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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 18, & 25 are amended. Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 1-5 & 7-33 remain pending; claims 10-17 & 28-33 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-9, & 18-27 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; as necessitate by amendment.
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, 4, & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 20130255063 A1), hereinafter “Hart”, in light of Torgerson (previously presented-US 20110224718 A1), hereinafter “Torgerson”, and in view of Porat (US 20140058425 A1), hereinafter “Porat”.
Regarding claim 1, Hart discloses a forceps jaw ([0023]; Figures 1 & 2—element 120), comprising: a jaw contact surface ([0025]; Figure 2—element 124; the contact surface being the surface of jaw housing 124 supporting electrode 122); an electrode coupled to the jaw contact surface ([0025]; Figure 2—element 122); and wherein a monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure is a structural portion of the jaw, sintered after machining of a polymer binder green state blank ([0025]; Figure 2—element 124; the jaw housing may be made from any material including ceramic; the examiner further notes that “sintered ceramic” and “sintered after machining of a polymer binder green state blank” is a product-by-process limitations, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself; the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); as Hart discloses the final product of the ceramic microstructure region, Hart discloses the product-by-process limitations; although, Hart is silent to the method of manufacturing the ceramic microstructure region (e.g. sintering), it is known in the art for a ceramic microstructure region to be made from sintering after machining of a polymer binder green state blank, in light of the teaching of in light of the teaching of Torgerson ([0059])); and wherein the electrode includes a locking feature ([0027]; Figure 2—element 126) that is permanently secured by a sintered ceramic feature ([0027]; Figure 2—element 124; with the sintered ceramic feature being the portion of jaw body 124 that receives/surrounds electrode tab 126).
Hart does not disclose the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa.
Porat teaches a forceps jaw ([0061]; Figure 3—element 220) comprising a ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa ([0061]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the ceramic microstructure modulus of elasticity, as disclosed by Hart, to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, as taught by Porat, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward surgical devices with jaws comprising ceramic microstructures. As disclosed by Hart, the jaw body may be made from any suitable material including a ceramic material ([0025]). As disclosed by Porat, , the forceps jaws can be made of ceramic and comprise a Young’s modulus that is 60 to 280 GPa ([0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ceramic microstructure modulus of elasticity, as disclosed by Hart, to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, as taught by Porat, as such a modification would provide for a suitable and known Young’s modulus of elasticity for a ceramic jaw of a surgical forceps device, and further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Hart further discloses wherein the structural portion of the forceps jaw includes a pivot journal ([0023]; Figure 1—element 103).
Regarding claim 7, Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Hart further discloses an electrical trace coupled to the electrode, the electrical trace attached to a surface of the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure of the forceps jaw ([0030]; Figure 3—element 611).
Regarding claim 8, Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Hart further discloses at least one protrusion coupled to the jaw contact surface, wherein the at least one protrusion is sized or arranged to extend above an electrode surface to keep the electrode from contacting an opposing electrode when the forceps jaw is in a closed position ([0031]; Figure 5—element 134).
Regarding claim 9, Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat disclose all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above.
Hart further discloses wherein the at least one protrusion is integrally formed from the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure ([0025] & [0032]; Figure 5—elements 134; the stop members 134 are formed with the jaw housing 124, which can be ceramic).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and Germain et al. (previously presented-US 20170224368 A1), hereinafter “Germain”.
Regarding claims 2-3, Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Hart does not disclose wherein the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure includes yttria stabilized zirconia (claim 2); wherein the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure includes zirconia toughened alumina (claim 3).
Germain teaches an electrosurgical device comprising a monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure ([0036] & [0101]; Figure 9—element 405), wherein the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure includes yttria stabilized zirconia (claim 2) ([0013] & [0024]), wherein the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure includes zirconia toughened alumina (claim 3) ([0013] & [0024]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the type of ceramic used for the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure, as disclosed by Hart, to include a ceramic selected from the group consisting of yttria stabilized zirconia or zirconia toughened alumina, as taught by Germain, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward electrosurgical devices with insulative ceramic components. As disclosed by Hart, the jaw body may be formed of ceramic ([0025]). As disclosed by Germain, the ceramic material may be selected from a group of yttria-stabilized zirconia, magnesia-stabilized zirconia, ceria-stabilized zirconia, zirconia toughened alumina and silicon nitride, in order to provide a wear-resistant ceramic ([0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the type of ceramic used for the monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure, as disclosed by Hart, to include a ceramic selected from the group consisting of yttria stabilized zirconia or zirconia toughened alumina, as taught by Germain, as such a modification would produce the predictable result of providing a suitable ceramic material for use in an electrosurgical device that is electrically insulating and additionally provide for a ceramic material with wear-resistant properties; further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a ceramic selected from the group consisting of yttria stabilized zirconia or zirconia toughened alumina, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and Kerr et al. (previously presented-US 20110082494 A1), hereinafter “Kerr.
Regarding claim 5, Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Hart does not disclose wherein the structural portion of the forceps jaw includes a cam interfacing slot.
Kerr teaches a forceps jaw ([0028]; Figure 1 & 2—element 32) comprising a monolithic sintered ceramic microstructure ([0030], [0034], & [0035]; Figure 2—element 36), wherein the structural portion of the forceps jaw includes a cam interfacing slot ([0017], [0039], & [0040]; Figure 4A—element 78).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the pivot mechanism, as disclosed by Hart, to include wherein the structural portion of the forceps jaw includes a cam interfacing slot, as taught by Kerr, as both references and the claimed invention are directed towards electrosurgical end effector jaws. As disclosed by Hart, the jaw member is movable about a pivot ([0023]). As disclosed by Kerr, the jaw may include a slot that is configured to receive a cam member to drive the pivotal motion of the jaw member ([0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pivot mechanism, as disclosed by Hart, to include wherein the structural portion of the forceps jaw includes a cam interfacing slot, as taught by Kerr, as such a modification would provide for a suitable and known mechanism in order to drive the pivotal motion of the jaw member.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and Beckman et al. (previously presented-US 20110306968 A1), hereinafter “Beckman”.
Regarding claim 18, Hart discloses a forceps ([0022]; Figure 1—element 10), comprising: jaws located at an end of a shaft ([0023]; Figures 1 & 2—elements 110 & 120); a jaw actuator routed along the shaft and coupled to one or more of the jaws ([0004], [0022], & [0023]); a pair of electrodes coupled to opposing surfaces of jaws ([0025] & [0029]; Figures 1 & 2—elements 112 & 122); wherein at least one of the jaws includes a sintered ceramic microstructure region sintered after machining of a polymer binder green state blank ([0025] & [0029]; Figure 2—element 124; the jaw housings 114 & 124 may be made of any suitable material including ceramic; the examiner further notes that “sintered ceramic” and “sintered after machining of a polymer binder green state blank” is a product-by-process limitations, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself; the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); as Hart discloses the final product of the ceramic microstructure region, Hart discloses the product-by-process limitations; although, Hart is silent to the method of manufacturing the ceramic microstructure region (e.g. sintering), it is known in the art for a ceramic microstructure region to be made from sintering after machining of a polymer binder green state blank, in light of the teaching of in light of the teaching of Torgerson ([0059])); and wherein at least one jaw includes a locking feature that is permanently secured by a sintered ceramic feature ([0027]; Figure 2—element 124; with the locking feature being the electrode tab 126 and the sintered ceramic feature being the portion of jaw body 124 that receives/surrounds electrode tab 126).
Hart does not disclose the sintered ceramic microstructure region having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa; and a heat transfer channel in the sintered ceramic microstructure region, to preferentially direct heat away from a first electrode of the pair of electrodes when in operation.
Porat teaches a forceps jaw ([0061]; Figure 3—element 220) comprising a ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa ([0061]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the ceramic microstructure modulus of elasticity, as disclosed by Hart, to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, as taught by Porat, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward surgical devices with jaws comprising ceramic microstructures. As disclosed by Hart, the jaw body may be made from any suitable material including a ceramic material ([0025]). As disclosed by Porat, , the forceps jaws can be made of ceramic and comprise a Young’s modulus that is 60 to 280 GPa ([0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ceramic microstructure modulus of elasticity, as disclosed by Hart, to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, as taught by Porat, as such a modification would provide for a suitable and known Young’s modulus of elasticity for a ceramic jaw of a surgical forceps device, and further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Beckman teaches a forceps comprising jaws ([0102]; Figure 15 & 16—element 720A & 720B), a pair of electrodes coupled to opposing surfaces of the jaws ([0102]; Figure 15 & 16—element 775A & 775B), a heat transfer channel in the jaw body, to preferentially direct heat away from a first electrode of the pair of electrodes when in operation ([0103]-[0105], & [0107]; Figure 15 & 16—element 780A; the grooves help evacuate heat and/or steam).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body, as disclosed by Hart, to include a heat transfer channel within the jaw body, as taught by Beckman, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward electrosurgical forceps. As disclosed by Beckman, the jaw body can include grooves the grooves help evacuate heat and/or steam generated during energy delivery to the end effector, it is desirable to dissipate heat from an end effector in order to prevent the likelihood that tissue contacting the end effector will be unintentionally thermally altered by the end effector, additionally dissipating heat from the end effector can lead to cooling the sealed area of tissue more quickly which may produce stronger welds and minimize the amount of thermal spread ([0076] & [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body, as disclosed by Hart, to include a heat transfer channel within the jaw body, as taught by Beckman, as such a modification would minimize the amount of thermal energy spread into tissue adjacent the desired seal area and produce stronger welds.
Regarding claim 19, Hart in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and Beckman disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as described above.
Hart further discloses wherein only one of the jaws is movable with respect to the shaft in response to the jaw actuator ([0023]; the end effector may be designed as a unilateral assembly).
Regarding claim 20, Hart in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and Beckman disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as described above.
Hart further discloses wherein two jaws are both movable with respect to the shaft in response to the jaw actuator ([0023]; the end effector may be designed as a bilateral assembly).
Regarding claim 21, Hart in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and Beckman disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as described above.
Hart does not disclose wherein the heat transfer channel includes a thermally conductive material coupled to the sintered ceramic microstructure region, wherein a thermal conduction coefficient of the thermally conductive material is higher than the sintered ceramic microstructure region.
Beckman further teaches wherein the heat transfer channel ([0107]; Figure 15 & 16—element 780A) includes a thermally conductive material coupled to the sintered ceramic microstructure region ([0107]; Figure 15 & 16—element 780A; the grooves may contain and/or comprise a heat sink), wherein a thermal conduction coefficient of the thermally conductive material is higher than the sintered ceramic microstructure region ([0107]; the heat sink comprises a heat conductive material such as metal).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body and heat transfer channel, as disclosed by Hart in view of Beckman, to further include a heat sink, as taught by Beckman, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward electrosurgical forceps. As disclosed by Beckman, the jaw body can include grooves, the grooves help evacuate heat and/or steam generated during energy delivery to the end effector, the grooves may comprise a heat sink to assist in dissipating heat from the end effector and/or tissue, it is desirable to dissipate heat from an end effector in order to prevent the likelihood that tissue contacting the end effector will be unintentionally thermally altered by the end effector, additionally dissipating heat from the end effector can lead to cooling the sealed area of tissue more quickly which may produce stronger welds and minimize the amount of thermal spread ([0076], [0104], [0106], & [0107]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body and heat transfer channel, as disclosed by Hart in view of Beckman, to further include a heat sink, as taught by Beckman, as such a modification would assist in dissipating heat from the end effector and therefore minimize the amount of thermal energy spread into tissue adjacent the desired seal area and produce stronger welds.
Regarding claim 22, Hart in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and Beckman disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as described above.
Hart does not disclose wherein the heat transfer channel includes an open space at least partially within walls to direct steam from a first electrode of the pair of electrodes when in operation.
Beckman further teaches wherein the heat transfer channel includes an open space at least partially within walls to direct steam from a first electrode of the pair of electrodes when in operation ([0103]-[0104]; Figurer 15—element 780A & 782; the heat transfer channel is in the form of grooves; the grooves help evacuate steam).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body and heat transfer channel, as disclosed by Hart in view of Beckman, to further include the heat transfer channel including an open space to direct steam from the end effector, as taught by Beckman, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward electrosurgical forceps. As disclosed by Beckman, the jaw body can include grooves, the grooves help evacuate steam generated during energy delivery to the end effector, such that the steam may be drawn from the end effector and/or target tissue to remove the heated substances therefrom, thereby cooling or dissipating heat from the end effector, it is desirable to dissipate heat from an end effector in order to prevent the likelihood that tissue contacting the end effector will be unintentionally thermally altered by the end effector, additionally dissipating heat from the end effector can lead to cooling the sealed area of tissue more quickly which may produce stronger welds and minimize the amount of thermal spread ([0076], [0081], & [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body and heat transfer channel, as disclosed by Hart in view of Beckman, to further include the heat transfer channel including an open space to direct steam from the end effector, as taught by Beckman, as such a modification would assist in dissipating heat from the end effector and therefore minimize the amount of thermal energy spread into tissue adjacent the desired seal area and produce stronger welds.
Regarding claim 23, Hart in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and Beckman disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as described above.
Hart not disclose a heat sink located apart from the pair of electrodes, wherein the heat transfer channel is routed between the first electrode and the heat sink.
Beckman teaches a heat sink located apart from the pair of electrodes ([0106] & [0107]; the jaw may comprise a heat sink), wherein the heat transfer channel is routed between the first electrode and the heat sink ([0103], [0104], & [0107]; Figure 15 & 16—element 775A & 780A; the groove 780A extends around the first electrode 775A, the groove 780A may contain a heat sink).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body and heat transfer channel, as disclosed by Hart in view of Beckman, to further include a heat sink, as taught by Beckman, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward electrosurgical forceps. As disclosed by Beckman, the jaw body can include grooves, the grooves help evacuate heat and/or steam generated during energy delivery to the end effector the grooves may comprise a heat sink to assist in dissipating heat from the end effector and/or tissue, it is desirable to dissipate heat from an end effector in order to prevent the likelihood that tissue contacting the end effector will be unintentionally thermally altered by the end effector, additionally dissipating heat from the end effector can lead to cooling the sealed area of tissue more quickly which may produce stronger welds and minimize the amount of thermal spread ([0076], [0104], [0106], & [0107]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body and heat transfer channel, as disclosed by Hart in view of Beckman, to further include a heat sink, as taught by Beckman, as such a modification would assist in dissipating heat from the end effector and therefore minimize the amount of thermal energy spread into tissue adjacent the desired seal area and produce stronger welds.
Claims 18 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and McClurken et al. (previously presented-US 20030216733 A1), hereinafter “McClurken”.
Regarding claim 18, Hart discloses a forceps ([0022]; Figure 1—element 10), comprising: jaws located at an end of a shaft ([0023]; Figures 1 & 2—elements 110 & 120); a jaw actuator routed along the shaft and coupled to one or more of the jaws ([0004], [0022], & [0023]); a pair of electrodes coupled to opposing surfaces of jaws ([0025] & [0029]; Figures 1 & 2—elements 112 & 122); wherein at least one of the jaws includes a sintered ceramic microstructure region sintered after machining of a polymer binder green state blank ([0025] & [0029]; Figure 2—element 124; the jaw housings 114 & 124 may be made of any suitable material including ceramic; the examiner further notes that “sintered ceramic” and “sintered after machining of a polymer binder green state blank” is a product-by-process limitations, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself; the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); as Hart discloses the final product of the ceramic microstructure region, Hart discloses the product-by-process limitations; although, Hart is silent to the method of manufacturing the ceramic microstructure region (e.g. sintering), it is known in the art for a ceramic microstructure region to be made from sintering after machining of a polymer binder green state blank, in light of the teaching of in light of the teaching of Torgerson ([0059])); and wherein at least one jaw includes a locking feature that is permanently secured by a sintered ceramic feature ([0027]; Figure 2—element 124; with the locking feature being the electrode tab 126 and the sintered ceramic feature being the portion of jaw body 124 that receives/surrounds electrode tab 126).
Hart does not disclose the sintered ceramic microstructure region having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa; and a heat transfer channel in the sintered ceramic microstructure region, to preferentially direct heat away from a first electrode of the pair of electrodes when in operation.
Porat teaches a forceps jaw ([0061]; Figure 3—element 220) comprising a ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa ([0061]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the ceramic microstructure modulus of elasticity, as disclosed by Hart, to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, as taught by Porat, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward surgical devices with jaws comprising ceramic microstructures. As disclosed by Hart, the jaw body may be made from any suitable material including a ceramic material ([0025]). As disclosed by Porat, the forceps jaws can be made of ceramic and comprise a Young’s modulus that is 60 to 280 GPa ([0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ceramic microstructure modulus of elasticity, as disclosed by Hart, to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, as taught by Porat, as such a modification would provide for a suitable and known Young’s modulus of elasticity for a ceramic jaw of a surgical forceps device, and further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the ceramic microstructure having a modulus of elasticity between about 200 GPa and 370 GPa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
McClurken teaches a forceps device ([0079]; Figure 1—element 10) comprising a jaw ([0079]; Figure 1, 6, & 8—element 16a) comprising a ceramic body ([0083] & [0086]; Figure 6—element 58a & 60a), and an electrode ([0085] & [0098]; Figure 6—element 64a), and a heat transfer channel in the sintered ceramic microstructure region, to preferentially direct heat away from a first electrode of the pair of electrodes when in operation ([0092]; Figure 8—element 63; the examiner is considering the heat transfer channel as the portion of heat pipe 63 disposed in the distal region of jaw).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body, as disclosed by Hart, to further include a heat transfer channel, as taught by McClurken, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward electrosurgical forceps. As disclosed by McClurken, the jaw body can include one or more heat pipes in order to remove heat from the jaws so as to inhibit tissue damage outside of the insulated surfaces ([0025] & [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body, as disclosed by Hart, to further include a heat transfer channel, as taught by McClurken, as such a modification would assist in removing heat from the jaws so as to inhibit tissue damage outside of the insulated jaw surfaces.
Regarding claim 24, Hart, in light of Torgerson, and in view of Porat and McClurken disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as described above.
Hart does not disclose further including a heat pipe located apart from the pair of electrodes, wherein the heat transfer channel is routed between the first electrode and the heat pipe.
McClurken further teaches a heat pipe located apart from the pair of electrodes ([0092]; Figure 8—element 65; the examiner is considering the heat pipe as being the portion of the heat pipe 63 that extends proximally to connect with the heat exchanger that is isolated from the jaw members), wherein the heat transfer channel is routed between the first electrode and the heat pipe ([0092]; Figure 8—element 63; the examiner is considering the heat transfer channel as the portion of heat pipe 63 disposed in the distal region of jaw; therefore the distal portion of pipe 63 would be routed between electrodes disposed on jaw members and the proximal portion of the heat pipe that is connected to the heat exchanger).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body and the heat transfer channel, as disclosed by Hart in view of McClurken, to further include a heat pipe, as taught by McClurken, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward electrosurgical forceps. As disclosed by McClurken, the jaw body can include one or more heat pipes in order to remove heat from the jaws ([0092]) so as to inhibit tissue damage outside of the insulated surfaces ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintered ceramic jaw body and the heat transfer channel, as disclosed by Hart in view of McClurken, to further include a heat pipe, as taught by McClurken, as such a modification would assist in removing heat from the jaws so as to inhibit tissue damage outside of the insulated jaw surfaces.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widenhouse et al. (previously presented-US 20190000538 A1), hereinafter “Widenhouse”, in light of Hsu (previously presented-US 6705393 B1), hereinafter “Hsu”, and in view of Hsu and Hart.
Regarding claim 25, Widenhouse discloses a forceps, comprising: jaws located at an end of a shaft ([0107]; Figures 19 & 20—element 5505 & 5610); a jaw actuator routed along the shaft and coupled to one or more of the jaws [0045] & [0049]; Figure 1—element 512); a pair of electrodes coupled to opposing surfaces of the jaws ([0040], [0102], & [0109]; Figure 19—element 5540L & 5540R; at least one of the jaw members may have at least one electrode; in certain arrangements each jaw can comprise an electrode); wherein at least one of the jaws includes a sintered ceramic microstructure region, the sintered ceramic microstructure region located at lateral edges of a tissue contacting surface of the at least one jaw to direct steam from the lateral edges to a center between the lateral edges of the at least one jaw ([0110] & [0116]; Figure 19—element 5520; the first jaw 5505 may include a heat sink layer 5520 on the left and right side portions of the jaw 5505; the heat sink layer 5520 may be made of ceramic and is configured to dissipate heat from adjacent tissue; the heat in the heat sink layer 5520 may then further be transferred to a metallic channel 5530; the examiner further notes that “sintered ceramic” is a product-by-process limitations, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself; the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); as Widenhouse discloses the final product of the ceramic microstructure region, Widenhouse discloses the product-by-process limitations; although, Widenhouse is silent to the method of manufacturing the ceramic microstructure region (e.g. sintering), it is known in the art for a ceramic microstructure region to be made from sintering, in light of the teaching of Hsu ([Col. 3, line 65 – Col. 4, line 5])).
Widenhouse does not explicitly disclose multiple pores between grains in the sintered ceramic microstructure region; wherein at least one jaw includes a locking feature that is permanently secured by a sintered ceramic feature.
Hsu discloses a sintered ceramic microstructure region configured to dissipate heat and comprising multiple pores between grains in the sintered ceramic microstructure region ([Col. 1, lines 5-12] & [Col. 1, lines 35-52], & [Col. 3, lines 10-13]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the sintered ceramic microstructure region heat sink, as disclosed by Widenhouse, to include multiple pores between grains in the sintered ceramic microstructure region, as taught by Hsu, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward ceramic microstructures for dissipating heat. As disclosed by Hsu, providing micro-pores in the ceramic heat sink structure increases the contact surface area, enhances the heat convection effect of the ceramic heat sink, and provides an increased heat dissipation capacity ([Col. 1, lines 5-12] & [Col. 6, lines 39-47]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintered ceramic microstructure region heat sink, as disclosed by Widenhouse, to include multiple pores between grains in the sintered ceramic microstructure region, as taught by Hsu, as such a modification would increase the contact surface area of the heat sink, enhance the heat convection effect of the ceramic heat sink, and provide an increased heat dissipation capacity.
Hart teaches forceps comprising jaws including a sintered ceramic microstructure region and electrodes ([0022], [0025], & [0029]; Figures 1 & 2—elements 110 & 120); wherein at least one jaw includes a locking feature that is permanently secured by a sintered ceramic feature ([0025] & [0027]; Figure 2—elements 124 & 126; the examiner is considering the locking feature to be the inwardly facing tab member 126 of the electrode and the sintered ceramic feature to be the portion of the jaw body 124 that secures/retains the electrode tab 126).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the attachments of the electrode to the jaw body, as disclosed by Widenhouse , to include wherein at least one jaw includes a locking feature that is permanently secured by a sintered ceramic feature, as taught by Hart, as both references and the claimed invention are directed towards electrosurgical end effectors. As disclosed by Widenhouse the electrodes may be disposed on the jaw ([0109]). As disclosed by Hart, the electrodes may comprise an inwardly facing tab member that is configured to facilitate securing the electrodes to the jaw housing during a manufacturing process of the jaw members, such that when the jaw housing cures the electrode is firmly secured to the jaw housing ([0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the attachments of the electrode to the jaw body, as disclosed by Widenhouse, to include wherein at least one jaw includes a locking feature that is permanently secured by a sintered ceramic feature, as taught by Hart, as such a modification would provide for known and suitable attachment of an electrode to a jaw body and further provide for an attachment that firmly secures the electrode to the jaw housing.
Regarding claim 26, Widenhouse in light of Hsu, and in view of Hsu and Hart disclose all of the limitations of claim 25, as described above.
Widenhouse further discloses a heat sink located apart from the pair of electrodes, wherein the multiple pores direct steam between a first electrode of the pair of electrodes and the heat sink when in operation ([0116]; Figure 19—element 5530).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widenhouse, in light of Hsu, and in view of Hsu, Hart, and Batchelor et al. (previously presented-US 20180325578 A1), hereinafter “Batchelor578”.
Regarding claim 27, Widenhouse, in light of Hsu, and in view of Hsu and Hart disclose all of the limitations of claim 25, as described above.
Widenhouse does not disclose a heat pipe located apart from the pair of electrodes, wherein the multiple pores direct steam between the first electrode of the pair of electrodes and the heat pipe when in operation.
Batchelor578 teaches an electrosurgical device comprising a porosity to permit the escape of steam from between the electrodes ([0044]; the fluid evacuation conduit may be a series of holes in the tip region of the body of the device; the fluid evacuation conduit may be in communication with the electrode), comprising a heat pipe located apart from the pair of electrodes ([0028], [0039], & [0044]; it may be preferred for the electrodes to be positioned away from the heat pipe), wherein the multiple pores direct steam between the first electrode of the pair of electrodes and the heat pipe when in operation ([0043]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the sintered ceramic microstructure region and the multiple pores for direction steam from the first electrode, as disclosed by Widenhouse in view of Hsu, to further include a heat pipe located apart from the pair of electrodes wherein the porosity directs steam between the first electrode and the heat sink when in operation, as taught by Batchelor578, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward electrosurgical devices comprising heat dissipators. As disclosed by Batchelor578, the heat sink of the end effector may be in communication with a heat pipe, such that the heat pipe aids in dissipating or transferring the heat from the distal end of the electrosurgical device to a proximal end of the electrosurgical device to prevent electrodes from overheating or getting too hot so that an anatomical feature does not stick or burn to the electrodes ([0028], [0029], & [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintered ceramic microstructure region and the multiple pores for direction steam from the first electrode, as disclosed by Widenhouse in view of Hsu, to further include a heat pipe located apart from the pair of electrodes wherein the porosity directs steam between the first electrode and the heat sink when in operation, as taught by Batchelor578, as such a modification would further aid in dissipating and transferring the heat from the distal end of the electrosurgical device to a proximal end of the electrosurgical device to prevent electrodes from overheating or getting too hot so that an anatomical feature does not stick or burn to the electrodes.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-9, & 18-27 are rejected.
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 MARINA D TEMPLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 5:00pm 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/M.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights