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) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates (US 5,810,811) in view of Voegele (US 2014/0276731), in further view of Lesko (US 2017/0164973).
Regarding claim 25, Yates teaches a bipolar electrosurgical tool for a bipolar electrosurgical instrument for closing a hollow organ or sealing other tissue, the bipolar electrosurgical tool comprising: a first jaw part with a first gripping face (132 with gripping face facing opposing jaw); a second jaw part with a second gripping face facing the first gripping face (opposing jaw with 156 facing jaw 132); a joint that enables the second jaw part to move pivotally in relation to the first jaw part (joint as in Figs. 3-5 separating the jaws 32 and 34); a first electrode on the first jaw part (151); a second electrode on the first jaw part (152t), wherein the first gripping face between the first electrode and the second electrode is configured to be completely electrically insulating with the second electrode electrically insulated from the first electrode (155 insulating 151 from 152) and the entire second gripping face is configured to be electrically insulating with no electrode arranged on the second jaw part (opposing cartridge with 156 is electrically non-conductive with no electrode as in Fig. 11 and col. 9, lines 55-62), wherein the first gripping face with the convex surface region and the second gripping face are together configured to grip or squeeze, between the jaw parts, a cross section of tissue having a tissue surface area (jaws 132 and 134 to grip tissue for treatment); wherein a surface area of the first electrode and a surface area of the second electrode are each configured to be greater than a cross section of the tissue surface area that is gripped or squeezed between the jaw parts during an intended electrosurgical treatment (depending on the tissue to be treated, the surface area of the electrodes can be greater), wherein the first gripping face with the convex surface region and the second gripping face are together configured to grip or squeeze, between the jaw parts, a lateral tissue engaging distance of tissue (jaws grip tissue), and wherein a width of the first electrode in strip form and a width of the second electrode in strip form are each greater than the lateral tissues engaging distance of tissue that is gripped or squeezed between the jaw parts (depending on the tissue to be treated, the surface area of the electrodes can be greater).
Yates is silent regarding a convex surface region between the first electrode and the second electrodes, which projects in a direction of the second jaw part.
Lesko teaches a convex surface between two electrodes (Fig. 9b with electrodes 7062, 7063 between a convex surface formed by 7120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yates with the convex surface between the electrodes as in Lesko. This would be a grasping region that would allow for tissue compression (col. 9, lines 60-62 of Yates). Furthermore, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the positioning of the electrodes on the convex region on the other jaw, especially given that Yates teaches a raised portion in Fig. 14 with the electrodes on the other jaw. One of ordinary skill in the art, looking to Figs. 11, 12, and 14 of Yates, would understand that the raised portion, analogous to the convex region, would work either on the jaw with the electrodes, or the jaw without the electrodes.
Yates teaches a gripping surface that projects toward an opposite jaw (156), but is on the second jaw and not the first jaw, and so is silent wherein the convex surface region is formed by a resilient component and the first electrode and the second electrode are located directly adjacent to the convex surface region.
Voegele teaches a convex surface region formed by a resilient component (convex region as in Fig. 17a with resilient component as elastomer 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yates with the resilient convex surface region to the electrode having jaw, as in Voegele. This would be a grasping region that would allow for tissue compression (col. 9, lines 60-62 of Yates) with the modulation of Voegele, allowing for removal of fluid from the tissue (par. [0078]).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-14, 17, 19, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in view of Voegele, in view of Lesko, in further view of Schechter (US 2004/0143263).
Regarding claim 1, Yates teaches a bipolar electrosurgical tool for a bipolar electrosurgical instrument for closing a hollow organ or sealing other tissue, the bipolar electrosurgical tool comprising:
a first jaw part with a first gripping face (132 with gripping face facing opposing jaw);
a second jaw part with a second gripping face facing the first gripping face (opposing jaw having element 156);
a joint that enables the second jaw part to move pivotally in relation to the first jaw part (joint as in Figs. 3-5 separating the jaws 32 and 34);
a first electrode on the first jaw part (151);
a second electrode on the first jaw part (152), wherein the second electrode is electrically insulated from the first electrode (151 and 152 insulated from each other by 155) and there is no electrode arranged on the second jaw part (no electrode on jaw with 156).
Yates is silent regarding a convex surface region between the first electrode and the second electrodes, which projects in a direction of the second jaw part.
Lesko teaches a convex surface between two electrodes (Fig. 9b with electrodes 7062, 7063 between a convex surface formed by 7120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yates with the convex surface between the electrodes as in Lesko. This would be a grasping region that would allow for tissue compression (col. 9, lines 60-62 of Yates). Furthermore, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the positioning of the electrodes on the convex region on the other jaw, especially given that Yates teaches a raised portion in Fig. 14 with the electrodes on the other jaw. One of ordinary skill in the art, looking to Figs. 11, 12, and 14 of Yates, would understand that the raised portion,
analogous to the convex region, would work either on the jaw with the electrodes, or the jaw without the electrodes.
