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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al, US Pub. 2011/0284637, in view of Artsyukovitch et al, EP 1787606, both cited by the applicant.
Powell et al disclose graphical code readers that are configured for glare reduction comprising: capturing images 116 may also be provided to a glare detector; checking for external light interference within a barcode area of the
be configured to analyze the captured images 116 to determine whether glare is present; if the external light interference is not detected or not likely to be present within the barcode area, attempting to decode a barcode within the barcode area, or the decoder 118 may process the captured images 116 in order to attempt to decode the graphical code (par. 0030); if the external light interference is detected within the barcode area, generating a first advisory notice
Powell et al fail to disclose that the external light interference is not detected in a barcode area in a surgical cassette but in a barcode area in general and the advisory notice is not provided to a user but used automatically in the control system.
Artsyukovitch et al disclose a surgical cassette comprising: an identification system for surgical cassettes and states that cassette 10 that may be used with the present invention generally contains bar code 20 placed in a location corresponding to optical reader 120 when cassette 10 is placed within cassette receiving portion 110 of console 100; a surgical cassette with a barcode to be used in a console.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to apply the method of Powell et al for detecting external light interference and scanning a barcode in conjunction with the teachings of Artsyukovitch et al since it also discloses a barcode. Thus provide that the external light interference is detected in a barcode area in a surgical cassettes. With respect to providing the advisory to a user, such limitation is general common knowledge to provide relevant information relating to problems during a scan process to a user, such limitation is trivial.
in view of Powell et al combined with the teachings of Artsyukovitch. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, relating to the further procedure depending on if the barcode is successfully decoded. This is an obvious implementation of a procedure that uses a barcode of a medical cassette such as disclosed in Artsyukovitch.
Regarding claim 3, relating to rechecking for external light interference. This is disclosed in Powell et al, which discloses a repeated process.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, define the detection of light interference by comparing the average brightness to a threshold and it is additionally checked if all average brightness values of a plurality of images are above or below a threshold. These are trivial methods to check for external light interference and are thus obvious for a skilled person. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, relating to an initial attempt to decode the barcode and to repeatedly attempting to decode the barcode. This is disclosed in Powell et al, which discloses a repeated process that includes an initial attempt.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al in view of Artsyukovitch et al and Bandhauer et al.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the subject-matter of claim 1, Powell et al disclose:
Powell et al as modified by Artsyukovitch et al fail to disclose a fluid level in the surgical console is calibrated and monitored in the surgical console.
Bandhauer et al disclose holding tank devices, systems, and methods for surgical fluids cassette comprising: fluid detection techniques described that may make use of the changes in propagation of light through a portion of the holding tank when the portion varies between empty and full" ( par. 0013).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Powell et al as modified by Artsyukovitch to include calibration and monitoring of the fluid in order assure the fluid is set properly and the appropriate level is available for smooth operation of the device. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 14-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a method for detecting external light interference within a surgical instrument which includes the specific details and algorithms on how external light interference is detected by analyzing the pixel brightness of images, such as if the calculated average pixel brightness for at least one of the plurality of images is equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold, determining if there is a pattern of the calculated average pixel brightness value for the plurality of images repeatedly crossing the predetermined threshold, if there is a pattern of the calculated average pixel brightness value for the plurality of images repeatedly crossing the predetermined threshold, detecting the external light interference within the barcode area, or if there is no pattern of the calculated average pixel brightness value for the plurality of images repeatedly crossing the predetermined threshold: recording a number of images in consecutive frames within the plurality of images having average pixel brightness values equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold; comparing the number of images in consecutive frames within the plurality of images having average pixel brightness values equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold to a predetermined number limit; and if the number of images in consecutive frames having average pixel brightness values equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold is equal to or higher than the predetermined number limit, detecting the external light interference within the barcode area, or if the number of images in consecutive frames having average pixel brightness values equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold is lower than the predetermined number limit, detecting no external light interference or that the external light interference is not likely to be present within the barcode area, etc. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Workman et al, US Patent No. 12,334,202, disclose a smart barcode ID for interoperable pumps. Vik et al, US Pub. 2024/0021283, disclose a barcode and control of a medical device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876