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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-11 & 14-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/02/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-11 & 14-17 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. The claim amendments changed the scope of the claimed invention. See new grounds for rejection below.
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, & 15-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Trees et al. (US 20140155878) herein referred to as trees and SARTOR et al. (US 20170119457) herein referred to as SARTOR in further view of Hsu et al. (US 20030077874) herein referred to as Hsu and Keppel (EP 2189127) herein referred to as Keppel.
Regarding Claim 1, Trees discloses an electrosurgical forceps (Figure 1), comprising: a handpiece (Figure 1, 24); an end effector coupled distally from the handpiece (Figure 1, 40), wherein the end effector includes; one or more jaws (Figure 1, 42 & 44); at least one electrode located between the one or more jaws (Figure 3, 50); an electrical sensor separate from the at least one electrode (Figure 3, 64; paragraph [0036]; wherein blade 64 is an active electrode; Paragraph [0033]; wherein electrodes can be used as sensors); tungsten disulfide at least partially covering a portion of the electrical sensor (Paragraph [0059]; wherein blade head is coated with tungsten disulfide). However, Trees does not explicitly disclose a pattern of tungsten disulfide that include coated and uncoated regions and an intermediate chromium aluminum nitride layer between the tungsten disulfide and the electrical sensor.
Keppel discloses an electrosurgical electrode (Figure 1) comprising a pattern of a coating
that include coated and uncoated regions (Figure 1; wherein coated regions are 104, and pores 106 are the uncoated regions; Paragraph [0025]; wherein the patterns of the pores can be uniform). 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 tungsten disulfide coating taught by Trees to be in a pattern of coated and uncoated regions as taught by Keppel. The motivation being the coated and uncoated regions can be beneficial depending on if a surgical instrument is in coagulation mode or cutting mode (Keppel, Paragraph [0025])
SARTOR discloses an electrosurgical forceps (Figure 1) wherein intermediate nitride layer between a coating and an electrode (Paragraph [0007]; wherein a chromium nitride coating covering at least a portion of the electrode, and a hexamethyldisiloxane plasma coating covering at least a portion of the chromium nitride coating). 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 electrical sensor of Trees to include an intermediate nitride layer as taught by SATOR. The motivation being a coating, used in conjunction with a CrN coating, operates to reduce the pitting of sealing plates as is common with arcing (SARTOR, Paragraph [0035]).
Hsu discloses an electrode structure (Figure 1) wherein an intermediate nitride layer includes chromium aluminum nitride (Claim 1; wherein conductive layer is Chromium aluminum nitride). 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 intermediate layer taught by Trees in view of SARTOR to be chromium aluminum nitride as taught by Hsu. The motivation being chromium aluminum nitride has excellent oxidation resistance (Hsu, Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 4, Trees, Keppel and SARTOR in further view of Hsu discloses the electrosurgical forceps of claim 1. Trees also discloses wherein the electrical sensor is included in a housing portion of the one or more jaws (Paragraph [0035]; wherein electrical sensor which is seen as electrode blade 64 is disposed in the housing of the jaws).
Regarding Claim 5, Trees, Keppel and SARTOR in further view of Hsu discloses the electrosurgical forceps of claim 1. Trees also discloses wherein the electrical sensor includes a resistance sensor (Paragraph [0033]; wherein one or more sensor is included in the end effector that can sense electrical resistance therefore being a resistance sensor)
Regarding claim 15, Trees discloses an electrosurgical forceps (Figure 1), comprising: a handpiece (Figure 1, 24); an end effector coupled distally from the handpiece (Figure 1, 40), wherein the end effector includes; one or more jaws (Figure 1, 42 & 44); a translating component that is movable with respect to the one or more jaws (Figure 3, 64); tungsten disulfide at least partially covering the translating component (Paragraph [0059]; wherein blade head is coated with tungsten disulfide). However, Trees does not explicitly disclose a pattern of tungsten disulfide that include coated and uncoated regions and an intermediate chromium aluminum nitride layer between the tungsten disulfide and the electrical sensor.
Keppel discloses an electrosurgical electrode (Figure 1) comprising a pattern of a coating
that include coated and uncoated regions (Figure 1; wherein coated regions are 104, and pores 106 are the uncoated regions; Paragraph [0025]; wherein the patterns of the pores can be uniform). 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 tungsten disulfide coating taught by Trees to be in a pattern of coated and uncoated regions as taught by Keppel. The motivation being the coated and uncoated regions can be beneficial depending on if a surgical instrument is in coagulation mode or cutting mode (Keppel, Paragraph [0025])
SARTOR discloses an electrosurgical forceps (Figure 1) wherein intermediate nitride layer between a coating and an electrode (Paragraph [0007]; wherein a chromium nitride coating covering at least a portion of the electrode, and a hexamethyldisiloxane plasma coating covering at least a portion of the chromium nitride coating). 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 electrical sensor of Trees to include an intermediate nitride layer as taught by SATOR. The motivation being a coating, used in conjunction with a CrN coating, operates to reduce the pitting of sealing plates as is common with arcing (SARTOR, Paragraph [0035]).
Hsu discloses an electrode structure (Figure 1) wherein an intermediate nitride layer includes chromium aluminum nitride (Claim 1; wherein conductive layer is Chromium aluminum nitride). 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 intermediate layer taught by Trees in view of SARTOR to be chromium aluminum nitride as taught by Hsu. The motivation being chromium aluminum nitride has excellent oxidation resistance (Hsu, Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 16, Trees, Keppel and SARTOR in further view of Hsu in further view of Hsu discloses the electrosurgical forceps of claim 15. Trees also discloses wherein the translating component includes a blade (Figure 3, 64; wherein 64 is a blade).
Regarding claim 17, Trees, Keppel and SARTOR in further view of Hsu discloses the electrosurgical forceps of claim 15. Trees also discloses wherein the translating component includes an electrode (Paragraph [0036]; wherein blade 64 acts as an active electrode).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trees, Keppel, SARTOR and Hsu in further view of Pumera et al. (“Layered transition-metal dichalcogenides (MoS2 and Ws2) for sensing and biosensing” (see attached)) herein referred to as Pumera.
Regarding Claim 7, Trees, Keppel and SARTOR in further view of Hsu discloses the electrosurgical forceps of claim 1. However, Trees, Keppel and SARTOR in further view of Hsu does not explicitly disclose wherein the tungsten disulfide includes doped tungsten disulfide.
Pumera discloses doped tungsten disulfide (figure 3, C) being employed in sensing and biosensing devices, wherein the dopant is an electrical property modifying dopant to advance electrical conductivity and fast heterogeneous electron transfer (Section 1, paragraph 5). 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 tungsten disulfide coating taught by Trees, Keppel and SARTOR in further view of Hsu to be doped tungsten disulfide as taught by Pumera. The motivation being to advance electrical conductivity and fast heterogeneous electron transfer (Pumera, Section 1, paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Trees, Keppel, SARTOR and Hsu in further view of Pumera discloses the electrosurgical forceps of claim 7. Pumera also discloses wherein the doped tungsten disulfide includes an electrical property modifying dopant (Section 1, paragraph 5; wherein the dopant is an electrical property modifying dopant to advance electrical conductivity). 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 tungsten disulfide coating taught by Trees, Keppel, SARTOR and Hsu in view of Pumera to include the electrical property modifying dopant as taught by Pumera. The motivation being to advance electrical conductivity and fast heterogeneous electron transfer (Pumera, Section 1, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 9, Trees, Keppel, SARTOR and Hsu in further view of Pumera discloses the electrosurgical forceps of claim 8. Pumera also discloses wherein the electrical property modifying dopant includes silver (Section 2, Paragraph 2; wherein silver NP is a dopant that can be used). 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 tungsten disulfide coating taught by Trees and SARTOR in view of Pumera to include includes an electrical property modifying. The motivation being to advance electrical conductivity and fast heterogeneous electron transfer (Pumera, Section 1, paragraph 5).
Claims 10-11 & 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall, Keppel, SARTOR and Hsu in view of Pumera.
Regarding Claim 10, Marshall discloses a surgical device (Figure 2), comprising: two surfaces that are configured to move with respect to one another (Figure 2, 15 & 16), and a tungsten disulfide coating on at least a portion of one or more of the two surfaces (Paragraph [0018]; wherein both surfaces are coated with tungsten disulfide); However, Marshall does not explicitly disclose a pattern of tungsten disulfide that include coated and an intermediate nitride layer between the tungsten disulfide coating and the portion; wherein the tungsten disulfide coating includes an electrical conductivity modifying dopant.
Keppel discloses an electrosurgical electrode (Figure 1) comprising a pattern of a coating
that include coated and uncoated regions (Figure 1; wherein coated regions are 104, and pores 106 are the uncoated regions; Paragraph [0025]; wherein the patterns of the pores can be uniform). 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 tungsten disulfide coating taught by Trees to be in a pattern of coated and uncoated regions as taught by Keppel. The motivation being the coated and uncoated regions can be beneficial depending on if a surgical instrument is in coagulation mode or cutting mode (Keppel, Paragraph [0025])
SARTOR discloses a surgical device (Figure 1) wherein intermediate nitride layer between a coating and an electrode (Paragraph [0007]; wherein a chromium nitride coating covering at least a portion of the electrode, and a hexamethyldisiloxane plasma coating covering at least a portion of the chromium nitride coating). 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 surfaces of Marshall to include an intermediate nitride layer as taught by SATOR. The motivation being a coating, used in conjunction with a CrN coating, operates to reduce the pitting of sealing plates as is common with arcing (SARTOR, Paragraph [0035]).
Hsu discloses an electrode structure (Figure 1) wherein an intermediate nitride layer includes chromium aluminum nitride (Claim 1; wherein conductive layer is Chromium aluminum nitride). 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 intermediate layer taught by Trees in view of SARTOR to be chromium aluminum nitride as taught by Hsu. The motivation being chromium aluminum nitride has excellent oxidation resistance (Hsu, Paragraph [0024]).
Pumera discloses wherein the doped tungsten disulfide includes an electrical property modifying dopant (Section 1, paragraph 5; wherein the dopant is an electrical property modifying dopant to advance electrical conductivity). 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 tungsten disulfide coating taught by Marshall and SARTOR in further view of Pumera to include the electrical property modifying dopant as taught by Pumera. The motivation being to advance electrical conductivity and fast heterogeneous electron transfer (Pumera, Section 1, paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Marshall, Keppel, SARTOR and Hsu in further view of Pumera discloses the surgical device of claim 10. Marshall also discloses wherein the two surfaces include forceps jaws (Figure 2, 15 & 16).
Regarding claim 14, Marshall, Keppel, SARTOR and Hsu in further view of Pumera discloses the surgical device of claim 10. Pumera also discloses wherein the electrical conductivity modifying dopant includes silver (Section 2, Paragraph 2; wherein silver NP is a dopant that can be used). 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 tungsten disulfide coating taught by Marshall and SARTOR in further view of Pumera to include silver as taught by Pumera. The motivation being to advance electrical conductivity and fast heterogeneous electron transfer (Pumera, Section 1, paragraph 5).
Conclusion
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