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 November 5th, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection, 112(f) interpretations, and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 12th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments on pages 10-14 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not adopt Strobl’s wire in place of Boudreaux’s link mechanism to achieve synchronous movement between the blade and jaw structure on pages 10-14, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11 that the use of a wire or place Boudreaux’s link is contrary to the design goals of Boudreaux and would be unsatisfactory for Boudreaux’s intended purpose of precisely transecting tissue, the Examiner respectfully disagrees on the grounds that the wire and the link mechanism are similar pulling mechanisms such that they are seen as interchangeable substitutions with predictable results of providing a pulling force. The claims recite “a means to apply a force” which both a wire and a link are capable of performing. Language reciting the wire’s ability to navigate a curved shaft would help to differentiate between pulling mechanisms comprising rigid components, such as a link/pivot pin, and flexible components, such as a wire.
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., the wire “provides flexibility in order to navigate a curved shaft”, a wire “configured to handle high loads or resistive force when peeling tissues”, explicit recitation that the mechanisms for opening and closing the jaw structure are “separated”, synchronous/cooperative movement of the cutting blade and jaw structure) are not recited in the rejected independent 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).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 13 & 16 that the references do not teach or suggest that the mechanisms for opening and closing the jaw structure are separated, the Examiner respectfully disagrees on the grounds that Boudreaux does disclose this, as detailed in the rejection, below, and the other references relied upon teach the specifics of the individual opening and closing movements.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 13 that the cited references fail to teach the use of a wire as a means to move the blade back and forth and to synchronously apply sufficient force to open and close the jaws of the jaw structure, the Examiner is unsure how the references need to show this as the invention was understood to be the wire as a separate means to open the jaws while the cutting blade is pushed by a different feature (though these movements may be synchronous). Applicant argues that the invention as claimed possesses unexpected effects unattainable through mere design substitution of prior art, the Examiner notes that as stated above, the invention as claimed does not explicitly claim these unexpected effects of “a single step through cooperative action with blade retraction”.
Applicant argues similarly for claim 14 in which the response for claim 1 applies here, too.
Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive and the Examiner maintains that the current prior art of record discloses the claimed invention, as detailed in the updated 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, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 21, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreaux (U.S. Pub. No. 20160228171, previously cited), herein referred to as “Boudreaux” in view of Baker (U.S. Pub. No. 20090076506, previously cited), herein referred to as “Baker” and further in view of Strobl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130131651, previously cited), herein referred to as “Strobl”.
Regarding claim 1, Boudreaux discloses a treatment device (surgical instrument 100; Abstract: An electrosurgical instrument includes an end effector comprising two movable jaws for grasping tissue therebetween), comprising:
a shaft (shaft 212);
a cutting blade (knife 224); and
a jaw structure (end effector 210) located distally relative to the shaft ([0081]: FIG. 4 is an exploded view of the shaft assembly 212 and end effector 210 portions of the surgical instrument 100), the jaw structure having a first jaw (first jaw member 216a) and a second jaw (second jaw member 216b),
wherein the first jaw includes a first channel (slot 256; [0087]: the first and second jaw members 216a, 216b comprise a slot 256 to reciprocate the knife 224 therein to sever tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b) and the second jaw includes a second channel (slot 256; [0087]: the first and second jaw members 216a, 216b comprise a slot 256 to reciprocate the knife 224 therein to sever tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b),
wherein the jaw structure includes means to apply a force (link 236) to the first jaw to move the first jaw relative to the second jaw ([0116]: FIG. 23 shows the end effector 210 with the first jaw element 216a transitioning to an open position, according to one embodiment. When opening the first jaw element 216a the link 236 pulls the jaw element 216a open), and
wherein the jaw structure is configured such that:
in a closing movement, the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to close the jaw structure without assistance from the means to apply the force ([0085]: Pushing on the rotatable closure ring 232 closes the first jaw member 216a through a camming action (cam tube closure) and pulling on the link 236 opens the first jaw member 216a; [0092]: the jaw members 216a, 216b of the end effector 210 are closed by pushing the outer tube 202 to advance it distally in direction B; see Fig. 6), and
in an opening movement the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to open the jaw structure when the means to apply the force moves proximally ([0116]: FIG. 23 shows the end effector 210 with the first jaw element 216a transitioning to an open position, according to one embodiment. When opening the first jaw element 216a the link 236 pulls the jaw element 216a open).
But Boudreaux fails to disclose wherein in a closing movement, the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to close the jaw structure when the cutting blade moves distally.
However, Baker discloses a treatment device (Abstract: An electrosurgical working end and method for sealing and transecting tissue are provided) wherein in a closing movement, the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to close the jaw structure when the cutting blade moves distally ([0043]: reciprocating member 240 that also functions as a jaw-closing mechanism. The distal end of reciprocating member 240 comprises a flanged "I"-beam configured to slide within a channel 242 in the jaws 222a and 222b as seen in FIGS. 2A-2C; [0045]: The channel 242 within the jaws accommodates the movement of reciprocating member 240, which may comprise a tissue-cutting element, for example by having a sharp distal edge; see the first jaw moving relative the second jaw in Figs. 2A-2B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closing movement/mechanism of Boudreaux to the closing movement/mechanism of Baker for the purpose of contemporaneously closing the jaws of a working end and transecting the engaged tissue, applying very high compression to the engaged tissue, and cooperating with electrosurgical components of the jaws to deliver thermal energy to the engaged tissue (Baker: [0024]).
Boudreaux in view of Baker fail to disclose wherein the means to apply the force is a wire connected to one of the first jaw or the second jaw.
However, Strobl discloses wherein the means to apply the force is a wire connected to one of the first jaw or the second jaw ([0075]: jaw cable (1748) may be pulled proximally to open upper jaw (1742) relative to lower jaw (1744)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the means to apply the force of Boudreaux in view of Baker to be a wire, as taught by Strobl, for the purpose of the wire being rigid enough to translate the upper jaw yet flexible enough to bend through a significantly articulated articulation section (Strobl: [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Boudreaux discloses:
a body (handle assembly 104) including a movable handle (trigger assembly 107) configured to move the means to apply the force ([0067]: The trigger assembly 107 is configured to clamp and independently fire the end effector 210 coupled to the shaft assembly 212 of the surgical instrument 100. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the first jaw member 216a of the end effector 210 is fully open), and
a treatment end (distal end of surgical instrument 100 comprising end effector 210) pivotally joined to a distal end of the shaft ([0067]: a surgical instrument 100 comprising a trigger assembly 107, a shaft assembly 212, and articulation joint 204, and an end effector 210), the treatment end including the movable cutting blade and the jaw structure ([0071]: The end effector 210 comprises a first jaw member 216a and a second jaw member 216b; [0087]: The first and second jaw members 216a, 216b comprise slots to slidably receive a knife 224 therethrough),
wherein the shaft has a proximal end connected to the body ([0068]: The articulation control knob 108 and the rotation control knob 120 are operatively coupled to the distal end of the handle assembly 104 and are configured to receive and couple to the proximal end of shaft assembly 212).
Regarding claim 9, Boudreaux discloses a slider (firing plate 128) placed between the movable handle and the jaw structure (see Fig. 3), wherein the slider is configured to simultaneously move the means to apply the force and the cutting blade in the opening movement ([0074]: The trigger assembly 107 comprises the necessary components for closing the jaw members 216a, 216b and firing the cutting member or knife bands; [0075]: The single trigger 109 closes the jaws in the first ˜13 degrees of stroke. The trigger plate 124 is configured to interface with the trigger plate 124 during rotation of the trigger 109 from an initial position to a first rotation, which is ˜13 degrees of stroke, for example. The trigger plate 124 is operably coupled to the firing plate 128; [0076]: The single trigger 109 fires the knife in the last ˜29 degrees of stroke … Rotation of the trigger plate 124 beyond a predetermined rotation such as, for example, the first rotation, causes rotation of the firing plate 128; wherein as shown in Fig. 1, the jaws are both open and the knife withdrawn, paragraphs [0074]-[0077] describe the mechanism of the trigger assembly 107 in depth for clamping/firing the knife such that the opposite motion (opposite direction of arrow C in Fig. 1) is interpreted as being the motion of trigger assembly 107 & firing plate 128 that places the jaws open and the knife in a fully retracted state since this is all actuated by the trigger assembly 107 & firing plate 128).
Regarding claim 10, Boudreaux discloses wherein the body includes a connection to connect to a power source configured to supply power for conducting a high-frequency treatment with the treatment device ([0069]: The one or more contact electrodes are operatively coupled to the energy button 122 and an energy source (not shown); [0070]: The energy source may be suitable for therapeutic tissue treatment, tissue cauterization/sealing, as well as sub-therapeutic treatment and measurement energy source), and wherein at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw includes a high frequency electrode ([0072]: At least one of the jaw members 216a, 216b is adapted to connect to an electrosurgical energy source such that electrosurgical energy may be selectively communicated through tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b to effect a tissue seal. At least one of the jaw members 216a, 216b of the end effector 210 comprises at least one electrode 254 adapted to connect to an electrosurgical energy source and configured to deliver energy to tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b to effect a tissue a seal).
Regarding claim 12, Boudreaux discloses wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are pivotably joined at a base end of the jaw structure by a joint structure that is placed between the shaft and the first and second jaws ([0084]: The first jaw member 216a can rotatably move between open and closed positions by the outer tube 202 about a pivot pin 252. A link 236 is operatively coupled to the first jaw member 216a and to the outer tube 202 by link pins 234a, 234b).
Regarding claim 13, Boudreaux discloses wherein the joint structure includes at least one of a pulley and a link (link 236; [0084]: A link 236 is operatively coupled to the first jaw member 216a and to the outer tube 202 by link pins 234a, 234b).
Regarding claim 21, Boudreaux discloses further comprising:
a body (handle assembly 104) including a movable handle (trigger assembly 107) configured to move the means to apply the force ([0067]: The trigger assembly 107 is configured to clamp and independently fire the end effector 210 coupled to the shaft assembly 212 of the surgical instrument 100. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the first jaw member 216a of the end effector 210 is fully open),
wherein the cutting blade is configured to move back and forth longitudinally in the first and second channels between the base end of the jaw structure and a distal end of the jaw structure in response to a first input at the body ([0067]: The trigger assembly 107 is configured to clamp and independently fire the end effector 210 coupled to the shaft assembly 212 of the surgical instrument 100; [0111]: The knife 224 (not shown) is fired by advancing the knife tube 214 (not shown) in a distal direction G. The knife 224 (not shown) can be fired while the jaws are closed and the shaft assembly 212 is articulated due in part to the flexible neck 230 (not shown) and the hollow flexible knife cable 211 (not shown); see also [0074]-[0077] for full details of the mechanisms of the handle assembly), and
wherein the means to apply the force is further configured to move the first jaw proximally in response to a second input at the body ([0067]: The trigger assembly 107 is configured to clamp and independently fire the end effector 210 coupled to the shaft assembly 212 of the surgical instrument 100. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the first jaw member 216a of the end effector 210 is fully open).
Regarding claim 26, Boudreaux discloses wherein the means to apply the force is separate from the cutting blade ([0085]: Pushing on the rotatable closure ring 232 closes the first jaw member 216a through a camming action (cam tube closure) and pulling on the link 236 opens the first jaw member 216a; [0092]: the jaw members 216a, 216b of the end effector 210 are closed by pushing the outer tube 202 to advance it distally in direction B; [0111]: The knife 224 (not shown) is fired by advancing the knife tube 214 (not shown) in a distal direction G), and wherein the cutting blade is configured to apply a second force ([0097]: The jaw electrode 254 includes a slot 258 and the jaws 216a, 216b include as lot 256 to reciprocate a knife 224 therealong to sever tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b; wherein the second force is seen as a force exerted on the tissue).
Regarding claim 27, Boudreaux discloses wherein the second jaw is stationary relative to the first jaw ([0071]: at least one of the jaw members 216a, 216 is fixed relative to the shaft 212 assembly).
Regarding claim 28, Boudreaux discloses wherein the cutting blade is provided within the first and the second channels ([0087]: the first and second jaw members 216a, 216b comprise a slot 256 to reciprocate the knife 224 therein to sever tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreaux in view of Baker and Strobl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hancock et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200253664, previously cited), herein referred to as “Hancock”.
Regarding claim 8, Boudreaux in view of Baker and Strobl fail to disclose wherein the cutting blade includes a sloped surface.
However, Hancock discloses wherein the cutting blade includes a sloped surface ([0081]: The blade 306 includes a cutting edge 318 which faces inwards, towards the axle 305). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting blade of Boudreaux in view of Baker and Strobl to include a sloped surface, as taught by Hancock, for the purpose of enabling biological tissue held between the jaws may be cut by pulling the blade along the slot towards the axle (Hancock: [0081]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreaux in view of Baker and Strobl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batchelor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190262092, previously cited), herein referred to as “Batchelor”.
Regarding claim 11, Boudreaux in view of Baker and Strobl fails to disclose wherein the cutting blade is a different pole electrode compared to at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw.
However, Batchelor discloses wherein the cutting blade is a different pole electrode compared to at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw ([0015]: Preferably, the electrosurgical device provides two or more therapy currents (e.g., monopolar power and bipolar power). A therapy current may pass between the jaws (e.g., bipolar power). A therapy current may pass from a jaw to a blade or vice versa. A therapy current (e.g., monopolar power) may pass from a blade to a remote electrode (e.g., ground pad)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarities of the blade and jaws of Boudreaux in view of Baker and Strobl to the polarities of Batchelor for the purpose of enabling when power is applied an anatomical feature may be cut, cauterized, sealed, coagulated, or a combination thereof (Batchelor: [0015]).
Claims 14, 16, 22 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreaux in view of Strobl and Baker.
Regarding claim 14, Boudreaux discloses a treatment device (surgical instrument 100; Abstract: An electrosurgical instrument includes an end effector comprising two movable jaws for grasping tissue therebetween), comprising:
a shaft (shaft 212);
a cutting blade (knife 224); and
a jaw structure (end effector 210) located distally relative to the shaft ([0081]: FIG. 4 is an exploded view of the shaft assembly 212 and end effector 210 portions of the surgical instrument 100), the jaw structure having a first jaw (first jaw member 216a) and a second jaw (second jaw member 216b),
wherein the first jaw includes a first channel (slot 256; [0087]: the first and second jaw members 216a, 216b comprise a slot 256 to reciprocate the knife 224 therein to sever tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b) and the second jaw includes a second channel (slot 256; [0087]: the first and second jaw members 216a, 216b comprise a slot 256 to reciprocate the knife 224 therein to sever tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b),
wherein the jaw structure is configured such that:
in a closing movement, the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to close the jaw structure ([0085]: Pushing on the rotatable closure ring 232 closes the first jaw member 216a through a camming action (cam tube closure) and pulling on the link 236 opens the first jaw member 216a; [0092]: the jaw members 216a, 216b of the end effector 210 are closed by pushing the outer tube 202 to advance it distally in direction B; see Fig. 6),
in an opening movement, the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to open the jaw structure ([0116]: FIG. 23 shows the end effector 210 with the first jaw element 216a transitioning to an open position, according to one embodiment. When opening the first jaw element 216a the link 236 pulls the jaw element 216a open).
But Boudreaux fails to disclose wherein the jaw structure includes a wire configured to move proximally to pull the first jaw away from the second jaw, and
wherein the jaw structure is configured such that: in an opening movement, the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to open the jaw structure when the wire moves proximally.
However, Strobl discloses a treatment device (Abstract: An apparatus for operating on tissue includes an end effector having a first jaw and a second jaw) wherein the jaw structure includes a wire configured to move proximally to pull the first jaw away from the second jaw ([0075]: jaw cable (1748) may be pulled proximally to open upper jaw (1742) relative to lower jaw (1744));
wherein the jaw structure is configured such that: in an opening movement, the first jaw moves (jaw 1742) relative to the second jaw (jaw 1744) to open the jaw structure when the wire moves proximally ([0075]: jaw cable (1748) may be pulled proximally to open upper jaw (1742) relative to lower jaw (1744)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the means to apply the force of Boudreaux in view of Baker to be a wire, as taught by Strobl, for the purpose of the wire being rigid enough to translate the upper jaw yet flexible enough to bend through a significantly articulated articulation section (Strobl: [0075]).
But Boudreaux fails to disclose wherein in a closing movement, the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to close the jaw structure when the cutting blade moves distally without assistance from the wire.
However, Baker discloses a treatment device (Abstract: An electrosurgical working end and method for sealing and transecting tissue are provided) wherein in a closing movement, the first jaw moves relative to the second jaw to close the jaw structure when the cutting blade moves distally without assistance from the wire ([0043]: reciprocating member 240 that also functions as a jaw-closing mechanism. The distal end of reciprocating member 240 comprises a flanged "I"-beam configured to slide within a channel 242 in the jaws 222a and 222b as seen in FIGS. 2A-2C; [0045]: The channel 242 within the jaws accommodates the movement of reciprocating member 240, which may comprise a tissue-cutting element, for example by having a sharp distal edge; see the first jaw moving relative the second jaw in Figs. 2A-2B; wherein this movement is seen as without assistance from any other mechanical features). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closing movement/mechanism of Boudreaux to the closing movement/mechanism of Baker for the purpose of contemporaneously closing the jaws of a working end and transecting the engaged tissue, applying very high compression to the engaged tissue, and cooperating with electrosurgical components of the jaws to deliver thermal energy to the engaged tissue (Baker: [0024]).
Regarding claim 16, Boudreaux discloses:
a body (handle assembly 104) including a movable handle (trigger assembly 107), and
a slider (firing plate 128) linked to the movable handle (see Fig. 3),
but Boudreaux in view of Baker fails to disclose:
wherein the wire and the cutting blade are connected to the slider, and
wherein the slider is configured to simultaneously move the wire and the cutting blade.
However, Strobl discloses:
a body (handpiece 20) including a movable handle (trigger 24), and
a slider ([0078]: Squeezing trigger (24) pushes jaw cable (1748) … Squeezing trigger (24) also translates blade cable (1760); slider/inner mechanisms not given numerical call outs, however, actuation of the trigger causing translation of the jaw cable & blade cable is seen as a slider linked to the trigger 24/is seen as a functional equivalent to a slider since it performs the same function of the handle translating cables 1760 & 1748) linked to the movable handle (trigger 24),
wherein the wire and the cutting blade member are connected to the slider ([0078]: Squeezing trigger (24) also translates blade cable (1760) distally to translate blade member (1768) distally. Actuation of jaw cable (1748) and blade cable (1760) may be staged (e.g., trigger (24) may be squeezed through a first range of motion to actuate jaw cable (1748) to close jaws (1742, 1744), then trigger (24) may be squeezed through a second range of motion to actuate blade cable (1760) to drive blade (1764)), and
wherein the slider is configured to simultaneously move the wire and the cutting blade ([0079]: After the tissue layer portions have been welded, blade cable (1760) may be translated proximally to retract blade member (1768). In some versions, the tissue layer portions are welded prior to being severed. Jaw cable (1748) may be translated proximally to pivot jaw (1742) relative to jaw (1744) to open jaws (1742, 1744); wherein the motion of the trigger 24 in [0078] describes the closing/deployment of the blade, this motion of retracting the blade and opening the jaws is seen as the trigger returning to its original position and moving both the jaw cable 1748 and blade cable 1760).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Boudreaux in view of Baker to the body comprising a slider, as taught by Strobl for the purpose of the wires being rigid enough to translate the upper jaw or translate the blade member yet flexible enough to bend through a significantly articulated articulation section (Strobl: [0075], [0076]).
