip.
Regarding claim 72, Macdonald et al. in view of Wightman disclose the Hall-effect sensor (116 of Wightman) is mounted to the second printed circuit board (118, figure 15 of Wightman) , the second printed circuit board being positioned farther from the handle portion of the module housing than the first printed circuit board (figures 15-17 as it is positioned vertically further away as it is placed on top of the first circuit board).
Regarding claim 73, Macdonald et al. disclose the first printed circuit board defines a longitudinal axis (considered the central longitudinal axis of the circuit board0 that is offset from parallel to an axis defined by the recess of the barrel portion (figure 1).
Regarding claim 74, Macdonald et al. disclose a trigger assembly (901) positioned adjacent the handle portion and including a movable trigger (901), the tool including a trigger sensor (¶83), the third circuit board positioned in the module such that movements of the movable trigger is detectable by the trigger sensor (¶83).
Regarding claim 74, Macdonald et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the tool comprising a third circuit board in communication with the trigger sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the powered surgical tool of Macdonald et al. in view of Wightman to include a third circuit board having the trigger sensor as providing an additional circuit board allows for a more modular tool allowing for more easily identifying which portion of the tools electronic circuity has failed or is in need of replacing by siloing each electronic component to having its own circuit board.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the powered surgical tool of Macdonald et al. to have a third circuit board in communication with the trigger sensor as providing an additional circuit board allows for a more modular tool allowing for more easily identifying which portion of the tools electronic circuity has failed or is in need of replacing by siloing each electronic component to having its own circuit board.
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 118-120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald et al. (US 2016/0287265) in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2017/0202607).
Regarding claim 118, Macdonald et al. disclose a powered surgical tool, the powered surgical tool comprising a handpiece (900) including a motor (950, figure 10); and a battery and control module (100) including a module housing (109) defining a barrel portion (see figure below) and a handle portion (see figure below), the barrel portion having a recess (see figure below) for removably receiving the handpiece, the handle portion extending downwardly from the barrel portion, the module housing defining a void space (figure 1); a first rigid printed circuit board (103, ¶63) disposed in the void space; and a Hall-effect sensor (920) disposed in the void space and being mounted to the first printed circuit board and configured to output a motor sensor signal representative of a state of the motor (¶83); and a controller (“motor controller” ¶58, ¶83) disposed in the void space, the controller being configured to regulate power drawn from the battery cell based on user input, the controller being mounted to the first printed circuit board (¶83).
However, Macdonald et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose the too has a pistol grip, a plurality of battery cells disposed in the void space and rather teaches a single cell (101) and a second rigid printed circuit board disposed in the void space, wherein the first printed circuit board has a first longitudinal axis and the second printed circuit board has a second longitudinal axis, the first longitudinal axis being aligned with the second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first and second printed circuit boards are arranged in a stacked configuration.
Shelton, IV et al. disclose the use of a surgical tool having a pistol grip (figures 25) and a plurality of battery cells (438a-438n, figure 19) disposed in a void space (gap which houses 488, 483, 487) a first rigid printed circuit board (432, ¶195) disposed in the void space; a second rigid printed circuit (434, ¶195) disposed in the void space, wherein the first printed circuit board has a first longitudinal axis (considered the central longitudinal axis) and the second printed circuit board has a second longitudinal axis (considered the central longitudinal axis), the first longitudinal axis being aligned with the second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first and second printed circuit boards are arranged in a stacked configuration (figure 19) and a controller (434, figure 19) disposed in the void space (figures 18-19) and is configured to regulate power drawn from the plurality of battery cells (¶196) the controller is mounted to one of the circuit boards (figure 19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the surgical tool to include a pistol grip, a plurality of battery cells disposed in the void space and a second rigid printed circuit board disposed in the void space, wherein the first printed circuit board has a first longitudinal axis and the second printed circuit board has a second longitudinal axis, the first longitudinal axis being aligned with the second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first and second printed circuit boards are arranged in a stacked configuration as taught by Shelton, IV et al. as it is a known configuration for delivering and controlling power to the surgical tool.
Regarding claim 119, Macdonald et al. in view of Shelton, IV et al. disclose the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are electrically connected (¶195-196).
Regarding claim 120, Macdonald et al. in view of Shelton, IV et al. disclose the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are electrically connected with a pin header (437a-437n, figure 19, ¶199 of Shelton, IV).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
347
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 75 and 76 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 75 and 76 none of the cited art teaches or discloses the use of a fourth circuit board having terminals for connectedly engaging a plurality of electrical receptacles on the handpieces and at least one LED. The use of a fourth circuit board is not necessary and provides no added benefits to the two circuit board configuration as well as the use of at least one LED.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619