DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 10/14/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification are sufficient to overcome the specification objection set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112(a)/first and 112(b)/second paragraph rejections set forth in the previous office action.
The Examiner notes that support for claims 26, 32 & 38 that recite the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor/control module/system “is further configured to cause the motor to change a direction in which the drive beam is driven based on the measurement of the impedance parameter” is found in priority application 13/151481 which is incorporated by reference in the originally filed disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “tissue” to -the tissue- in ll. 7, 8, 11 & 22. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: indent lls. 11 & 13 under “a drive beam comprising” in ll. 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “distal advancement” to -the distal advancement- in ll. 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the advancement” to -the distal advancement- in ll. 25. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “of the of the” to -of the- in ll. 25. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “tissue” to -the tissue- in ll. 6 & 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “distal advancement” to -the distal advancement- in ll. 13-14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the radiofrequency energy delivered” to -radiofrequency energy delivered by the first and second electrode to- in ll. 18. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the impedance parameter” to -the impedance- in ll. 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “tissue” to -the tissue in ll. 7, 9, 12 & 24. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “distal advancement” to -the distal advancement- in ll. 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the impedance parameter” to -the impedance- in ll. 23. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the advancement” to -the distal advancement- in ll. 26. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “of the of the” to -of the- in ll. 26. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “distal advancement” to -the distal advancement- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the impedance parameter” to -the impedance- in ll. 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “cause the motor to drive the with the end effector is in the closed configuration”. It is unclear if the claim is attempting to recite the control system configured to cause the motor to drive the knife when the end effector is already in the closed configuration or to cause the motor to drive the knife to move the end effector into the closed configuration. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the latter.
Claims 34-38 depend from claim 33 and are thus also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 21-38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yates et al. (5,688,270, where Yates 5,558,671 is incorporated by reference) in view of Truckai et al. (2003/0199870, previously cited), Zemlock et al. (2009/0090763, previously cited) and Johnson et al. (2005/0113826, previously cited).
Concerning claim 21, as illustrated in Figs. 1-6 & 19, Yates et al. disclose a surgical instrument (endoscopic linear cutting and stapling instrument 10; Col. 5, ll. 34-54), comprising:
an end effector (end effector 15; Col. 5, ll. 34-54), comprising:
a first jaw comprising a first electrode; a second jaw comprising a second electrode, wherein the second jaw is rotatable relative to the first jaw about a pivot to grasp tissue between the first jaw and the second jaw, and wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to deliver radiofrequency energy to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw (end effector 15 comprises first and second elements which are comprised of interfacing jaw members 32/232, 34/234 and comprise respective first and second electrodes 251, 252; Col. 5, ll. 34-54, Col. 9, ll. 39-63); and
a sensor configured to measure an impedance associated with tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw (feedback system measures one or more electrical parameters, such as electrical impedance of the tissue; Col. 6-7, ll. 66-5 & Col. 8, ll. 52-64 and Yates ‘671: Col. 6, ll. 36-59 & Col. 13, ll. 8-33);
a drive beam (drive rod 41; Col. 6, ll. 37-46) comprising:
a knife configured to cut tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam (drive rod 41 advances cutting element 11; Col. 6, ll. 47-57).
Yates et al. fail to disclose a flange configured to cam against the second jaw to rotate the second jaw relative to the first jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam. However, Truckai et al. disclose a surgical instrument, comprising: an end effector (100), comprising: a first jaw (112A); a second jaw (112B) rotatable relative to the first jaw about a pivot (116); and a drive beam (140) comprising a first and second transverse flanges (144A, B) configured to cam against the second jaw (112B) to rotate the second jaw (112B) relative to the first jaw (112A) based on distal advancement of the drive beam (140). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. such that the drive beam comprises a flange configured to cam against the second jaw to rotate the second jaw relative to the first jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam in order to provide the benefit of applying very high compressive pressures to the engaged tissue and to maintain jaws in a fixed spaced-apart relationship to define a consistent engagement gap no matter the length of the jaws as taught by Truckai et al. ([0038], [0041], [0044]); Fig. 2-5 & 9-10)
Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. fail to disclose a motor configured to drive the distal advancement of the drive beam; a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor: control a power of the motor for driving the advancement of the drive beam based on a measurement by a sensor. However, Zemlock et al. disclose a surgical instrument (10) comprising an end effector (160) having jaws (162, 164), a drive beam (220) configured to actuate a knife to sever tissue, a motor (200) configured to drive distal advancement of the drive beam (220), a processor (500/600) comprising a memory storing instructions to control a power of a motor (200) for driving the advancement of the of the drive beam (220) at a speed based on sensor measurements (as tissue thickness and/or speed of firing rod). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. to further comprise a motor configured to drive the distal advancement of the drive beam; a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor: control a power of the motor for driving the advancement of the drive beam based on a measurement by a sensor in order to provide the benefit of automatically adjusting operating parameters of the motor in response to sensed feedback signals as taught by Zemlock et al. ([0007], [0048], [0054], [0103], [0111], [0124-0125], [0147], [0150], [0153-0155], [0158], [0169], Table1)
While Yates et al. discusses an impedance feedback system, Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. and Zemlock et al. fail to disclose the memory also storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor and control the power of the motor based on the impedance measured by the sensor. However, Johnson et al. disclose a surgical instrument (10) comprising an end effector (105) comprising jaws (110, 12) and an elongate member (127a and/or b), a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (computer algorithm), control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor (feedback loop is configured to automatically measure various tissue parameters during sealing, including tissue impedance, and automatically adjust energy intensity); and control a power of the motor for driving the advancement of the of the drive beam based on the impedance measured by the sensor (cutting element may be automatically activated based upon a desired end tissue thickness at the seal). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. and Zemlock et al. such that the memory also storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor and control the power of the motor based on the impedance measured by the sensor in order to provide the benefit of conveying information to the surgeon regarding the overall seal quality or the completion of an effective tissue seal and activating the longitudinal member only after sealing is complete and to determine overall effectiveness of tissue seal as taught by Johnson et al. ([0072], [0095], [0110-0111], [0113], [0116]; Fig. 1A).
Concerning claim 22, Yates et al. disclose the sensor to be a first sensor (Col. 6-7, ll. 66-5 & Col. 8, ll. 52-64 and Yates ‘671: Col. 6, ll. 36-59 & Col. 13, ll. 8-33 ). Yates et al. fail to disclose a second sensor configured to sense a speed of the drive beam. However, Zemlock et al. further disclose a second sensor (418) configured to sense the speed of the elongate member (220) ([0111], [0150-0151]; Fig. 5). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al., Zemlock et al. and Johnson et al. to further comprise a second sensor configured to sense a speed of the drive beam in order to provide the benefit of adjusting the motor speed, such as determining if the motor is malfunctioning, or the drive beam is at a mechanical stop as taught by Zemlock et al. ([0118-0125])
Concerning claim 23, Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al., Zemlock et al. and Johnson et al. fail to disclose a visual feedback device in communication with the processor, wherein the visual feedback device is configured to display the speed of the drive beam sensed by the second sensor. However, Zemlock et al. further disclose a visual feedback device (120) in communication with the processor (500), wherein the visual feedback device (120) is configured to display the speed of the elongate member (220) sensed by the second sensor (418) ([0060], [0118-0121], [0148]; Fig. 3). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al., Zemlock et al. and Johnson et al. to further comprise a visual feedback device in communication with the processor, wherein the visual feedback device is configured to display the speed of the drive beam sensed by the second sensor in order to provide the benefit of communicating information to the operator as taught by Zemlock et al. ([0060], [0065], [0172]).
Concerning claim 24, Yates et al. fail to disclose a second sensor configured to sense a thickness of the tissue. However, Zemlock et al. further disclose a second sensor configured to sense a thickness of the tissue ([0150]; Table 1). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al., Zemlock et al. and Johnson et al. to further comprise a second sensor configured to sense a thickness of the tissue in order to provide the benefit of adjusting operation of the drive beam based on measured parameters as taught by Zemlock et al. ([0150])
Concerning claim 25, Zemlock et al. further disclose the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor (500/600), cause the motor (200) to: drive the drive beam (220) during a first time period; pause the drive beam (220) after the first time period; and drive the drive beam (220) during a second time period ([0124]).
Concerning claim 26¸ Zemlock et al. disclose the memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the processor (500/600), cause the motor (200) to change a direction (reverse at the end of the firing stroke) in which the drive beam (220) is driven based on the measurement of a impedance ([0088], [0124-0125]).
Concerning claim 27, as illustrated in Figs. 1-6 & 19, Yates et al. disclose a surgical instrument (endoscopic linear cutting and stapling instrument 10; Col. 5, ll. 34-54), comprising:
an end effector (end effector 15; Col. 5, ll. 34-54), comprising:
a first jaw comprising a first electrode; a second jaw comprising a second electrode, wherein the second jaw is rotatable relative to the first jaw to grasp tissue between the first jaw and the second jaw (end effector 15 comprises first and second elements which are comprised of interfacing jaw members 32/232, 34/234 and comprise respective first and second electrodes 251, 252; Col. 5, ll. 34-54, Col. 9, ll. 39-63); and
a sensor configured to measure an impedance associated with tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw (feedback system measures one or more electrical parameters, such as electrical impedance of the tissue; Col. 6-7, ll. 66-5 & Col. 8, ll. 52-64 and Yates ‘671: Col. 6, ll. 36-59 & Col. 13, ll. 8-33);
a drive beam (drive rod 41; Col. 6, ll. 37-46) comprising:
a knife configured to cut tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam (drive rod 41 advances cutting element 11; Col. 6, ll. 47-57).
Yates et al. fail to disclose a flange configured to cam against the second jaw to rotate the second jaw relative to the first jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam. However, Truckai et al. disclose a surgical instrument, comprising: an end effector (100), comprising: a first jaw (112A); a second jaw (112B) rotatable relative to the first jaw about a pivot (116); and a drive beam (140) comprising a first and second transverse flanges (144A, B) configured to cam against the second jaw (112B) to rotate the second jaw (112B) relative to the first jaw (112A) based on distal advancement of the drive beam (140). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. such that the drive beam comprises a flange configured to cam against the second jaw to rotate the second jaw relative to the first jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam in order to provide the benefit of applying very high compressive pressures to the engaged tissue and to maintain jaws in a fixed spaced-apart relationship to define a consistent engagement gap no matter the length of the jaws as taught by Truckai et al. ([0038], [0041], [0044]); Fig. 2-5 & 9-10)
Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. fail to disclose a motor configured to drive the drive beam at a speed based on a motor power; and a control module configured to control the motor power based on the measurement measured by the sensor. However, Zemlock et al. disclose a surgical instrument (10) comprising an end effector (160) having jaws (162, 164), a drive beam (220) configured to actuate a knife to sever tissue, a motor (200) configured to drive distal advancement of the drive beam (220), a control module (500/600) configured to control the motor power based on the measurement measured by the sensor measurements (such as tissue thickness and/or speed of firing rod). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. to further comprise a motor configured to drive the drive beam at a speed based on a motor power; and a control module configured to control the motor power based on the measurement measured by the sensor in order to provide the benefit of automatically adjusting operating parameters of the motor in response to sensed feedback signals as taught by Zemlock et al. ([0007], [0048], [0054], [0103], [0111], [0124-0125], [0147], [0150], [0153-0155], [0158], [0169], Table1)
Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. and Zemlock et al. fail to disclose the control module configured to control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor and control the power of the motor based on the impedance measured by the sensor. However, Johnson et al. disclose a surgical instrument (10) comprising an end effector (105) comprising jaws (110, 12) and an elongate member (127a and/or b), a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (computer algorithm), control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor (feedback loop is configured to automatically measure various tissue parameters during sealing, including tissue impedance, and automatically adjust energy intensity); and control a power of the motor for driving the advancement of the of the drive beam based on the impedance measured by the sensor (cutting element may be automatically activated based upon a desired end tissue thickness at the seal). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. and Zemlock et al. such that the memory also storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor and control the power of the motor based on the impedance measured by the sensor in order to provide the benefit of conveying information to the surgeon regarding the overall seal quality or the completion of an effective tissue seal and activating the longitudinal member only after sealing is complete and to determine overall effectiveness of tissue seal as taught by Johnson et al. ([0072], [0095], [0110-0111], [0113], [0116]; Fig. 1A).
Claim 28 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 22.
Claim 29 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 23.
Claim 30 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 24.
Claim 31 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 25.
Claim 32 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 26.
Concerning claim 33¸ as illustrated in Figs. 1-6 & 19, Yates et al. disclose a surgical instrument (endoscopic linear cutting and stapling instrument 10; Col. 5, ll. 34-54), comprising:
an end effector (end effector 15; Col. 5, ll. 34-54), comprising:
a first jaw comprising a first electrode; a second jaw comprising a second electrode, wherein the second jaw is pivotable relative to the first jaw to transition the end effector form an open configuration to a closed configuration to grasp tissue between the first jaw and the second jaw, and wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to deliver radiofrequency energy to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw (end effector 15 comprises first and second elements which are comprised of interfacing jaw members 32/232, 34/234 and comprise respective first and second electrodes 251, 252; Col. 5, ll. 34-54, Col. 9, ll. 39-63); and
a sensor configured to measure an impedance associated with tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw (feedback system measures one or more electrical parameters, such as electrical impedance of the tissue; Col. 6-7, ll. 66-5 & Col. 8, ll. 52-64 and Yates ‘671: Col. 6, ll. 36-59 & Col. 13, ll. 8-33);
a drive beam (drive rod 41; Col. 6, ll. 37-46) comprising:
a knife configured to cut tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam (drive rod 41 advances cutting element 11; Col. 6, ll. 47-57).
Yates et al. fail to disclose a flange configured to cam against the second jaw to rotate the second jaw relative to the first jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam. However, Truckai et al. disclose a surgical instrument, comprising: an end effector (100), comprising: a first jaw (112A); a second jaw (112B) rotatable relative to the first jaw about a pivot (116); and a drive beam (140) comprising a first and second transverse flanges (144A, B) configured to cam against the second jaw (112B) to rotate the second jaw (112B) relative to the first jaw (112A) based on distal advancement of the drive beam (140). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. such that the drive beam comprises a flange configured to cam against the second jaw to rotate the second jaw relative to the first jaw based on distal advancement of the drive beam in order to provide the benefit of applying very high compressive pressures to the engaged tissue and to maintain jaws in a fixed spaced-apart relationship to define a consistent engagement gap no matter the length of the jaws as taught by Truckai et al. ([0038], [0041], [0044]); Fig. 2-5 & 9-10)
Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. fail to disclose a motor configured to drive the distal advancement of the drive beam; and a control system configured to cause the motor to drive the drive beam with the end effector is in the closed configuration; receive a measurement of a sensed parameter measured by a sensor; control a power of the motor for driving the advancement of the of the drive beam based on the measurement measured by the sensor. However, Zemlock et al. disclose a surgical instrument (10) comprising an end effector (160) having jaws (162, 164), a drive beam (220) configured to actuate a knife to sever tissue, a motor (200) configured to drive distal advancement of the drive beam (220), a control system (500/600) configured to cause the motor (200) to drive the drive beam (220) with the end effector (160) is in the closed configuration and control a power of the motor (200) for driving the advancement of the of the drive beam (220) based on a measurement measured by the sensor (such as tissue thickness and/or speed of firing rod) and received by the control system (500/600). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. to further comprise a motor configured to drive the distal advancement of the drive beam; and a control system configured to cause the motor to drive the drive beam with the end effector is in the closed configuration; receive a measurement of a sensed parameter measured by a sensor; control a power of the motor for driving the advancement of the of the drive beam based on the measurement measured by the sensor in order to provide the benefit of automatically adjusting operating parameters of the motor in response to sensed feedback signals as taught by Zemlock et al. ([0007], [0048], [0054], [0103], [0111], [0124-0125], [0147], [0150], [0153-0155], [0158], [0169], Table1)
Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. and Zemlock et al. fail to disclose the control system configured to control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor and control the power of the motor based on the impedance measured by the sensor. However, Johnson et al. disclose a surgical instrument (10) comprising an end effector (105) comprising jaws (110, 12) and an elongate member (127a and/or b), a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (computer algorithm), control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor (feedback loop is configured to automatically measure various tissue parameters during sealing, including tissue impedance, and automatically adjust energy intensity); and control a power of the motor for driving the advancement of the of the drive beam based on the impedance measured by the sensor (cutting element may be automatically activated based upon a desired end tissue thickness at the seal). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yates et al. in view of Truckai et al. and Zemlock et al. such that the memory also storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, control a power of the radiofrequency energy delivered to tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the impedance measured by the sensor and control the power of the motor based on the impedance measured by the sensor in order to provide the benefit of conveying information to the surgeon regarding the overall seal quality or the completion of an effective tissue seal and activating the longitudinal member only after sealing is complete and to determine overall effectiveness of tissue seal as taught by Johnson et al. ([0072], [0095], [0110-0111], [0113], [0116]; Fig. 1A).
Claim 34 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 22.
Claim 35 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 23.
Claim 36 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 24.
Claim 37 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 25.
Claim 38 is rejected upon the same rationale as presented for claim 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ullrich et al. (2012/0143182) teaches a feedback circuit between sensors and cutting speed of a drive member and specifically “cutting-readiness processor 416 makes impedance or other electrical parameter calculations that may be utilized to provide the user with guidance as to the readiness of tissue for cutting and as to the appropriate rate or speed of cutting”, but fails to specifically disclose a motor driving the drive beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYMI E DELLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1429. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:00 am - 4:45 pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYMI E DELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794