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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 8.13.26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 17-26 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Margiott et al. (US 2023/0225642 A1), hereinafter Margiott.
Regarding Claim 1, Margiott teaches: A device (figure 1 and 2) comprising: a sheath, comprising an upper portion and a lower portion (figures 8-9; paragraph 0107), wherein the lower portion is rotatably coupled to the upper portion by a hinge, wherein the upper and lower portions rotate relative to each other via the hinge (paragraph 0107-0108; figure 9); the lower portion comprises a first opening at a distal end (figure 9; window 218) and a second opening at a proximal end (figure 9; top of lower portion near element 205), the upper portion comprises a third opening at a distal end (figure 9; window 217), and by rotation of the hinge, the third opening can mate with the second opening of the lower portion to form a sealed enclosed space within the upper and lower portions of the sheath(figures 8-11); a laparoscopic tube (figure 30), coupled to the first opening of the lower portion of the sheath at a proximal end of the laparoscopic tube (figure 10); and a sensor head, coupled to a distal end of the laparoscopic tube (paragraph 0302; sensor head 25), the sheath being configured the receive a processing unit such that the processing unit is configured to connect to and operate in conjunction with the sensor head to form a laparoscopic oximeter (paragraph 0301-0306, 0053-0059; figure 30)
Regarding Claim 2, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 1 wherein the lower portion of the sheath comprises an electrical connector (figures 4-7; figure 10-11; figure 22A).
Regarding Claim 3, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 1 wherein the lower portion of the sheath comprises a first latch portion (figure 9 elements 1475, 1470), the upper portion of the sheath comprises a second latch portion (figure 9 latch 215), and when the third opening of the upper portion is mated with the second opening of the lower portion, the first latch portion engages the second latch portion to hold the lower and upper portions together in a sealed configuration (figure 8 and 11).
Regarding Claim 8, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 1 wherein the lower portion comprises an electrical connector, a printed circuit board comprising electrical circuitry (paragraph 0150), the printed circuit board coupled to the electrical connector, and a plurality of optical conductors, coupled between the printed circuit board and the sensor head (paragraph 0056-0058; figure 4-6, 22A; figure 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 8 wherein the electrical circuitry comprises light emitting diodes or laser diodes (paragraph 0062).
Regarding Claim 10, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 8 wherein the electrical circuitry comprises photodetectors (paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claim 11, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 1 comprising a printed circuit board, coupled to the lower portion of the sheath (paragraph 0056-0058), wherein the printed circuit board comprises a first side and a second side, the first side of the printed circuit board comprises an electrical connector, and the second side of the printed circuit board comprises a first light emitting diode and a second light emitting diode, and a first photodetector and a second photodetector (paragraph 0151; PCB can have components on both sides; with accelerometer on one side and optical components on the other; figure 3-4).
Regarding Claim 12, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 11 wherein the first and second light emitting diodes are formed on a first line (figure 3 line from element 725A-B), the first and second photodetector are formed on a second line, and the first and second lines do not intersect (figure 3; line through 730A-B-C-D).
Regarding Claim 13, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 12 comprising a first fiber optic coupled between the first photodetector and a first detector structure of the sensor head (paragraph 0054-0057).
Regarding Claim 14, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 13 comprising a second fiber optic coupled between the first light emitting diode and a second source structure of the sensor head (paragraph 0054-0057).
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margiott in view of Hohl et al. (US 2021/0212612 A1), hereinafter Hohl.
Regarding Claim 4, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 1 but does not mention wherein the lower portion comprises a first polymer material, and the upper portion comprises a second polymer material, different from the first polymer material.
Hohl teaches the use of two polymer materials wherein the lower portion comprises a first polymer material, and the upper portion comprises a second polymer material, different from the first polymer material (paragraph 0159-0163). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device to include wherein the lower portion comprises a first polymer material, and the upper portion comprises a second polymer material, different from the first polymer material as the different materials are a design choice and essentially an arbitrary selection from known alternatives that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Margiott in view of Hohl teach: The device of claim 4 wherein the first polymer material comprises an opaque material and the second polymer material comprises a translucent material (Hohl - paragraph 0160).
Regarding Claim 6, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 1. Margiott does not mention wherein the lower portion of the sheath comprises a first polymer material and a second polymer material, and the first latch portion comprises first and second cutaway sections where the first polymer material is replaced with the second polymer material, the second polymer material having greater elasticity than the first polymer material.
Hohl teaches wherein the lower portion of the sheath comprises a first polymer material and a second material, and a first latch portion comprises first and second cutaway sections where the first polymer material is replaced with the second material, the second material having greater elasticity than the first polymer material (figure 18, paragraph 0072; paragraph 0118-0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device to include wherein the lower portion of the sheath comprises a first polymer material and a second material, and the first latch portion comprises first and second cutaway sections where the first polymer material is replaced with the second material, the second material having greater elasticity than the first polymer material in order to latch the top and bottom portions.
While Hohl mentions the use of metal and does not mention a second polymer, Examiner notes that the different materials are a design choice and essentially an arbitrary selection from known alternatives that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, Margiott teaches: The device of claim 1 but does not mention wherein the lower portion of the sheath comprises a first polymer material and a second polymer material, and a button portion comprises a cutaway section where the first polymer material is replaced with the second polymer material, the second polymer material having greater elasticity than the first polymer material.
Hohl teaches wherein the lower portion of the sheath comprises a first polymer material and a second material, a and a button portion comprises a cutaway section where the first polymer material is replaced with the second material, the second material having greater elasticity than the first polymer material (figure 18, paragraph 0072; paragraph 0118-0119, Examiner notes the spring latch can be considered a button). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device to include wherein the lower portion of the sheath comprises a first polymer material and a second material, and a button portion comprises a cutaway section where the first polymer material is replaced with the second material, the second material having greater elasticity than the first polymer material in order to latch the top and bottom portions.
While Hohl mentions the use of metal and does not mention a second polymer, Examiner notes that the different materials are a design choice and essentially an arbitrary selection from known alternatives that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 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 closest prior arts of record (Margiott and Hohl) fail to teach the use of riser blocks above the LEDs comprising 3 openings wherein the first and third openings are in line with the LEDs.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. Regarding Prior art rejections, Applicant argues that Margiott fails to teach the amended limitations of “the sheath being configured to receive a processing unit such that the processing unit is configured to connect to and operate in conjunction with the sensor head, to form a laparoscopic oximeter”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Margiott teaches the amended limitations (figure 30; paragraph 0300-0306). The rejection is maintained.
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 JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