Yates teaches a gripping surface that projects toward an opposite jaw (156), but is on the second jaw and not the first jaw, and so is silent wherein the convex surface region is formed by a resilient component and the first electrode and the second electrode are located directly adjacent to the convex surface region.
Voegele teaches a convex surface region formed by a resilient component (convex region as in Fig. 17a with resilient component as elastomer 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yates with the resilient convex surface region to the electrode having jaw, as in Voegele. This would be a grasping region that would allow for tissue compression (col. 9, lines 60-62 of Yates) with the modulation of Voegele, allowing for removal of fluid from the tissue (par. [0078]).
Schechter teaches an entire jaw surface covered with a resilient component (par. [0041] compressible material over jaw as in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the convex surface region would be formed by a resilient component, as in Schechter, to allow for more uniform pressure on tissue (par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Yates teaches the entire second gripping face is configured to be electrically insulating (jaw with 156, and thus the face of the jaw, are electrically non-conductive).
Regarding claim 4, Yates teaches a cutting device configured to be moved between the first jaw part and second jaw part for mechanically transecting tissue that is held between the first jaw part and the second jaw part (knife to move between jaws to transect tissue via knife channel 142 as in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 5, Yates teaches the first and second electrodes are arranged next to one another and parallel to one another on the first gripping face (left and right electrodes 151 and 152 are parallel and next to another as in Fig. 11, as 151 and 152 are parallel and facing the second jaw).
Regarding claim 8, Yates teaches a convex surface region on the second gripping surface of the
second jaw part, wherein the convex surface region projects towards the first gripping face of the first jaw part (156 facing the gripping face of jaw part 132).
Regarding claim 9, Yates teaches wherein the convex surface region on the second gripping face
of the second jaw part is arranged and configured such that the convex surface region on the second gripping face of the second jaw part cannot come into contact with either the first electrode or the second electrode, even in a closed condition of a tool (col. 4, lines 12-16, with a gap between the jaws of the device).
Regarding claim 10, Yates is silent wherein the convex surface region on the second gripping face of the second jaw part is formed by a component made of a resilient material.
Schechter teaches an entire jaw surface covered with a resilient component (par. [0041] compressible material over jaw as in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the convex surface region would be formed by a resilient component, as in Schechter, to allow for more uniform pressure on tissue (par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Yates teaches a bipolar electrosurgical instrument, comprising:
a Shaft (30);
a bipolar electrosurgical tool for closing a hollow organ or sealing other tissue (tool with end effector 50), the bipolar electrosurgical tool comprising:
a first jaw part with a first gripping face (132 with gripping face facing opposing jaw);
a second jaw part with a second gripping face facing the first gripping face (opposing jaw having element 156);
a joint that enables the second jaw part to move pivotally in relation to the first jaw part (joint as in Figs. 3-5 separating the jaws 32 and 34);
a first electrode on the first jaw part (151);
a second electrode on the first jaw part (152), wherein the second electrode is electrically insulated from the first electrode and there is no electrode arranged on the second jaw part (155 insulates 151 and 152, and no electrode is on jaw with 156), and wherein the bipolar electrosurgical tool is connected or connectable to a distal end of the shaft (end effector connected to shaft 30).
Yates is silent regarding a convex surface region between the first electrode and the second electrodes, which projects in a direction of the second jaw part.
Lesko teaches a convex surface between two electrodes (Fig. 9b with electrodes 7062, 7063 between a convex surface formed by 7120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yates with the convex surface between the electrodes as in Lesko. This would be a grasping region that would allow for tissue compression (col. 9, lines 60-62 of Yates). Furthermore, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the positioning of the electrodes on the convex region on the other jaw, especially given that Yates teaches a raised portion in Fig. 14 with the electrodes on the other jaw. One of ordinary skill in the art, looking to Figs. 11, 12, and 14 of Yates, would understand that the raised portion,
analogous to the convex region, would work either on the jaw with the electrodes, or the jaw without the electrodes.
Yates teaches a gripping surface that projects toward an opposite jaw (156), but is on the second jaw and not the first jaw, and so is silent wherein the convex surface region is formed by a resilient component and the first electrode and the second electrode are located directly adjacent to the convex surface region.
Voegele teaches a convex surface region formed by a resilient component (convex region as in Fig. 17a with resilient component as elastomer 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yates with the resilient convex surface region to the electrode having jaw, as in Voegele. This would be a grasping region that would allow for tissue compression (col. 9, lines 60-62 of Yates) with the modulation of Voegele, allowing for removal of fluid from the tissue (par. [0078]).
Schechter teaches an entire jaw surface covered with a resilient component (par. [0041] compressible material over jaw as in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the convex surface region would be formed by a resilient component, as in Schechter, to allow for more uniform pressure on tissue (par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Yates teaches wherein the first gripping face with the convex surface region
and the second gripping face are together configured to grip or squeeze, between the jaw parts during an electrosurgical treatment, a cross section of tissue having a tissue surface area (jaws 32 and 34 to grip tissue for electrosurgical treatment); a surface area of the first electrode and a surface are of the second electrode are each configured to be greater than the tissue surface area (depending on the tissue to be treated, the surface area of the electrodes can be greater).
