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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the combination of Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. fail to teach a wireless actuator which transmits instructions to the “control processor”, which, in turn, processes such instructions, uses an antenna to transmit processed instructions to the surgical components, and triggers actuation of the surgical component to perform a particular operation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion ¶65-68 of Hearn teach the communication and processing of instructions (torque/rotation angle) which is communicated using the processor to determine the values and make the determination (instruct the device/instructions) to activate for performing at least one operation (¶68 the moment before or after achieving the “shut-off condition”). Russo et al. teaches that the communication can be a wireless communication using an antenna which Hearn et al. is silent to. As a result, Applicant’s arguments and remarks are not found persuasive to overcome the prior art of record.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 16-17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hearn et al. (US 2005/0131415) in view of Russo et al. (US 8,956,342).
Regarding claim 1, Hearn et al. disclose a system, comprising an actuator (28), upon actuation, configured to generate and transmit one or more actuation instructions (¶66 “torque/rotation angle); and a control processor (24 +32 )communicatively coupled to the wireless actuator (¶68); and one or more surgical components of a surgical system (20, figure 3 or alternatively 22, figure 4) communicatively coupled to the control processor (figures 3-4, ¶65-66, ¶68); the control processor is configured to receive the one or more actuation instructions from the wireless actuator (¶65-68); generate, using the one or more actuation instructions, one or more communication instructions for triggering actuation of at least one operation of one or more surgical components of a surgical system communicatively coupled to the control processor (¶65-68); and transmit to the control processor, the one or more communication instructions to the surgical system (¶65-68) and actuate the one or more surgical components (20/22) to perform the at least one operation in accordance with the one or more communication instructions (¶65-66). However, Hearn et al. are silent to the teaching of the actuator being a wireless actuator and the control processor being configured to transmit via an antenna the communication instruction(s).
Russo et al. discloses that both wired and wireless actuators can be used to transmit information (column 4, lines 4-10) which is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two actuators were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wireless antenna of Russo et al. in for the wired/silent configuration of the actuator of Hearn et al. Regarding claim 2, Hearn et al. disclose wherein upon a first actuation (¶68, before achieving the threshold value), the wireless actuator is configured to generate and transmit a first actuation instruction (rotation of the working end) in the one or more actuation instructions to the control processor causing the control processor to generate and transmit a first communication instruction in the one or more communication instructions triggering actuation of a first operation of the one or more surgical components (¶68); upon a second actuation (¶68 upon achieving the “shut-off condition”), the wireless actuator is configured to generate and transmit a second actuation instruction in the one or more actuation instructions to the control processor causing the control processor to generate and transmit a second communication instruction in the one or more communication instructions triggering actuation of a second operation of the one or more surgical components, the second operation being subsequent to the first operation (¶68). Regarding claim 3, Hearn et al. disclose the second operation is different from the first operation (¶68). Regarding claim 4, Hearn et al. disclose the second operation is the same as the first operation (¶68 stop/start of rotation). Regarding claim 5, Hearn et al. disclose the first operation is a surgical cutting operation performed by the one or more components of the surgical system at a first speed (¶68, cutting the material/threading the implant) and a second operation is a surgical cutting operation performed by the one or more components of the surgical system at a second speed (“shut-off” ¶68). Regarding claim 6, Hearn et al. disclose the second speed is faster, same or slower than the first speed (¶68).
Regarding claim 7, Hearn et al. disclose wherein at least one of the first speed and the second speed is at least one of: a variable speed, a constant speed, and any combination thereof (¶68).
Regarding claim 12, Hearn et al. disclose the wireless actuator includes a pressure sensor (16, ¶70) and a trigger (28).
Regarding claim 13, Hearn et al. disclose wherein, upon pressing the trigger, the pressure sensor is configured to detect a predetermined force applied to it by the trigger causing the pressure sensor to generate and transmit the one or more actuation instructions (¶70).
Regarding claim 16, Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. disclose the control processor includes a sensing circuit (32, figure 5 of Hearn) configured to receive the one or more actuation instructions (¶68); interpret the one or more actuation instructions (¶65-68); and generate and transmit, via the antenna (column 4, lines 4-10) communicatively coupled to the control processor, the one or more communication instructions to the surgical system (¶65-68). Regarding claim 17, Hearn et al. disclose wherein at least one of the control processor, the antenna, and the wireless actuator are disposed in the one or more surgical components of the surgical system (figure 3).
Claims 8-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hearn et al. (US 2005/0131415) in view of Russo et al. (US 8,956,342) in view of Philipp et al. (US 2007/0085496).
Regarding claim 8, Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the wireless actuator includes a momentary push button and a trigger.
Philipp et al. discloses an actuator having a momentary push button (56/58) and a trigger (46/47) as it is a known alternative control mechanism for activating and controlling the speed of the system (¶82, ¶119).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the actuator of Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. to include a momentary push button and trigger as taught by Philipp et al. as it is a known alternative control mechanism for activating and controlling the speed of the system.
Regarding claim 9, Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. and Phillip et al. disclose wherein, upon pressing the trigger, the trigger is configured to apply pressure to the momentary push button causing the momentary push button to generate and transmit the one or more actuation instructions (¶81-82 of Philipp).
Regarding claim 12, Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the wireless actuator includes a pressure sensor and a trigger.
Philipp et al. discloses an actuator having a pressure sensor (56/68 and 66/68, ¶82) and a trigger (46/47) as it is a known alternative control mechanism for activating and controlling the speed of the system (¶82, ¶119).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the actuator of Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. to include a pressure sensor and trigger as taught by Philipp et al. as it is a known alternative control mechanism for activating and controlling the speed of the system.
Regarding claim 13, Hearn et al. in view of Philipp et al. disclose wherein, upon pressing the trigger, the pressure sensor is configured to detect a predetermined force applied to it by the trigger causing the pressure sensor to generate and transmit the one or more actuation instructions (¶70 of Hearn, ¶82 of Philipp). Regarding claim 14, Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the wireless actuator includes a pressure sensor.
Philipp et al. discloses an actuator having a pressure sensor (56/68 and 66/68, ¶82) as it is a known alternative control mechanism/sensor for activating and controlling the speed of the system (¶82, ¶119).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the actuator of Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. to include a pressure sensor as taught by Philipp et al. as it is a known alternative control mechanism/sensor for activating and controlling the speed of the system. Regarding claim 15, Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. and Philipp et al. disclose wherein, upon applying a force to the pressure sensor, the pressure sensor is configured to detect the force causing the pressure sensor to generate and transmit the one or more actuation instructions (¶82).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hearn et al. (US 2005/0131415) in view of Russo et al. (US 8,956,342) in view of Haider et al. (US 2014/0236159).
Regarding claim 10, Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the wireless actuator includes a linear potentiometer and a trigger.
Rather, Hearn et al. only generically teach the measurement/sensing of linear displacement (¶66) and do not specify the mechanism by which it is being measured.
Haider et al. disclose the use of a linear potentiometer and trigger (¶11) for measuring linear displacement (¶11) as it is a known mechanism for measuring displacement/translation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the actuator of Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al to include a linear potentiometer as taught by Haider et al. as it is a known mechanism for measuring displacement/translation.
Regarding claim 11, Hearn et al. in view of Russo et al. and Haider et al. disclose wherein, upon pressing the trigger, the linear potentiometer (¶11 of Haider) is configured to determine its linear displacement (¶66 of Hearn) causing the linear potentiometer to generate and transmit the one or more actuation instructions (¶11 of Haider and ¶66 of Hearn).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights