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 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 (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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee et al. (US Publication No. 2006/0189847 A1) in view of Electrical Engineering (“what is the Outer casing of alkaline battery made of?”, Jan. 28, 2015).
Regarding Claim 1, Yee discloses an illuminated surgical retractor (110) (fig. 8) comprising: an outer housing (component shown in Fig. 8) forming a handle (114) and a blade (112) extending from the handle (Fig. 8); an illumination assembly (element shown in Fig. 11 and batteries which supply the power to it described in [0070]) comprising at least one direct light source (118) [0073] (fig. 11), wherein the outer housing houses therein the batteries (Fig. 15) [0075-0076], and wherein the outer housing includes an exterior surface and an inner surface and wherein predetermined portions of one or more of the exterior surface and the inner surface of the outer housing have a shielding material (aluminum sleeve 238) applied thereto (fig. 15, [0076], see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yee discloses that the retractor takes AA or AAA batteries [0070]. However Yee is silent to the batteries comprising one or more ferromagnetic components.
Electrical Engineering discloses AA/AAA batteries have a steel can casing making them ferromagnetic. It would have been obvious to use traditional AA/AAA batteries as taught by Electrical Engineering since this is a known type of battery used in the art to power devices.
It is noted that the aluminum sleeve (shielding material) of Yee would act to prevent interference of the one or more ferromagnetic components (batteries) housed within the outer housing with magnetic and electromagnetic signals since this function is attributed to a material property of aluminum.
Regarding Claim 2-3, the shielding material (aluminum sleeve 238, Yee) is aluminum which is one or more of paramagnetic material, diamagnetic material and non-magnetic material capable of shielding against magnetic and electromagnetic field interference.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-13, 15-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0046336 A1) in view of Electrical Engineering (“what is the Outer casing of alkaline battery made of?”, Jan. 28, 2015) and Wallace (“The Importance of EMI Shielding in Medical Devices”, Nov. 2, 2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Swift discloses an illuminated surgical retractor comprising: an outer housing ( 1702+1708+1718+1720, fig 17B) forming a handle and a blade extending from the handle; an illumination assembly (1800, fig. 18) comprising at least one direct light source (LED, [0141]), wherein the outer housing houses therein one or more batteries (1706), and wherein the outer housing includes an exterior surface and an inner surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
511
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Swift contemplates the use of different materials [0170] but is silent to any specific ferromagnetic component or predetermined portions of one or more of the exterior surface and the inner surface of the outer housing have a shielding material applied thereto to prevent interference of the one or more ferromagnetic components housed within the outer housing with magnetic and electromagnetic signals.
Electrical Engineering discloses AA/AAA batteries have a steel can casing making them ferromagnetic. It would have been obvious to use traditional AA/AAA batteries as taught by Electrical Engineering since this is a known type of battery used in the art to power devices. This would render the batteries ferromagnetic components.
Wallace discloses applying a metal coating to shield electronic devices that reside within a plastic housing in the medical device industry. Wallace discloses plating with copper because it blocks EMI (electromagnetic interference) emissions, both reflecting and absorbing any potential interference. Shielding the enclosures protects internal components of the device while ensuring accurate results are produced. Wallace states that digital circuits in the new medical devices are smaller and faster and are susceptible to electromagnetic fields and the resulting interference.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a metal- specifically copper - coating as taught by Wallace to the outer housing of the retractor of Swift in order to shield all the internal electronic components from EMI emissions.
Regarding Claim 2-3, the shielding material (taught by Wallace) is copper which is one or more of paramagnetic material, diamagnetic material and non-magnetic material capable of shielding against magnetic and electromagnetic field interference.
Regarding Claim 5, the location of the electronic components in the retractor of Swift are at a joint between the handle and the blade, a proximal portion of the blade and a proximal portion of the handle (Fig. 17B, Swift). It would have been obvious to shield these areas of the retractor since that is where the electronics are. It would have been obvious to apply the shielding to one or more of the exterior surface and the inner surface of the outer housing since Wallace discloses applying the shielding to the housing of the electronics and there are only two locations to apply the coating- either the inside surface or outside surface. Either or both would have been obvious to try since they would both generate the predictable result of blocking EMI.
Regarding Claim 6, the internal electronics in the retractor of Swift extend at least 1 inch from the joint between the handle and the blade, and at least 1 inch from the joint between the handle and the blade (they extend substantially the entire length of the retractor as shown in Fig. 17b). The scale of the retractor is not disclosed but it is a handheld device and the length of blade portion and handle portion must be well over 1 inch in order for the device to function as intended.
Regarding Claim 8, Swift discloses the illumination assembly (1800, Swift) comprises a flexible circuit (1816) [0141-0142] and the at least one direct light source (LED) is mounted on the flexible circuit [0142], the flexible circuit is housed within the blade (Fig. 17B) and includes a flexible circuit board and copper layer provided on a top and a bottom surface of the flexible circuit board [0014], and the shielding material is not required to be applied to portions of the blade housing the flexible circuit board with the copper layer thereon (this is an optional claim limitation- Wallace teaches that the shielding material protects the circuits and so it would be obvious to have shielding even if the circuit was present).
Regarding Claim 11, Swift discloses a medical device (retractor (Fig 17B) comprising: an outer housing ( 1702+1708+1718+1720, fig 17B) forming a handle (area by 1702 shown in Fig. 17B) and an operative portion (blade) extending from the handle (area by 1718 in Fig. 17B); batteries (1706) housed within the outer housing, wherein the outer housing includes an exterior surface and an inner surface (see figure above with regards to rejection of claim 1).
Swift contemplates the use of different materials [0170] but is silent to any specific ferromagnetic component or predetermined portions of one or more of the exterior surface and the inner surface of the outer housing have a shielding material applied thereto to prevent interference of the one or more ferromagnetic components housed within the outer housing with magnetic and electromagnetic signals.
Electrical Engineering discloses AA/AAA batteries have a steel can casing making them ferromagnetic. It would have been obvious to use traditional AA/AAA batteries as taught by Electrical Engineering since this is a known type of battery used in the art to power devices. This would render the batteries ferromagnetic components.
Wallace discloses applying a metal coating to shield electronic devices that reside within a plastic housing in the medical device industry. Wallace discloses plating with copper because it blocks EMI (electromagnetic interference) emissions, both reflecting and absorbing any potential interference. Shielding the enclosures protects internal components of the device while ensuring accurate results are produced. Wallace states that digital circuits in the new medical devices are smaller and faster and are susceptible to electromagnetic fields and the resulting interference.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a metal- specifically copper - coating as taught by Wallace to the outer housing of the retractor of Swift in order to shield all the internal electronic components from EMI emissions.
Regarding Claim 12-13, the shielding material (taught by Wallace) is copper which is one or more of paramagnetic material, diamagnetic material and non-magnetic material capable of shielding against magnetic and electromagnetic field interference.
Regarding Claim 15, the internal electronics in the retractor of Swift extend inside a surgical pocket or within 0-4 inches of a surgical pocket opening when the medical device is in use (they extend substantially the entire length of the retractor as shown in Fig. 17b). The shielding material is taught by Wallace to cover the electronics, therefore the portions covered with shielding would be inside a surgical pocket or within 0-4 inches of a surgical pocket opening when the medical device is in use.
Regarding Claim 16, the electronics of the retractor of Swift are at the at least a portion of the operative portion, a proximal portion of the handle and a joint between the handle and the operative portion. The shielding material is taught by Wallace to cover the electronics, therefore the portions covered with shielding would be at the at least a portion of the operative portion, a proximal portion of the handle and a joint between the handle and the operative portion.
Regarding Claim 20, the medical device is a retractor [0137, Swift].
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0046336 A1) in view of Electrical Engineering (“what is the Outer casing of alkaline battery made of?”, Jan. 28, 2015) and Wallace (“The Importance of EMI Shielding in Medical Devices”, Nov. 2, 2021) in further view of Wallace (“Expand Your Development Team Series, Part 2 – Consider How We Can Help With Your Product Design”, May 3, 2019) (referred to as Wallace-2)
Regarding Claim 4 and 14, Swift in view of Electrical Engineering and Wallace teaches the retractor of claim 1 and 11 as described in the rejections above. Wallace teaches electroplating plastic housings with copper to apply EMI shielding material to medical devices, however Wallace is silent to the thickness of the shielding material being a minimum of 0.001mm.
Wallace-2 teaches electroplating medical devices in the same field of endeavor wherein for FRI/EMI shielding application a typical part gets a layer of plated copper about 12-20 microns thick (.012-.02 mm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a copper shielding coating of .012-02 mm thick as taught by Wallace-2 since this is a suitable thickness for providing EMI shielding of a part.
Claim(s) 7, 17, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0046336 A1) in view of Electrical Engineering (“what is the Outer casing of alkaline battery made of?”, Jan. 28, 2015) and Wallace (“The Importance of EMI Shielding in Medical Devices”, Nov. 2, 2021) in further view of Swift (US Publication No. 2018/0177497 A1) (referred to as Swift-2).
Regarding Claim 7 and 17, Swift in view of Electrical Engineering and Wallace teaches the retractor of claim 1 and 11 as described in the rejections above. Wallace teaches electroplating plastic housings to apply shielding material to medical devices, and Swift contemplates the use of different materials [0170] but is silent to the outer housing being formed from a polymer material.
Swift-2 discloses a lighted retractor in the same field of endeavor wherein the outer casing is made from polymer because it is lightweight and strong [0118].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a polymer to make the outer housing of the retractor as taught by Swift-2 in order to use a suitable, lightweight and strong material.
Regarding Claim 21, Swift discloses an illuminated surgical retractor (1700, Fig. 17B) comprising: ( 1702+1708+1718+1720, fig 17B) forming a handle (area by 1702 shown in Fig. 17B) and a blade extending from the handle (area of 1718 shown in Fig. 17B); an illumination assembly (1800, Fig. 18) comprising at least one direct light source (LED) and one or more power sources (batteries) [0172, Fig. 18].
Swift contemplates the use of different materials [0170] but is silent to the outer housing being formed from a polymer material and houses therein one or more ferromagnetic components, and wherein shielding material is selectively applied to one or more of predetermined portions of the outer housing and the one or more ferromagnetic components to prevent interference of the one or more ferromagnetic components with magnetic and electromagnetic signals.
Electrical Engineering discloses AA/AAA batteries have a steel can casing making them ferromagnetic. It would have been obvious to use traditional AA/AAA batteries as taught by Electrical Engineering since this is a known type of battery used in the art to power devices. This would render the batteries ferromagnetic components.
Wallace discloses applying a metal coating to shield electronic devices that reside within a plastic housing in the medical device industry. Wallace discloses plating with copper because it blocks EMI (electromagnetic interference) emissions, both reflecting and absorbing any potential interference. Shielding the enclosures protects internal components of the device while ensuring accurate results are produced. Wallace states that digital circuits in the new medical devices are smaller and faster and are susceptible to electromagnetic fields and the resulting interference.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a metal- specifically copper - coating as taught by Wallace to the outer housing of the retractor of Swift in order to shield all the internal electronic components from EMI emissions.
Swift-2 discloses a lighted retractor in the same field of endeavor wherein the outer casing is made from polymer because it is lightweight and strong [0118].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a polymer to make the outer housing of the retractor as taught by Swift-2 in order to use a suitable, lightweight and strong material.
Regarding Claim 22, the shielding material (taught by Wallace) is copper.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0046336 A1) in view of Electrical Engineering (“what is the Outer casing of alkaline battery made of?”, Jan. 28, 2015) and Wallace (“The Importance of EMI Shielding in Medical Devices”, Nov. 2, 2021) in further view of Swift (US Publication No. 2018/0177497 A1) (referred to as Swift-2) in further view of Wallace (“Expand Your Development Team Series, Part 2 – Consider How We Can Help With Your Product Design”, May 3, 2019) (referred to as Wallace-2)
Regarding Claim 23, Swift in view of Electrical Engineering and Wallace in further view of Swift-2 teaches the retractor of claim 21 as described in the rejections above. Wallace teaches electroplating plastic housings with copper to apply EMI shielding material to medical devices, however Wallace is silent to the thickness of the shielding material being a minimum of 0.001mm.
Wallace-2 teaches electroplating medical devices in the same field of endeavor wherein for FRI/EMI shielding application a typical part gets a layer of plated copper about 12-20 microns thick (.012-.02 mm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a copper shielding coating of .012-02 mm thick as taught by Wallace-2 since this is a suitable thickness for providing EMI shielding of a part.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 18-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE T JOHANAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/JACQUELINE T JOHANAS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773