Regarding claim 13, Yates teaches the first gripping face with the convex surface region and the
second gripping face are together configured to grip or squeeze, between the jaw parts during an electrosurgical treatment, a thickness of tissue (jaws 32 and 34 to grip tissue having a thickness);
a width of the first electrode in strip form and a width of the second electrode in strip form are each greater than the thickness of tissue that is gripped or squeezed between the jaw parts during an
electrosurgical treatment intended (depending on the tissue to be treated, the width of the electrodes can be greater than that of the tissue).
Regarding claim 14, Yates teaches wherein: the first electrode and the second electrode are arranged on or close to edges of the first gripping face that face away from one another (152 and 151 on edges away from each other as in Fig. 11, with 151 close to the edge with knife channel, and 152 close to the edge of the jaw body); and
the first gripping face between the first electrode and the second electrode is configured to be completely electrically insulating (155 as insulating).
Regarding claim 17, Yates is silent regarding the resilient material.
However, Schechter teaches entire jaw surfaces covered with a resilient component (par. [0041]
compressible material over jaws as in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious that in the combination, both jaw surfaces and so both convex regions would have resilient material, to allow for more uniform pressure on tissue (par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 19, Yates is silent regarding the resilient material.
However, Schechter teaches entire jaw surfaces covered with a resilient component (par. [0041]
compressible material over jaws as in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious that in the combination, both jaw surfaces and so both convex regions would have resilient material, to allow for more uniform pressure on tissue (par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 22, Yates teaches cutting tissue with a knife between two arms of a forceps,
with electrodes and convex surface regions (Fig. 11, with knife channels 142).
Regarding claim 23, Yates is not explicit, but Voegele teaches the electrodes are located directly adjacent to the convex surface region (Fig. 17a with 110 between electrode halves of 117).
Regarding claim 24, Yates is silent wherein only the convex region is provided between the electrodes and no grooves and no interruptions are provided between the convex surface region and the first electrode and no grooves and no interruptions are provided between the convex surface region and the second electrode.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in the combination, the convex region of Voegele would be in the region between the electrodes, with no grooves between the region and the electrodes. Looking to Fig. 11 of Yates, only 155, which is neither grooved nor with interruptions, is between the electrodes.
Claim(s) 15, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates in
view of Voegele, in view of Lesko, in view of Schechter, in further view of Takashino (US 2017/0014175).
Regarding claim 15, Yates is silent regarding the convex surface region has a bead shape with a
trapezoidal cross section.
However, Takashino teaches a convex surface with a trapezoidal cross section of a jaw (52 as in Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the combination to make the convex surface regions with the shape of Takashino, as a shape allowing for the sealing of tissue.
Regarding claim 18, Yates is silent, but Takashino teaches the convex surface region has a bead shape with a trapezoidal cross section (52 as in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the combination to make the convex surface regions with the shape of Takashino, as a shape allowing for the sealing of tissue.
Regarding claim 20, Yates is silent regarding the convex surface region has a bead shape with a trapezoidal cross section. Takashino teaches the convex surface region has a bead shape with a trapezoidal cross section (52 as in Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the combination to make the convex surface regions with the shape of Takashino, as a shape allowing for the sealing of tissue.
Regarding claim 21, Yates is silent regarding the resilient material. However, Schechter teaches entire jaw surfaces covered with a resilient component (par. [0041] compressible material over jaws as in Fig. 4). It would have been obvious that in the combination, both jaw surfaces and so both convex regions would have resilient material, to allow for more uniform pressure on tissue (par. [0049)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Yates reference does not combine with Lesko to arrive at the invention. However, would perform equally well with the positioning of the electrodes on the convex region on the other jaw, especially given that Yates teaches a raised portion in Fig. 14 with the electrodes on the other jaw. One of ordinary skill in the art, looking to Figs. 11, 12, and 14 of Yates, would understand that the raised portion, analogous to the convex region, would work either on the jaw with the electrodes, or the jaw without the electrodes.
Applicant further argues that Voegele does not teach an exposed, tissue-contacting convex region made of resilient material situated between two electrodes on the same jaw. However, Voegele is being used to teach a convex surface region formed by a resilient component. This would be a grasping region that would allow for tissue compression (col. 9, lines 60-62 of Yates) with the modulation of Voegele, allowing for removal of fluid from the tissue (par. [0078]). The electrodes are taught by Yates, and would be separated by the convex surface of Lesko.
Applicant argues in at least page 16 that Schechter teaches electrodes on each jaw, contrary to the claimed invention. However, Schechter is being used for the resilient elements on the jaws of Schechter, rather than the entire jaw including the electrodes. The electrode structure has already been taught by Yates. The resilient structure of Schechter would not be impacted by the differing placement of electrodes.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are similar to arguments addressed above and are not persuasive for the same reasoning.
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