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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Most pertinent prior art, including U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0265890 to Page et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0190588 to McKay et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0145337 to Janna et al., and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0275792 to Hawkins et al. disclose a multipurpose medical device configured to be used by a user during a medical procedure. The device comprises a substantially cylindrical unitary body including a suction channel through a length of the body, a sensing system including in-line sensors, and a computer system in communication with the sensing system. The computer system is configured to obtain readings from the in-line sensors, calculate a magnitude and location of a retraction force applied against the body during the medical procedure based on the readings, and provide feedback to the user based on the sensed retraction force.
The prior art discloses a multipurpose medical device configured to be used by a user during a medical procedure. The device comprising a handle, a body extending from the handle and including a lumen extending through a length of the body, the body comprising an intermediate portion and a substantially cylindrical portion extending from the intermediate portion. The device includes a suction system including a suction channel disposed within the lumen, a sensor arranged on the intermediate portion and configured to sense a retraction force against the cylindrical portion of the body during the medical procedure, and an indicator configured to provide feedback to the user based on the sensed retraction force.
The prior art discloses a method of performing a surgical procedure within a surgical field. The method comprises providing a multipurpose medical device comprising a substantially cylindrical unitary body including a suction channel through a length of the body, and a sensing system including a plurality of in-line sensors, positioning the device within the surgical field, retracting one or more tissues within the surgical field using the device, calculating a magnitude and location of a retraction force applied against the body during the retraction based on readings from the in-line sensors, and providing an indication corresponding to the calculated retraction force.
The prior art fails to teach or disclose however, the structural relationship including but not limited to, a sensing system including a plurality of pairs of axially in-line sensors arranged around a circumference of the body, the computer system being configured to obtain readings from the plurality of pairs of axially in-line sensors
The prior art fails to teach or disclose however, the structural relationship including but not limited to, the body comprising an intermediate portion with a flat face, a sensor arranged on the flat face of the intermediate portion and configured to sense a retraction force against the cylindrical portion of the body during the medical procedure
The prior art fails to teach or disclose however, wherein the method includes a sensing system including a plurality of pairs of axially in-line sensors arranged around a circumference of the body, and calculating a magnitude and location of a retraction force applied against the body during the retraction based on readings from the plurality of pairs of axially in-line sensors.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,884. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present application and granted patent disclose a multipurpose medical device configured to be used by a user during a medical procedure. The device comprises a handle, a substantially cylindrical unitary body operatively coupled to the handle and including a lumen extending through a length of the body, a suction system including a suction channel disposed within the lumen, a sensing system including a plurality of in-line sensors coupled to the body and configured to sense a retraction force against the body, and an indicator configured to provide feedback to the user based on the sensed retraction force.
Both the present application and granted patent disclose a method of performing a surgical procedure within a surgical field. The method comprises providing a multipurpose medical device comprising a substantially cylindrical unitary body, an inner surface of the body comprising a lumen, a suction system at least partially disposed within the lumen, and a sensing system at least partially supported by the body, positioning the device within the surgical field, retracting one or more tissues within the surgical field using the device, sensing force exerted against the device during retraction, using a plurality of pairs of gauges of the sensing system arranged around a circumference of the body, and providing an indication via an indicator of the sensing system if the sensed force exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BECCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BECCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights