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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s RCE filing on 04/17/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2, 4, 9-10, 16, and 18-19 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 17, and 20-27 are pending and examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
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, 3, 5, 7, 13-15, 17, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Evans et al. (2020/0008798) in view of references Shelton, IV et al. (10,278,722)(referred Shelton '722) and Atsumi et al. (8,746,364).
Regarding claim 1, Evans et al. disclose a method of operating a surgical instrument (10), the method comprising the steps of:
operating a motor-driven firing drive (128) in a first state to perform a first actuation of the surgical stapling instrument (10),
wherein the first actuation comprises clamping a jaw (330, 340) of the surgical stapling instrument (10);
operating the motor-driven firing drive (128) in a first state to perform a second actuation of the surgical stapling instrument (10),
wherein the second actuation comprises advancing a knife (pg 3 para 28) of the surgical stapling instrument (10) through tissue at a first speed;
monitoring a parameter of the surgical stapling instrument (10) during the first actuation,
wherein the parameter comprises a firing force to advance the knife (pg 3 para 28) through the tissue, and
wherein the surgical stapling instrument (10) comprises a controller (224) and a sensor (226) configured to monitor the parameter;
shifting the motor-driven firing drive (128) from the first state to the second state based on the monitored parameter and a firing force threshold; and
operating the motor-driven firing drive (128) in the second state to perform a third actuation of the surgical stapling instrument (10),
wherein the shifting is conducted subsequent to the completion of the second actuation and prior to the third actuation,
wherein the second actuation and the third actuation are discrete, and
wherein the third actuation comprises advancing knife (pg 3 para 28) of the surgical stapling instrument (10) through the tissue at a second speed different from the first speed.
(Figure 1, 4, 5A and Page 1 paragraph 19, Page 2 paragraph 24, 26, Page 3 paragraph 28, 30)
On page 3 paragraph 28, Evans et al. disclose one motor (128) is used to drive the I-beam to close and fire the end effector. This is interpreted as the motor-driven drive is used to perform the first actuation and to perform the second actuation.
On page 3 paragraph 30, Evans et al. disclose the increasing or decreasing of the speed of the motor during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife, wherein the changing in speed is based on the forces encountered during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife. This is interpreted as the shifting from the first state to the second state. When the surgical instrument determines the speed of the motor needs to increase or decrease, the process of operating the motor at a first speed is considered complete and the process of operating the motor at a second speed is initiated. Therefore, the shifting from the first state to the second state is interpreted to be conducted subsequent to the completion of the second actuation and prior to the third actuation, and the second and third actuation are considered discrete.
However, Evans et al. do not disclose a first/second gear configuration and the step of automatically shifting, by the controller, from the first gear configuration to the second gear configuration.
Shelton ‘722 disclose surgical instrument (10) comprising a gear shifting assembly (2402), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2402) is configured to transfer power to a firing member (76) from a motor (65), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2402) is configured to shift from a first gear configuration to a second gear configuration, wherein the first gear configuration applies a first speed and a first torque, and wherein the second gear configuration applies a second speed different from the first speed and a second torque different from the first torque. (Figure 43 and Column 20 lines 4-18)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Evans et al. by incorporating the first/second gear configuration as taught by Shelton ‘722, since column 22 lines 15-27 of Shelton ‘722 states such a modification would allow for low torque/high speed state and for high torque/low speed state.
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (III)]
Atsumi et al. disclose an instrument (Figure 2) comprising: a controller (62); and a gear shifting assembly (2, 6), wherein the controller (62) is configured to monitor a parameter of the instrument (Figure 2), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2, 6) is configured to transfer power to an output shaft (4) from a motor (1), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2, 6) is configured to automatically shift, by the controller (62), from a first gear configuration to a second gear configuration, wherein the first gear configuration applies a first speed, and wherein the second gear configuration applies a second speed different from the first speed. (Figures 2, 5 and Column 3 lines 11-18, Column 4 lines 16-19, Column 6 lines 12-17, 32-36)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified gear shifting assembly of Shelton ‘722, incorporated into Evans et al., by further having the gear shifting assembly automatically shift by the controller as taught by Atsumi et al., since column 1 lines 34-37 of Atsumi et al. states such a modification would help overcome any unsuccessful shifting and help provide smooth shifting.
Regarding claim 3, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the second actuation fires staples (Evans et al. – pg 3 para 28) from a staple cartridge (Evans et al. – 342) in an end effector (Evans et al. – 300) of the surgical stapling instrument (Evans et al. – 10), and wherein the third actuation fires staples (Evans et al. – pg 3 para 28) from the staple cartridge (Evans et al. – 342). (Evans et al. – Page 3 paragraph 28, 30)
Regarding claim 5, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the sensor (Evans et al. – 226) comprises a force-related sensor configured to detect the force transmitted by the motor-driven firing drive (Evans et al. – 128) during the second actuation. (Evans et al. – Page 2 paragraph 24, Page 3 paragraph 28)
Regarding claim 7, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the sensor (Evans et al. – 226) comprises a strain gauge. (Evans et al. – Page 2 paragraph 24)
Regarding claim 13, leverage is interpreted to be forces applied to the firing member of the firing drive. Torque is interpreted as the amount of force applied to the firing member of the firing drive. When modifying Evans et al. in view of Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al., the second actuation is interpreted to have a high speed and a low leverage, and the third actuation is interpreted to have a low speed and a high leverage.
Regarding claim 14, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the second leverage is greater than the first leverage. (Evans et al. – Page 3 paragraph 30)(Shelton ‘722 – Column 22 lines 15-27)
Regarding claim 15, Evans et al. disclose a method of operating a surgical instrument (10), the method comprising the steps of:
operating a drive (128) in a first state to perform a first actuation of the surgical stapling instrument (10),
wherein the first actuation comprises rotating a first jaw (330) of the surgical stapling instrument (10) relative to a second jaw (340) the surgical stapling instrument (10);
operating the drive (128) in a second state to perform a second actuation of the surgical stapling instrument (10),
wherein the second actuation comprises advancing a sled (pg 3 para 28) through a staple cartridge (342) at a first speed;
monitoring a parameter of the surgical stapling instrument (10) during the second actuation,
wherein the parameter comprises a force transmitted by the drive (128), and
wherein the surgical instrument (10) comprises a controller (224) coupled to a sensor (226) configured to monitor the parameter;
shifting the drive (128) from the second state to the first state based on the monitored parameter and a firing force threshold; and
operating the drive (128) in the first state to perform a third actuation of the surgical stapling instrument (10),
wherein the shifting is conducted subsequent to the completion of the second actuation and prior to the third actuation,
wherein the second actuation and the third actuation are discrete, and
wherein the third actuation comprises advancing sled (pg 3 para 28) through the staple cartridge (342) of the surgical stapling instrument (10) at a second speed different from the first speed.
(Figure 1, 4, 5A and Page 1 paragraph 19, Page 2 paragraph 24, 26, Page 3 paragraph 28, 30)
On page 3 paragraph 28, Evans et al. disclose one motor (128) is used to drive the I-beam to close and fire the end effector. This is interpreted as the motor-driven drive is used to perform the first actuation and to perform the second actuation.
On page 3 paragraph 30, Evans et al. disclose the increasing or decreasing of the speed of the motor during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife, wherein the changing in speed is based on the forces encountered during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife. This is interpreted as the shifting from the first state to the second state. When the surgical instrument determines the speed of the motor needs to increase or decrease, the process of operating the motor at a first speed is considered complete and the process of operating the motor at a second speed is initiated. Therefore, the shifting from the first state to the second state is interpreted to be conducted subsequent to the completion of the second actuation and prior to the third actuation, and the second and third actuation are considered discrete.
However, Evans et al. do not disclose a first/second gear configuration and the step of automatically shifting, by the controller, from the first gear configuration to the second gear configuration.
Shelton ‘722 disclose a gear shifting assembly (2402) configured to transfer power to a firing member (76) from a motor (65), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2402) is configured to shift from a first gear configuration to a second gear configuration, wherein the first gear configuration applies a first speed and a first torque, and wherein the second gear configuration applies a second speed different from the first speed and a second torque different from the first torque. (Figure 43 and Column 20 lines 4-18)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Evans et al. by incorporating the first/second gear configuration as taught by Shelton ‘722, since column 22 lines 15-27 of Shelton ‘722 states such a modification would allow for low torque/high speed state and for high torque/low speed state.
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (III)]
Atsumi et al. disclose an instrument (Figure 2) comprising: a controller (62); and a gear shifting assembly (2, 6), wherein the controller (62) is configured to monitor a parameter of the instrument (Figure 2), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2, 6) is configured to transfer power to an output shaft (4) from a motor (1), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2, 6) is configured to automatically shift, by the controller (62), from a first gear configuration to a second gear configuration, wherein the first gear configuration applies a first speed, and wherein the second gear configuration applies a second speed different from the first speed. (Figures 2, 5 and Column 3 lines 11-18, Column 4 lines 16-19, Column 6 lines 12-17, 32-36)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified gear shifting assembly of Shelton ‘722, incorporated into Evans et al., by further having the gear shifting assembly automatically shift by the controller as taught by Atsumi et al., since column 1 lines 34-37 of Atsumi et al. states such a modification would help overcome any unsuccessful shifting and help provide smooth shifting.
Regarding claim 17, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the second actuation fires staples (Evans et al. – pg 3 para 28) from the staple cartridge (Evans et al. – 342) in an end effector (Evans et al. – 300) of the surgical stapling instrument (Evans et al. – 10), and wherein the third actuation fires staples (Evans et al. – pg 3 para 28) from a staple cartridge (Evans et al. – 342). (Evans et al. – Page 3 paragraph 30)
Regarding claim 20, Evans et al. disclose a method of operating a surgical instrument (10), the method comprising the steps of:
operating a drive (128) in a first state to clamping a jaw (330, 340) of the surgical stapling instrument (10) while applying a first speed;
operating the drive (128) in a first state to cut tissue with a knife (pg 3 para 28) of the surgical stapling instrument (10) while applying the first speed;
monitoring a parameter of the surgical stapling instrument (10) while operating the drive (128) in the first state,
wherein the parameter comprises a force transmitted by the drive (128) to at least one of: clamp the tissue with the jaw (330, 340); or advance the knife (pg 3 para 28) through the tissue, and
wherein the surgical instrument (10) comprises a controller (224) coupled to a sensor (226) configured to monitor the parameter;
shifting the drive (128) from the first state to the second state based on comparison of the monitored parameter to a firing force threshold; and
operating the drive (128) in the second state to at least one of: clamp the tissue with the jaw (330, 340); or cut tissue with the knife (pg 3 para 28) of the surgical stapling instrument (10),
wherein the shifting is conducted subsequent to the completion of the operation to clamp or cut the tissue and prior to commencing another operation to clamp or cut the tissue,
wherein the operation and another operation are discrete, and
wherein the drive (128) in the second state is operated at a second speed different from the first speed.
(Figure 1, 4, 5A and Page 1 paragraph 19, Page 2 paragraph 24, 26, Page 3 paragraph 28, 30)
On page 3 paragraph 28, Evans et al. disclose one motor (128) is used to drive the I-beam to close and fire the end effector. This is interpreted as the motor-driven drive is used to perform the first actuation and to perform the second actuation.
On page 3 paragraph 30, Evans et al. disclose the increasing or decreasing of the speed of the motor during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife, wherein the changing in speed is based on the forces encountered during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife. This is interpreted as the shifting from the first state to the second state. When the surgical instrument determines the speed of the motor needs to increase or decrease, the process of operating the motor at a first speed is considered complete and the process of operating the motor at a second speed is initiated. Therefore, the shifting from the operation of cutting tissue to the other operation of cutting tissue is interpreted to be conducted subsequent to the completion of the operation of cutting tissue and prior to the other operation of cutting tissue, and the operation and the other operation are considered discrete.
However, Evans et al. do not disclose a first/second gear configuration and the step of automatically shifting, by the controller, from the first gear configuration to the second gear configuration.
