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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath et al. (US 20130072757).
Regarding claim 1, McGrath teaches a battery assembly for a medical device 1, the battery assembly comprising: a housing 10 that is configured to removably couple to the medical device 1 (P78-79; Fig. 1-2);
a battery 20 within the housing 10/18/16 (P78-79; Fig. 1-2);
a first terminal, or electrical contacts 26/72 exposed on an outside of the housing (P79.94; Fig. 4.7);
a power button that forms part of the housing, wherein the housing acts as the button wherein activated when attached (P30-31.81-83; Fig. 2.4.8); and
a battery control circuit within the housing, including output interface, wherein the battery control circuit is configured to disable an output path from the battery to the first terminal when the power button is in an off position, wherein without the output interface, the output path is not enabled (P29-30.47.79.81-84; Fig. 1-8). The housing comprises a release mechanism for detachment from the medical device and demounting the housing as batteries are depleted to allow recharging (P31-33.44.57.64). While McGrath is silent in explicitly teaching that when the power button is in an off position the output path is disabled, McGrath teaches that a user begins operations of the device by pressing the activation switch/cover/button (P79.83) and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that prior to the switch being pressed on, or when the power button is in an off position, the output path to the first terminal is disabled. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112
Regarding claim 2, McGrath teaches the battery control circuit comprises a power battery switch, or reed-relay or activation switch that is actuated by the power button, and is in a default open configuration when the battery is in the off position (P25.102).
Regarding claim 3, McGrath teaches the battery circuit control is configured to enable the output path from the battery to the first terminal 26/72 when the power button is in an on position (29-30.83-84).
Regarding claim 9, McGrath teaches the battery control circuit is configured to receive a feedback signal from the medical device and to provide a drive signal to a power on contactor 12 of the medical device, wherein the processor causes the solenoid to power on the RFID tag signaling the power levels (P102-105).
Regarding claim 10, McGrath teaches the battery control circuit is configured to provide the drive signal based on the feedback signal, wherein the activation source is integral to the pack and battery control circuit, providing/activating the circuit between the processor and RFID (P33.83-86.102-104).
Regarding claim 11, McGrath teaches the feedback signal is indicative of appropriate power signal properties for the medical device, and the drive signal is provided with the appropriate power signal properties for the medical device, wherein the processor causes the solenoid coil to power up the RFID tag and write a new value to the memory of the RFID tag, reflecting the reduced available rated capacity of the battery pack and when the capacity reaches a threshold value the processor stops the device from operating (P33.83-86.103-105)
Regarding claim 12, modified McGrath teaches the medical device comprises a video laryngoscope (P78-79).
Regarding claim 13, modified McGrath teaches the housing is configured to form part of a handle portion of the video laryngoscope while the battery assembly is electrically coupled to the video laryngoscope (P26-31; Fig. 1-12)
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath as applied to at least claim 3 above, and further in view of Shelton et al. (US 20200337702).
Regarding claim 4, McGrath is silent in teaching the battery control circuit comprises: a battery controller; and a power button switch that is actuated by the power button and is in a closed configuration when the power button is in the on position; wherein, in the closed configuration, the power button switch connects the battery to the battery controller.
However, Shelton, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a removeable housing, or end effector 9560 for a battery for a medical device (P267-270.422-427). The battery control circuit may comprise the battery controller, and a power switch that is actuated by a power button and is in a closed configuration when the power button is in the on position, or operated when closed; wherein, in the closed configuration, the power button switch connects the battery to the battery controller (P267-270; Fig. 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the battery control circuit of McGrath comprise a battery controller; and a power button switch that is actuated by the power button and is in a closed configuration when the power button is in the on position; wherein, in the closed configuration, the power button switch connects the battery to the battery controller, as taught by Shelton as known method of operating such a system. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, modified McGrath in view of Shelton teaches in response to connection of the battery to the battery controller, the battery controller instructs a controller switch to connect the battery to the first terminal to enable the output path (P267-286; Fig. 112-118).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath as applied to at least claim 3 above, and further in view of Shelton et al. (US 20200337702).
Regarding claim 6, McGrath is silent in teaching a battery control circuit comprises a switch that is in an open configuration when the power button is in the off position, and, in the open configuration, the switch is configured to disable the output path from the battery to the first terminal.
However, Shelton, in a similar field of endeavor related to a battery assembly powering an electronic device, teaches that the battery assembly, or end effector comprises an on/off power switch that is activated by the user and the on position, in which the switch is closed, activated the battery power (P267-270.285).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that when the switch of modified McGrath is in an open configuration the power button is in the off position, and, in the open configuration, the switch is configured to disable the output path from the battery to the first terminal, in light of the teachings of Shelton, that a switch has both an on and off position and the on position is closed used to operate the circuit. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143.01 Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, modified McGrath in view of Shelton teaches the battery control circuit comprises a power button switch and a controller switch, the power button switch is configured to be manually actuated via user contact with the power button, and the controller switch is configured to be electrically actuated via a battery controller (P267-270.285; Fig. 112-118).
Regarding claim 8, modified McGrath in view of Shelton teaches the battery control circuit is configured to disable the output path from the battery to the first terminal when either the power button switch or the controller switch is in an open configuration, and the battery control circuit is configured to enable the output path from the battery to the first terminal when both the power button switch and the controller switch are in a closed configuration (P267-286; Fig. 112-118).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Leimbach et al. (US 20150272575) and Song et al. (US 20200264656).
Regarding claim 14, McGrath is silent in teaching battery control circuit comprises a switch circuit on a flexible printed circuit board and a dome switch that is actuated by the power button; however, Leimbach, related to battery assembly with electronic devices, teaches dome switches that can be actuated by a power button, wherein in the closed position the device is activated and when the operator chooses to end the operation the dome switch connected with the button can be actuated again to return to the open position stopping the process (P504-510; Fig. 93-95). Using the dome switch in connection with the power button allows the operator to have a combination of tactile and visual feedback in response to the powering of the device (P504-511).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a dome switch actuated by the power button of McGrath, to provide an operator with response feedback in connection with the device, as taught by Leimbach.
McGrath teaches the cover of the battery pack (e.g. the switch) may comprise a display to inform the user whether the electrical device is activated or whether the electrical device is deactivated. The display may be a light source, such as an LED. The light source may emit light when the electrical device is activated. The light source may change color when the device is activated. The display may comprise a plurality of light sources. The display may be operable to display a character or characters to the user (P30.79).
McGrath is silent in teaching the battery control circuit comprises a switch circuit on a flexible printed circuit board; however, Song, related to the interface of a battery assembly and display, teaches using dome switches for switches to provide a restoring force with elastic properties allowing a user to have feedback from a device (P66) and creating a display with a flexible printed circuit board that may be coupled with the main power circuitry (P65-70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to pair the dome switch of modified McGrath with the flexible printed circuit board of Song, to create an interactive screen for a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights