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 07/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 & 11-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-2 & 11-12 have been considered but are not persuasive, see reasoning below.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues the rationale taught in the non-final is not obvious for the combination of Bhagat and Twomey. Examiner wants to acknowledge that “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Which is found in MPEP 2145 III. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to include an interior annual track as taught by Twomey in Bhagat distal cylinder, since Twomey’s interior annual track is seen as a suggestion of a way to improve Bhagats device to allow for Bhagat longitudinal movement which is prevented in the embodiment taught in the non-Final (Bhagat col. 8 lines 62-67) therefore it would be obvious to modified Bhagat to allow for longitudinal movement as taught by Twomey to allow for improvements to the device. Therefore, the examiner stands with the rejection taught in the non-final action.
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 1-2 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagat et al. (US 10463422) herein referred to as Bhagat, in view of Twomey (US 9526563) herein referred to as Twomey.
Regarding Claim 1, Bhagat discloses a surgical instrument (Figure 1A), comprising: a housing (Figure 1A, 12) defining a distal aperture (see annotated Figure 6A) and including an internal partition (Figure 6A, 21a-b) proximally-spaced from the distal aperture to define an interior cavity therebetween (Figure 6A, 13), the internal partition defining a shaft aperture therethrough (See annotated Figure 6A; wherein Figure 6A is an enlarged side view of the embodiment seen in Figure 1A;) a shaft (Figure 6A, 60) including a proximal end portion disposed within the housing (Column 6, lines 10-12) and having at least one protrusion (Figure 6A, 464a-c; wherein a series of tabs secure the shaft in the housing), the shaft extending distally through the shaft aperture of the internal partition (Figure 6A, 60), the internal cavity (Figure 6A, 13), and the distal aperture (See annotated Figure 6A) of the housing to a distal end portion of the shaft that is distally-spaced from the housing (Figure 6A); an end effector assembly supported at the distal end portion of the shaft (Figure 1, 100); and a bobbin (Figure 6A, 90) including a body (See annotated Figure 6A), a proximal rim (Figure 6A, 90b), and a distal cylinder (Figure 6A, 90a), the bobbin configured for positioning within the housing such that the body extends through the shaft aperture of the internal partition with the proximal rim disposed on a proximal side of the internal partition (Figure 6A, 90b) and the distal cylinder disposed within the interior cavity on a distal side of the internal partition (Figure 6A, 90a), thereby rotatably supporting the proximal end portion of the shaft within the housing (Column 6, lines 16-23). However, Bhagat does not explicitly disclose the bobbin disposed about the shaft such that the at least one protrusion is captured within an internal track defined within the distal cylinder, wherein the at least one protrusion is rotatable with respect to the distal cylinder.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Twomey discloses a surgical instrument (Figure 1A) wherein a bobbin is disposed about the shaft such that the at least one protrusion is captured within an internal annular track defined within the distal cylinder (Figure 8; wherein bobbin is 504, shaft is 12, protrusion is 506 and the internal annular track is 526), wherein the at least one protrusion is rotatable with respect to the distal cylinder (Column 8, lines 26-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distal cylinder taught by Bhagat to include the internal annular track as taught by Twomey. The motivation being a simple substitution of one known element, the shaft and bobbin arrangement taught by Bhagat, for another, the shaft and bobbin arrangement taught by Twomey to obtain predictable results of allowing for both longitudinal and rotational movement of the shaft (MPEP 2143 (B)).
Regarding claim 2, Bhagat in view of Twomey discloses the surgical instrument according to claim 1. Bhagat also discloses wherein the bobbin is formed as a single, monolithic piece of material (Figure 6A, 90).
Regarding claim 11, Bhagat in view of Twomey discloses the surgical instrument according to claim 1. Bhagat also discloses a drive assembly (Column 5, lines 17-21; Figure 2) including a movable handle (Figure 2, 22) pivotably coupled to the housing and a drive sleeve (See annotated Figure 2) extending through the shaft and operably coupled between the movable handle and the end effector assembly (See annotated Figure 2), wherein actuation of the movable handle translates the drive sleeve to thereby actuate the end effector assembly (Column 5, lines 17-21;Figure 2; wherein figure 2 is a side view of the embodiment.)
PNG
media_image2.png
446
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagat and Twomey in further view of Allen, IV et al. (US 20130296848) herein referred to as Allen.
Regarding claim 12, Bhagat in view of Twomey discloses the surgical instrument according to claim 1 wherein the at least one protrusion includes at least one flared tab. However, Bhagat in view of Twomey does not explicitly disclose the surgical instrument according to claim 1 wherein the at least one protrusion includes at least one flared tab cut out from and configured to be flared radially outwardly from the shaft.
Allen discloses a surgical instrument (Figure 1) wherein the at least one protrusion includes at least one flared tab cut out from and configured to be flared radially outwardly from the shaft (Figure 3, 66c; Paragraph [0071]; wherein the tabs 66c are flexible and flared laterally outward in a distal direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have modified the flared radially outwardly from the shaft tabs in Bhagat’s invention to have been cut out from the shaft. The motivation being that the tabs would be flexible and provide a snap-fit attachment thus locking the shaft in place (Allen, Paragraph [0071]).
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 ALYSSA M PAPE whose telephone number is (703)756-5947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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.
ALYSSA M. PAPE
Examiner
Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794