Shelton ‘722 disclose a gear shifting assembly (2402) configured to transfer power to a firing member (76) from a motor (65), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2402) is configured to shift from a first gear configuration to a second gear configuration, wherein the first gear configuration applies a first speed and a first torque, and wherein the second gear configuration applies a second speed different from the first speed and a second torque different from the first torque. (Figure 43 and Column 20 lines 4-18)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Evans et al. by incorporating the first/second gear configuration as taught by Shelton ‘722, since column 22 lines 15-27 of Shelton ‘722 states such a modification would allow for low torque/high speed state and for high torque/low speed state.
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (III)]
Atsumi et al. disclose an instrument (Figure 2) comprising: a controller (62); and a gear shifting assembly (2, 6), wherein the controller (62) is configured to monitor a parameter of the instrument (Figure 2), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2, 6) is configured to transfer power to an output shaft (4) from a motor (1), wherein the gear shifting assembly (2, 6) is configured to automatically shift, by the controller (62), from a first gear configuration to a second gear configuration, wherein the first gear configuration applies a first speed, and wherein the second gear configuration applies a second speed different from the first speed. (Figures 2, 5 and Column 3 lines 11-18, Column 4 lines 16-19, Column 6 lines 12-17, 32-36)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified gear shifting assembly of Shelton ‘722, incorporated into Evans et al., by further having the gear shifting assembly automatically shift by the controller as taught by Atsumi et al., since column 1 lines 34-37 of Atsumi et al. states such a modification would help overcome any unsuccessful shifting and help provide smooth shifting.
Regarding claim 21, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the automatically shifting the drive from the first gear to the second gear configuration comprises a gear shifting. (Shelton ‘722 – Column 22 lines 15-27)
Regarding claim 22, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the drive (Evans et al. – 128) comprises a motor-driven drive. (Evans et al. – Page 2 paragraph 22)
Regarding claim 23, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the second speed is less than the first speed. (Evans et al. – Page 3 paragraph 30)
Regarding claim 24, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the drive (Evans et al. – 128) comprises a motor-driven drive. (Evans et al. – Page 2 paragraph 22)
Regarding claim 25, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the second speed is less than the first speed. (Evans et al. – Page 3 paragraph 30)
Regarding claim 26, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose monitoring a parameter of the surgical stapling instrument (Evans et al. – 10) during the first actuation,
automatically shifting the motor-driven firing drive (Evans et al. – 128) from the first gear configuration to the second gear configuration based on the monitored parameter during the first actuation and the force threshold;
operating the motor-driven firing drive (Evans et al. – 128) in the second gear configuration to perform a fourth actuation of the surgical stapling instrument (Evans et al. – 10),
wherein the second actuation comprises clamping the jaw (Evans et al. – 330, 340) of the surgical stapling instrument (Evans et al. – 10)
(Evans et al. – Page 2 paragraph 24, Page 3 paragraph 28, 30)
On page 3 paragraph 30, Evans et al. disclose the increasing or decreasing of the speed of the motor during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife, wherein the changing in speed is based on the forces encountered during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife. This is interpreted as the shifting from the first state to the second state. Since the speed of the clamping operation shifts from the first state to the second state, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. is interpreted to disclose the clamping operation is conducted in the first gear configuration and the second gear configuration.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Evans et al. (2020/0008798) in view of references Shelton, IV et al. (10,278,722)(referred Shelton '722) and Atsumi et al. (8,746,364) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of reference Shelton, IV et al. (2019/0314015)(referred Shelton '015).
Regarding claim 6, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but to not disclose the sensor comprises a load cell.
Shelton '015 disclose a method comprising the steps of monitoring a parameter of a surgical stapling instrument (1010) during a first actuation, wherein the parameter comprises a firing force to advance a knife (1910) through a tissue, wherein the surgical stapling instrument (1010) comprises a controller (pg 17 para 250) and a sensor (pg 20 para 265) configured to monitor the parameter, and wherein the sensor (pg 20 para 265) comprises at least one of: a load cell; a strain gauge; and a current sensor. (Page 20 paragraph 265, 266)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the strain gauge with the load cell as taught by Shelton '015, since page 20 paragraph 265 of Shelton '015 states the load cell would work equally as well at monitoring the firing force applied to the knife, thereby rending the substitution to have predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but to not disclose the sensor comprises a current sensor configured to detect the current through an electric motor of the motor-driven firing drive.
Shelton '015 disclose a method comprising the steps of monitoring a parameter of a surgical stapling instrument (1010) during a first actuation, wherein the parameter comprises a firing force to advance a knife (1910) through a tissue, wherein the surgical stapling instrument (1010) comprises a controller (pg 17 para 250) and a sensor (pg 20 para 265) configured to monitor the parameter, and wherein the sensor (pg 20 para 265) comprises at least one of: a load cell; a strain gauge; and a current sensor. (Page 20 paragraph 265, 266)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the strain gauge with the current sensor as taught by Shelton '015, since page 20 paragraph 265 of Shelton '015 states the current sensor would work equally as well at monitoring the firing force applied to the knife, thereby rending the substitution to have predictable results.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Evans et al. (2020/0008798) in view of references Shelton, IV et al. (10,278,722)(referred Shelton '722) and Atsumi et al. (8,746,364) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Yates et al. (2017/0296169).
Regarding claim 11, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722 and Atsumi et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a first stroke length and a second stroke length.
Yates et al. disclose an end effector (2502) comprising a firing member, wherein the member firing member moves through a first stroke length (2519) and through a second stroke length (2521), wherein the second stroke length (2521) is longer than the first stroke length (2519). (Figure 107 and Page 56 paragraph 486)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Evans et al. by incorporating the first stroke length and second stroke length as taught by Yates et al., since page 56 paragraph 486 of Yates et al. states such a modification would define a length wherein the force to the firing member ramps up and a length wherein the force to the firing member plateaus.
When modifying Evans et al. in view of Yates et al., the first actuation is interpreted to move the knife through the first stroke length, and the second actuation is interpreted to move the knife through the second stroke length.
Regarding claim 12, Evans et al. modified by Shelton ‘722, Atsumi et al., and Yates et al. disclose the second length (Yates et al. – 2521) is longer than the first stroke length (Yates et al. – 2519). (Yates et al. – Figure 107)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 04/17/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2, 4, 9-10, 16, and 18-19 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 17, and 20-27 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Evans et al. (2020/0008798) modified by references Shelton, IV et al. (10,278,722) and Atsumi et al. (8,746,364), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
As noted in Applicant’s specification, consecutive actuations, i.e., to complete a firing stroke and exhaust all the staples in a staple cartridge, involves repeatedly reciprocating the firing mechanism, i.e., by reversing the mechanism and then subsequently advancing it again.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reversing the mechanism and then subsequently advancing the mechanism again) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 1, 15, and 20 disclose the second actuation comprises advancing the knife through the tissue at a first speed while applying a first torque, and disclose the third actuation comprises advancing the knife through the tissue at a second speed and applying a second torque. Claims 1, 15, and 20 do not disclose the second actuation nor the third actuation includes reversing the knife and advancing the knife again.
Applicant states:
In Atsumi, should the motor be stopped, i.e., between discrete actuations, the detected current/rotational speed would also stop and no change would be applied to the reduction ratio of the speed reduction mechanism.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., stopping the motor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 1, 15, and 20 disclose the second actuation comprises advancing the knife through the tissue at a first speed while applying a first torque, and disclose the third actuation comprises advancing the knife through the tissue at a second speed and applying a second torque. Claims 1, 15, and 20 do not disclose second actuation nor the third actuation includes stopping the motor or the movement of the knife.
On page 3 paragraph 30, Evans et al. disclose the increasing or decreasing of the speed of the motor during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife, wherein the changing in speed is based on the forces encountered during the clamping of the jaw and the firing of the knife. This is interpreted as the shifting from the first state to the second state. When the surgical instrument determines the speed of the motor needs to increase or decrease, the process of operating the motor at a first speed is considered complete and the process of operating the motor at a second speed is initiated. Since the second actuation includes the distinct operation of firing the knife at a first speed and the third actuation includes the distinct operation of firing the knife at second speed, the second actuation is interpreted as discrete from the third actuation.
Therefore, Evans et al. is interpreted to disclose the shifting from the first state to the second state is conducted subsequent to the completion of the second actuation and prior to the third actuation, and interpreted to disclose the second and third actuation are discrete.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 June 26, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights