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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “35”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2004/0260241 A1) in view of Thakur et al. (US 20140180147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus for measuring an insertion depth of medical instruments inserted into a body, the apparatus comprising: a non-metallic protective container (60/45; Fig. 1; par. [0077] – polymer material) that is inserted into a body with a medical instrument (par. [0081] – syringe inserted into 60/45; Fig. 2) disposed therein; a pair of main electrodes (170/175; Fig. 8; par. [0088]) having a predetermined area and formed in a longitudinal direction while facing each other in the protective container (Fig. 8); and a controller (90/190; par. [0096]-[0097] and [0114]; Fig. 8) and electrically connected to the pair of main electrodes (170/175; Fig. 8; par. [0096]-[0097] and [0114]), measuring capacitance (par. [0096]-[0097], [0114] and [0116]; the capacitance and impedance of electrodes have an inverse relationship) that is induced by the pair of main electrodes (170/175).
Although Yamamoto discloses that measured impedance values are in proportion to the insertion depth of the container (par. [0116]), it does not specifically disclose calculating an insertion depth of the medical instrument inserted into a body on the basis of the measured capacitance. Thakur teaches an analogous controller (32; par. [0051]) that calculates a distance between two electrodes on one spline (44) and two electrodes on another spline (44) by comparing the impedance between the electrodes of a known distance apart (par. [0051]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to calculate the insertion depth of the container of Yamamoto using the measured impedance values of the controllers, as taught by Thakur, thereby further improving the accuracy of the detection of the depth of insertion, as contemplated by Yamamoto (par. [0116]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto in view of Thakur disclose the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a pair of reference electrodes (70/75; Fig. 8; par. [0096]-[0097] and [0114]) disposed on extension lines of the main electrodes (170/175; Fig. 8), formed electrically and separately from the main electrodes (Fig. 8), facing each other, and having a preset length (Fig. 8), wherein capacitance that is induced at the reference electrodes is measured by the controller (90/190; par. [0096]-[0097] and [0114]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Thakur disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the pair of main electrodes (170/175) and the pair of reference electrodes (70/75) are made of the same material in the shape (par. [0088] and [0094]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Thakur disclose the apparatus of claim 3, wherein when the pair of reference electrodes (70/75) is fully inserted in a body (par. [0108] – into target cardiac tissue of the body) and the pair of main electrodes (170/175) is partially inserted into the body (par. [0108] – in blood of the body, not in target cardiac tissue), and when a length of the reference electrodes (70/75) is B, capacitance that is induced at the reference electrodes (70/75) is C1, a length of the section of the main electrodes (170/175) inserted into the body is X, and capacitance at the section of the main electrodes (170/175) inserted into the body is C2, the following equation is satisfied: X=(B*C2)/C1.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto in view of Thakur disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the main electrodes (170/175) and the reference electrodes (70/75) have a curved surface or flat surface shape (par. [0088]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto discloses a method for measuring an insertion depth of medical instruments inserted into a body, the method comprising: measuring capacitance C1 in a body by a pair of reference electrodes (70/75; Fig. 8; par. [0096]-[0097] and [0114]-[0116]; the capacitance and impedance of electrodes have an inverse relationship) disposed in a non-metallic protective container (60/45; Fig. 1; par. [0077] – polymer material) that is inserted into the body with a medical instrument (par. [0081] – syringe inserted into 60/45; Fig. 2) disposed therein, measuring capacitance C2 induced at a pair of main electrodes (170/175; Fig. 8; par. [0096]-[0097] and [0114]-[0116]; the capacitance and impedance of electrodes have an inverse relationship) disposed on extension lines of the reference electrodes (70/75; Fig. 8) in the protective container.
Although Yamamoto discloses that measured impedance values are in proportion to the insertion depth of the container (par. [0116]), it does not specifically disclose calculating an insertion depth of the main electrodes inserted into the body using the C1 and C2, wherein the permittivity C2 changes, depending on the insertion depth inserted into the body. Thakur teaches an analogous controller (32; par. [0051]) that calculates a distance between two electrodes on one spline (44) and two electrodes on another spline (44) by comparing the impedance between the electrodes of a known distance apart (par. [0051]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to calculate the insertion depth of the container of Yamamoto using the measured impedance values of the controllers, as taught by Thakur, thereby further improving the accuracy of the detection of the depth of insertion, when the permittivity C2 changes as the main electrodes (170/175) changes as it moves from blood to cardiac tissue, or moves from outside the body to inside the body, as contemplated by Yamamoto (par. [0116]).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto in view of Thakur disclose the method of claim 9, wherein when length of the reference electrodes (70/75) is B, and a length of the section of the main electrodes (170/175) that is inserted into a body is X, an insertion depth of the main electrodes (170/175) inserted into the body is obtained from the following equation: X=(B*C2)/C1.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piron et al. (US 2016/0022146 A1) in view of Brannan (US 2012/0203217 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Piron discloses an apparatus for measuring an insertion depth of medical instruments inserted into a body, the apparatus comprising: a non-metallic protective container (12; Fig. 2A; par. [0147] and [0157]) that is inserted into a body with a medical instrument (20; par. [0147]-[0148] – optical 2D imaging) disposed therein.
Piron teaches the medical instrument having delineated markings to provide depth information when guiding the container into the body cavity (par. [0207]). However, Piron does not specifically disclose the apparatus comprising: a pair of main electrodes having a predetermined area and formed in a longitudinal direction while facing each other in the protective container; and a controller electrically connected to the pair of main electrodes, measuring capacitance that is induced by the pair of main electrodes, and calculating an insertion depth of the medical instrument inserted into a body on the basis of the measured capacitance. Brannan teaches an apparatus wherein a pair of main electrodes (412a/412b; Figs. 5A-5B; par. [0051]) having a predetermined area and formed in a longitudinal direction while facing each other on a surface (Figs. 5A-5B); and a controller (216; par. [0051]; Fig. 3) electrically connected to the pair of main electrodes (412a/41b), measuring capacitance that is induced by the pair of main electrodes (par. [0047] and [0051] - capacitance and impedance of electrodes have an inverse relationship), and calculating an insertion depth of the medical instrument inserted into a body on the basis of the measured capacitance (par. [0047]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the pair of electrodes and controller in the apparatus of Piron and calculate the insertion depth of the container of Piron using the measured impedance values of the controllers, as taught by Brannan, in order to improving the accuracy of the detection of the depth of insertion, as contemplated by Piron.
Regarding claim 6, Piron in view of Brannan disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the protective container (12) is an instrument that treats the inside of a body, and an endoscopic camera (20; par. [0147]-[0148] – optical 2D imaging) is disposed at a front end inside the protective container (Figs. 2A-2B).
Regarding claim 7, Piron in view of Brannan disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a disc-shaped insertion separation plate (18; Fig. 2A; par. [0147]) is disposed on a circumference of the protective container (12).
Regarding claim 8, Piron in view of Brannan disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the protective container has a laser output window (distal opening 16; Fig. 2A; is capable of outputting a laser; or par. [0337]; Figs. 52A-52C) so a laser is output to the outside through the window (distal opening 16 is capable of outputting a laser; or par. [0337]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYNAE E BOLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3620. 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/RYNAE E BOLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
6/2/26
Prosecution Insights