DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's preliminary amendments and remarks, filed 11/22/24, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-9 and 11-13 are pending with claim 10 canceled, and claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 11-13 amended. The following is a complete response to the 11/22/24 communication.
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 .
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 § 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) 1-2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hearn (WO 2018/234803) in view of Rangwala (US 2022/0110710).
Regarding claim 1, Hearn teaches a surgical assembly for use with an ultrasonic surgical device that is arranged to deliver ultrasonic vibrations to patient tissue for use in cutting or cauterizing patient tissue during a surgical procedure, the assembly comprising:
an ion-generating electrode arranged to receive an electrical signal for generating ions proximate a site of the surgical procedure for removing particles suspended proximate the surgical site (page 22, electrode 120 for smoke clearing by ion generation);
a controller for controlling the application of the electrical signal to the ion-generating electrode (150); and
a sensing arrangement for sensing a presence of ultrasonic vibrations (page 22 sense surgical signal, surgical signal as ultrasonic as in pages 15-16);
wherein the sensing arrangement is communicatively coupled with the controller (160 attached to 150 as in pages 15-16) and arranged to output an activation signal to the controller to cause the electrical signal to be applied to the ion-generating electrode (page 22), the sensed ultrasonic vibrations comprise a frequency within a pre-defined frequency range (ultrasound has a predefined frequency range to be considered ultrasound).
Hearn is silent regarding the assembly further comprising a frequency mixer for heterodyning the ultrasonic vibrations sensed by the sensing arrangement with a characteristic frequency.However, Rangwala teaches heterodyning frequencies as in par. [0112].It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal frequency of Hearn by heterodyning as in Rangwala, allowing for tuning the frequency as needed (par. [0113]).
Regarding claim 2, Hearn teaches wherein the pre-defined frequency range comprises a frequency associated with the ultrasonic vibrations delivered by an ultrasonic surgical device (an ultrasonic frequency).
Regarding claim 13, Hearn teaches an electrical generator electrically coupled with the ion-generating electrode, for delivering the electrical signal to the ion-generating electrode (page 2), and an ultrasonic energy generator, communicatively coupled with an ultrasonic surgical device for delivering ultrasonic signal to the ultrasonic surgical device (page 3).
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hearn in view of Rangwala, in further view of Nguyen (US 2015/0342618).
Regarding claim 3, Hearn is not explicit wherein the sensing arrangement comprises a transducer for capturing ultrasonic vibrations and a passband filter for removing ultrasonic vibrations which comprise a frequency outside the pre-defined range.However, Nguyen teaches a sensing arrangement with a transducer for capturing ultrasound (par. [0046]) and a band pass filter to filter received ultrasound (par. [0046]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hearn with the sensing arrangement of Nguyen, giving structure to how the sensing arrangement is capable of sensing the ultrasonic signal.
Regarding claim 4, Hearn is not explicit wherein the sensing arrangement further comprises a threshold detector for detecting the ultrasonic vibrations admitted by the passband filter, within the pre-defined frequency range, which comprise an amplitude above a threshold level.However, Nguyen teaches a threshold detector for detecting the ultrasonic vibrations admitted by the passband filter, within the pre-defined frequency range, which comprise an amplitude above a threshold level (par. [0046] high gain low noise amplifier would have a noise threshold).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hearn with the sensing arrangement of Nguyen, giving structure to how the sensing arrangement is capable of sensing the ultrasonic signal.
Regarding claim 5, Hearn is not explicit regarding wherein the threshold detector is further arranged to detect the ultrasonic vibrations within the pre-defined frequency range which exist for a temporal duration greater than a threshold duration.However, Nyugen teaches the threshold detector as above, and a timeline for the sensed signal (par. [0028]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hearn with the sensing arrangement of Nguyen, giving structure to how the sensing arrangement is capable of sensing the ultrasonic signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the signals would exist for at least a duration allowing for detection.
Regarding claim 6, Hearn is not explicit wherein the sensing arrangement is arranged to output the activation signal when the ultrasonic vibrations comprise a frequency within the pre-defined frequency range and when the ultrasonic vibrations comprise an amplitude above the threshold level.However, Nguyen teaches a threshold detector for detecting the ultrasonic vibrations admitted by the passband filter, within the pre-defined frequency range, which comprise an amplitude above a threshold level (par. [0046] high gain low noise amplifier would have a noise threshold).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hearn with the sensing arrangement of Nguyen, giving structure to how the sensing arrangement is capable of sensing the ultrasonic signal.
Regarding claim 7, Hearn is not explicit wherein the sensing arrangement is arranged to output the activation signal when the ultrasonic vibrations comprise a frequency within the pre-defined frequency range and when the ultrasonic vibrations comprise an amplitude above the threshold level and when the ultrasonic vibrations exist for a temporal duration greater than the threshold duration.However, Nyugen teaches the threshold detector as above, and using the sensing arrangement to control transducers as in at least par. [0051].It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hearn with the sensing arrangement of Nguyen, giving structure to how the sensing arrangement is capable of sensing the ultrasonic signal.
Regarding claim 8, Hearn is not explicit wherein the predefined frequency range comprises the range between 20kHz and 70kHz.However, Nguyen teaches the frequency range between 20-50kHz (par. [0009]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hearn with the sensing arrangement of Nguyen, giving structure to how the sensing arrangement is capable of sensing the ultrasonic signal.
Regarding claim 9, Hearn is silent wherein the predefined frequency range comprises the range between 30kHz and 60kHz.However, Nguyen teaches the frequency range between 20-50kHz (par. [0009]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hearn with the sensing arrangement of Nguyen, giving structure to how the sensing arrangement is capable of sensing the ultrasonic signal.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hearn in view of Rangwala, in further view of Riza (US 5,718,226).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the characteristic frequency comprises a frequency of ultrasonic vibrations generated by a known ultrasonic surgical device, so that the ultrasonic surgical device can be identified.However, Riza teaches 55 kHz as a frequency for ultrasonic operation (col. 1 lines 11-33).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the frequency such that the frequency is of a known ultrasonic surgical device such as Riza, as a known frequency for ultrasonic operation.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the characteristic frequency comprises at least one frequency from the group comprising 36kHz, 47kHz and 55kHz.However, Riza teaches 55 kHz as a frequency for ultrasonic operation (col. 1 lines 11-33).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the frequency such that the frequency is of a known ultrasonic surgical device such as Riza, as a known frequency for ultrasonic operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights