DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 7/7/25, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. The following is a complete response to the 7/7/25 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, 11-12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deville (US 2009/0171354) in view of Timm (US 2008/0308607).
Regarding claim 1, Deville teaches an end effector for a wristed surgical instrument, the end effector comprising: a first jaw member (120); a second jaw member coupled to the first jaw member by a pivot pin (130 coupled to 120 via pivot pin 114), the first and second jaw members positioned to pivot and articulate about a pivot axis defined by the pivot pin (120 and 130 pivot about 114 as in par. [0151)); an actuation string with a first end portion and second end portion (actuation wire 10 as in par. [0139] and Fig. 1); and a blade supported between the first and second jaw members and secured to the actuation string (knife 140 between 120 and 130, and secured to 10 as in Fig. 5 and par. [0142]), the blade movable relative to the first and second jaw members to sever tissue clamped between the first and second jaw members in response to actuation of the actuation string (Fig. 7-8 blade to cut tissue between the jaws as in par. [0143)]).
Deville is silent regarding the first end portion, the second end portion, and the intermediate end portion, the actuation of the first end portion and second end portion in different directions relative to one another.
However, Timm teaches a cable for the jaws with a first end portion, a second end portion, and an intermediate portion interconnecting the first and second end portions (first portion 1310, second portion 1330, and intermediate section 1312 connected to 150 as in Fig. 15-16 and par. [0153]), with a blade secured to the intermediate portion of the actuation string (150 connected to 1312 as in par. [0153]), the actuation of the first end portion and second end portion in different directions relative to one another (one section retracts and other section extends to actuate the knife).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deville with the cable structure of Timm, allowing for an alternative mechanism for actuating a knife that would work equally well to actuate the knife to cut tissue.
Regarding claim 11, Deville teaches a wristed surgical instrument comprising: an end effector defining a longitudinal axis and a pivot axis transverse to the longitudinal axis (end effector with jaws 120 and 130 and pivot axis about 114 transverse to a longitudinal axis having the end effector at the distal end), the end effector having a first jaw member and a second jaw member that are movable about the pivot axis between an unclamped position and a clamped position (120 and 130 open and close about 114 to grasp tissue), the end effector configured to articulate about the pivot axis (end effector with 120-130 move about the pivot axis when opening and closing); a blade movably supported between the first and second jaw members and configured to cut tissue (blade 140 between the jaws 120 and 130); and an actuation string secured to the blade and axially movable to actuate the blade relative to the first and second jaw members when the first and second jaw members are in the clamped position (10 to actuate 140 when the jaws are close as in par. [0144)).
Deville is silent regarding the actuation of the first end portion and second end portion in different directions relative to one another.
However, Timm teaches a cable for the jaws with a first end portion, a second end portion, and an intermediate portion interconnecting the first and second end portions (first portion 1310, second portion 1330, and intermediate section 1312 connected to 150 as in Fig. 15-16 and par. [0153]), with a blade secured to the intermediate portion of the actuation string (150 connected to 1312 as in par. [0153]), the actuation of the first end portion and second end portion in different directions relative to one another (one section retracts and other section extends to actuate the knife).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deville with the cable structure of Timm, allowing for an alternative mechanism for actuating a knife that would work equally well to actuate the knife to cut tissue.
Regarding claim 12, Deville teaches wherein the end effector is coupled to an electrosurgical energy source (par. [0153]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches wherein the actuation string is coupled to a drive assembly that actuates the actuation string (in Deville, 10 coupled to actuation assembly as in par. [0139] to actuate 10).
Claim(s) 2-6, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deville in view of Timm, in further view of Twomey (US 2013/0138102).
Regarding claim 2, Deville is silent wherein the blade includes a cam plate and the actuation string is secured to the cam plate. However, Twomey teaches a blade (150) with a cam plate (Fig. 11 with cam plate of 150 including notch 162).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deville with cam plate of Twomey at the proximal end of 140, as an alternative structure of knife actuation of a forceps device, that would work equally well to cut tissue. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the actuation string of the combination would be secured to the cam plate as the actuation string 10 of Deville is secured to the proximal end of the blade apparatus of Deville in the combination, where the cam plate would be.
Regarding claim 3, Deville is not explicit wherein the actuation string is routed through the cam plate of the blade.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the actuation string would be secured to the cam plate as the actuation string 10 of Deville is secured to the proximal end of the blade apparatus of Deville in the combination, where the cam plate would be.
Regarding claim 4, Deville is silent wherein the second jaw member includes a cam plate and the pivot pin is positioned through the cam plates of the blade and the second jaw member.
However, Twomey teaches jaw members with cam plates with pivot pins through the cam plates of the blade and second jaw member (jaw members with pivot pin 34 through cam plates at the proximal end of the jaws as in Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deville with the cam plates and pivot pin of Twomey, allowing for actuation of the jaws that would work equally well as in Deville.
Regarding claim 5, Deville is silent wherein the cam plate of the second jaw member includes a ramp, the cam plate of the blade positioned to move along the ramp.
However, Twomey teaches a ramp on the second jaw member (ramp 176 connected to 130), the cam plate of the blade positioned to move along the ramp (162 of the blade moves along ramp 176).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deville with the cam plate of Twomey, allowing for structure to actuate the jaws that would work equally as well as in Deville.
Regarding claim 6, Deville is not explicit wherein the cam plate of blade defines a ramp slot that receives the ramp of the second jaw member.
However, Twomey teaches wherein the cam plate of blade defines a ramp slot that receives the ramp of the second jaw member (cam plate of 140 with ramp 164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deville with the ramp of Twomey, as a way of locking the knife structure when it is not desired to move the jaw.
Regarding claim 8, Deville teaches wherein the blade includes a cutting arm (cutting arm 154).
In the combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the distal end of the blade, used in cutting, would be distal to the cam plate.
Regarding claim 15, Deville is not explicit wherein the blade cams along a ramp of the second jaw member in response to axial translation of the actuation string.
However, Twomey teaches a blade that cams along a ramp (140) of the second jaw member as the blade is advanced (Fig. 11, blade 150 cams along a ramp of 140 as the blade is advanced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deville with the ramp of Twomey and blade moving relative to the second jaw, as a way of locking the knife structure when it is not desired to move the jaw.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deville in view of Timm, in view of Drochner (US 2018/0036025).
Regarding claim 18, Deville is not explicit wherein the end effector is robotically controlled. However, Drochner teaches end effectors of similar devices being robotically controlled (par. [0051], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to make a manually controlled instrument as in Deville robotically controlled, as taught by Drochner, allowing for teleoperation.
Regarding claim 19, Deville is not explicit wherein the actuation string is positioned to move along a string guide supported in the second jaw member.
However, Drochner teaches actuation string moving along a string guide on the second jaw member (string guide as knife channel within 620, moving string 636 along the channel within 620).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Deville with 10 moving within the second jaw member.
Regarding claim 20, Deville teaches wherein the blade is in the form of a blade chip supported on the string guide (140 as a blade chip supported on as being connected and actuated by string 10).
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deville in view of Timm, in view of Twomey, in further view of Nobis (US 2015/0272606).
Regarding claim 7, Deville is not explicit, but Nobis teaches wherein the blade is positioned to move vertically and axially relative to the second jaw member as the cam plate of the blade cams along the ramp of the second jaw member (Fig. 12 and par. [0084], with cutting mechanism 160 pivoting outward toward the jaw members as it is actuated forward, allowing for cutting of tissue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Deville to have cutting blades that pivot to stay in the knife channel as desired by Nobis (par. [0003)).
Regarding claim 9, Deville is silent wherein the blade is configured to pivot relative to the second jaw member in response to actuation of the actuation string.
However, Nobis teaches a knife blade that pivots relative to the jaw members to cut tissue as the blade is advanced (Fig. 12 and par. [0084], with cutting mechanism 160 pivoting outward toward the jaw members, allowing for cutting of tissue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Deville to have cutting blades that pivot to stay in the knife channel as desired by Nobis (par. [0003)).
Regarding claim 10, Deville teaches wherein cutting arm includes a distal portion and a proximal portion (distal portion 154 and proximal portion as attachment area to 10), the distal portion of the cutting arm configured to move farther than the proximal portion of the cutting arm as the blade pivots relative to the second jaw member (154 arrives at a further distal location than the proximal portion).
Claim(s) 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deville in view of Timm, in view of Nobis.
Regarding claim 13, Deville is not explicit wherein the blade is configured to move from the second jaw member toward the first jaw member to cut tissue. However, Nobis teaches a blade moving from a second jaw member to a first jaw member to cut tissue (Fig. 12, cutting mechanism 160 with a blade moving from a second jaw toward a first jaw as the blade is advanced). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Deville to have cutting blades that pivot to stay in the knife channel as desired by Nobis (par. [0003)).
Regarding claim 14, Deville is not explicit wherein the blade is vertically and axially movable relative to the first and second jaw members. However, Nobis teaches the blade is vertically and axially movable relative to the first and second jaw members (Fig. 12 and par. [0084], with cutting mechanism 160 pivoting outward toward the jaw members as it is actuated forward, allowing for cutting of tissue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Deville to have cutting blades that pivot to stay in the knife channel as desired by Nobis (par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Deville is silent wherein the blade pivots relative to the first and second jaw members to cut tissue in response to actuation of the actuation string. However, Nobis teaches a knife blade that pivots relative to the jaw members to cut tissue as the blade is advanced (Fig. 12 and par. [0084], with cutting mechanism 160 pivoting outward toward the jaw members, allowing for cutting of tissue). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Deville to have cutting blades that pivot to stay in the knife channel as desired by Nobis (par. [0003)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that in the rejection, the blade is not secured to the intermediate portion of the actuation string as the cable portions of Timm are separate cables. However, Timm clearly discusses an advance cable 1302 as in par. [0153], which is bifurcated into two portions 1310 and 1320, including 1312. As such, the cable portions of Timm are all part of a single cable.
Applicant’s arguments are dependent on 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
Prosecution Insights