Regarding claim 22, Boudreaux in view of Strobl and Baker discloses:
a body (Boudreaux: handle assembly 104) including a movable handle (trigger assembly 107), and
a treatment end (distal end of surgical instrument 100 comprising end effector 210) pivotally joined to a distal end of the shaft ([0067]: a surgical instrument 100 comprising a trigger assembly 107, a shaft assembly 212, and articulation joint 204, and an end effector 210), the treatment end including the jaw structure and the cutting blade ([0071]: The end effector 210 comprises a first jaw member 216a and a second jaw member 216b; [0087]: The first and second jaw members 216a, 216b comprise slots to slidably receive a knife 224 therethrough),
wherein the shaft has a proximal end connected to the body ([0068]: The articulation control knob 108 and the rotation control knob 120 are operatively coupled to the distal end of the handle assembly 104 and are configured to receive and couple to the proximal end of shaft assembly 212),
wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are pivotably joined at a base end of the jaw structure ([0084]: The first jaw member 216a can rotatably move between open and closed positions by the outer tube 202 about a pivot pin 252),
wherein the cutting blade (Baker: reciprocating member 240) includes a downward pushing surface and an upward pushing surface that are configured to close the jaw structure by sandwiching the first jaw and the second jaw while moving toward the distal end of the shaft ([0045]: reciprocating member 240 having upper and lower flanges or "c"-shaped portions 250a and 250b. The flanges 250a and 250b respectively define inner cam surfaces 252a and 252b for slidably engaging outward-facing surfaces 262a-262b of jaws 222a and 222b. As seen in FIG. 2A-2B, jaws 222a and 222b in a closed position define a gap or dimension D between the energy-delivery surfaces 265A and 265B of jaws 222a and 222b. Dimension D equals from about 0.0005'' to about 0.005'' and preferably between about 0.001'' about 0.002''), and
wherein the wire (Strobl: jaw cable 1748) is configured to apply the force to the first jaw to pull the first jaw away from the second jaw ([0075]: jaw cable (1748) may be pulled proximally to open upper jaw (1742) relative to lower jaw (1744)).
Regarding claim 25, Boudreaux discloses wherein the means to apply the force is separate from the cutting blade, and wherein the cutting blade is configured to apply a second force ([0085]: Pushing on the rotatable closure ring 232 closes the first jaw member 216a through a camming action (cam tube closure) and pulling on the link 236 opens the first jaw member 216a; [0092]: the jaw members 216a, 216b of the end effector 210 are closed by pushing the outer tube 202 to advance it distally in direction B; [0111]: The knife 224 (not shown) is fired by advancing the knife tube 214 (not shown) in a distal direction G), and wherein the cutting blade is configured to apply a second force ([0097]: The jaw electrode 254 includes a slot 258 and the jaws 216a, 216b include as lot 256 to reciprocate a knife 224 therealong to sever tissue held between the jaw members 216a, 216b; wherein the second force is seen as a force exerted on the tissue).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Abigail M Ziegler whose telephone number is (571)272-1991. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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.
/ABIGAIL M ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/THOMAS A GIULIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794