DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's remarks, filed 2/13/26, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-4, 8-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 are pending. The following is a complete response to the 2/13/26 communication.
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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingenfelder (US 2002/0072746) in view of Eggers (US 5,891,142), in further view of Bortkiewicz (US 2005/0143726).
Regarding claim 1, Lingenfelder teaches an instrument (bipolar forceps 1) comprising: a first forceps arm having a first forceps arm distal end and a first forceps arm proximal end (2 with proximal end covered by insulation and distal end uncovered); a first conductor tip of the first forceps arm having a first conductor tip distal surface, a first conductor tip inferior surface, a first conductor tip superior surface, a first conductor tip lateral surface, and a first conductor tip medial surface (conductor tip 4 with distal, inferior, superior, lateral, and medial surfaces); a first input conductor housing of the first forceps arm (connector post 17 of connector housing 16); a second forceps arm having a second forceps arm distal end and a second forceps arm proximal end (3 with proximal end covered by insulation and distal end uncovered); a second conductor tip of the second forceps arm having a second conductor tip distal surface, a second conductor tip inferior surface, a second conductor tip superior surface, a second conductor tip lateral surface, and a second conductor tip medial surface (uncovered tip 5 with distal, inferior, superior, lateral, and medial surfaces); a second input conductor housing of the second forceps arm (connector post 18 of connector housing 16); an input conductor isolation mechanism having a first forceps arm housing and a second forceps arm housing (housing 16) wherein the first forceps arm proximal end is fixed within the first forceps arm housing and wherein the second forceps arm proximal end is fixed within the second forceps arm housing (first and second forceps arms 2 and 3 are fixed within 16) and wherein the input conductor isolation mechanism is configured to conductively isolate separately the first forceps arm and the second forceps arm (16 isolates 2 and 3 to separately connect to 17 and 18 respectively);
a conduction zone configured to facilitate movement of ions and electrons, the conduction zone disposed between the first conductor tip medial surface and the second conductor tip medial surface (current disposed between 6 and 7 as in Fig. 6b) wherein a lateral portion of the first conductor tip is configured to reduce electrodiffusion outside of the conduction zone (insulated portion does not conduct electricity, so that the current path is between the contact regions 6 and 7).
Lingenfelder teaches an instrument with first and second arms with distal tips (arms 2 and 3 with distal tips 4 and 5), with an insulative coating over the tip inferior, superior, distal and lateral portions, with only the medial portions uncoated (Fig 3b-c and par. [0053] with only 6.2, 6.2' uncoated).
Lingenfelder further teaches wherein a lateral portion of the second conductor tip is configured to reduce electrodiffusion outside of the conduction zone (insulated portion does not conduct electricity, so that the current path is between the contact regions 6 and 7).
Lingenfelder is silent regarding the first and second conductor tips have a first/second electrically conductive surface area that is polished to prevent tissue sticking.
However, Eggers teaches polishing electrode surface areas of forceps devices are well known in the art to prevent tissue sticking (col. 2, lines 7-13). Eggers does suggest that even though electrodes may be polished, that nonconductive areas may be used to frictionally aid in grasping tissue (col. 13, lines 13-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lingenfelder with polishing the electrode surfaces as in Eggers, to reduce tissue sticking and facilitate cleaning.
Lingenfelder teaches a conductivity higher than copper (par. [0016]), but is not explicit regarding the first forceps arm and second forceps arm are manufactured from a material having an electrical conductivity of at least about 1.0x10^6 Siemens per meter at a temperature of 20.0 Celsius.
However, Bortkiewicz teaches copper having a conductivity well over 1.0x10^6 Siemens per meter (par. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lingenfelder with the forceps manufactured from copper as in Bortkiewicz. This would allow for a high electrical conductivity for electrosurgical treatment.
Regarding claims 2-4, Lingenfelder teaches an instrument with first and second arms with distal tips (arms 2 and 3 with distal tips 4 and 5), with an insulative coating over the tip inferior, superior, distal and lateral portions, with only the medial portions uncoated (Fig 3b-c with only 6.2, 6.2' uncoated as in par. [0053)).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingenfelder in view of Eggers, in further view of Bortkiewicz, in further view of Engelman (US 2014/0018788).
Regarding claim 8, Lingenfelder is silent regarding the first conductor tip has an electrically conducting surface area in a range of 0.006 to 0.017 square inches. However, Engelman teaches electrodes with electrically conducting surface areas of 4-7.5 mm*2, or 0.006-0.011 square inches (par. [0139)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lingenfelder with electrodes with surface areas in the range of Engelman, as an electrical surface area that would allow for treating tissue.
The Examiner is also of the position that the use of such ranges as taught in Engelman would be further
obvious since its teaching establishes the use of such conductive surface area measurements in the art
and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 21, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingenfelder in view of Eggers, in further view of Bortkiewicz, in further view of Hanlon (US 2008/0200914).
Regarding claim 21, Lingenfelder is silent regarding the arms made from aluminum alloy.Hanlon teaches wherein the arms (12, 14) are made from aluminum alloy (par. [0022], 6061-T6 aluminum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lingenfelder with the arm body of Hanlon, as a known material for forming a structurally sound jaw for grasping tissue.
Regarding claim 22, Lingenfelder is silent regarding the arms made from stainless steel. Hanlon teaches wherein the arms (12, 14) are made from stainless steel (par. [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lingenfelder with the arm body of Hanlon, as a known material for forming a structurally sound jaw for grasping tissue.
Regarding claim 24, Lingenfelder is silent regarding the arms made from polymer. Hanlon teaches wherein the arms (12, 14) are made from polymer (par. [0022], plastic). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lingenfelder with the arm body of Hanlon, as a known material for forming a structurally sound jaw for grasping tissue.
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingenfelder in view of Eggers, in view of Bortkiewicz, in further view of Brandt (US 2013/0226177).
Regarding claim 23, Lingenfelder is silent regarding the arms made from graphite. However, Brandt teaches the use of a graphite-impregnated PTFE in forceps devices (par. [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device with the graphite- impregnated PTFE. This would allow for conduction while being temperature resistant.
Claims 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingenfelder in view of Eggers, in view of Bortkiewicz, in further view of Kirwan (US 2004/0034349).
Regarding claim 25, Lingenfelder is not explicit wherein the first forceps arm is manufactured from a copper or a copper alloy, and wherein first conductor tip of the first forceps arm is manufactured from a silver or a silver alloy.
Kirwan teaches forceps arms formed of copper (par. [0019]) and a silver outer shell for the tip (par. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lingenfelder with the materials of Kirwan, as known materials allowing for electrical conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the arguments, filed 2/13/26, with respect to claims 9, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 2/13/26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bortkiewicz discloses a simulation of the electrical conductivity of copper, and not a real working example. However, Bortkiewicz is used to teach well known elements with high conductivity used in conductors. Despite copper used in a simulation, the simulation of Bortkiewicz uses the known electrical conductivity of copper, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to copper as a known conductor material for electrosurgical devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13, 15, and 17-19 allowed.
The closest prior art of Lingenfelder and Eggers. However, the combination does not teach the angles of the forceps arms. While there is prior art that teaches angles of forceps arms such as Brandt (US 2011/0060334) teaching incident angles less than 5 degrees (par. [0008]), Examiner has not found prior art that teaches every angle range in the claim limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794