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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 2/27/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim objections set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s arguments 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. Previously, claim 1 was under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Moua. Now, based on amendments to the claim language, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockrohr in view of Moua.
Regarding claim 14, applicant’s arguments 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. Previously, claim 1 was under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Shelton. Now, based on amendments to the claim language, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Rockrohr.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 9-13 and 15, applicant’s arguments 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 seen above regarding claims 1 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockrohr, US 20160303743, herein referred to as “Rockrohr”, in view of Moua, US 20140257285, herein referred to as “Moua”,
Regarding claim 1, Rockrohr discloses an end effector for a surgical device (Figure 39), comprising: a first component forming a jaw body of the end effector (Figures 39 and 43: jaw 472), wherein the first component is formed of a first material (Figure 43: jaw 472); and a second component comprising a frame (Figure 43: support plate 454) and coupled to the jaw body at a joint (Figure 43: slot 452a and cam slot 472c and camming pin 466), wherein the frame includes a cam track configured to receive a cam pin therein (Figure 43: cam slot 472c and [0149]), the cam pin movable along the cam track to cause the first component and the second component to move together (Figure 43: camming pin 466 and [0154]-[0155]), wherein the second component is formed of a second material (Figure 43: support plate 454), wherein the second component connects the first component to the surgical device ([0145]) and has one or more features that are configured to facilitate movement of the first component ([0154]-[0155]). Rockrohr does not explicitly disclose an end effector wherein the first component is formed of a first electrically non-conductive material; and wherein the second component is formed of a second material or is formed of the first material but is processed differently from the first material.
However, Moua discloses an end effector for a surgical device (Figures 2A-3A) wherein the first component (Figures 2A-3A: insulator 142) is formed of a first electrically non-conductive material ([0070]: “The insulator 142 may be constructed of an electrically insulative plastic such as a polyphthalamide (PPA) (e.g., Amodel.RTM.), polycarbonate (PC), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), a blend of PC and ABS, nylon, ceramic, etc.”); and wherein the second component (Figure 3A: distal portion 186 of inner actuation member 180) is formed of a second material or is formed of the first material but is processed differently from the first material ([0057]: “The inner actuation member 180 may be a rod, shaft, stamped metal, or other suitable mechanical component.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the first component is formed of a first electrically non-conductive material and the second component is formed of a second material as taught by Moua to electrically insulate the sealing plates of the device (Moua [0056]).
Regarding claim 2, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, and Moua further discloses an end effector wherein the first electrically non-conductive material is a ceramic ([0070]: “The insulator 142 may be constructed of an electrically insulative plastic such as a polyphthalamide (PPA) (e.g., Amodel.RTM.), polycarbonate (PC), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), a blend of PC and ABS, nylon, ceramic, etc.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the first component is a ceramic as taught by Moua to electrically insulate the sealing plates of the device (Moua [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, and Moua further discloses an end effector wherein the first electrically non-conductive material is one of a ceramic, a polymer or a composite thereof ([0070]: “The insulator 142 may be constructed of an electrically insulative plastic such as a polyphthalamide (PPA) (e.g., Amodel.RTM.), polycarbonate (PC), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), a blend of PC and ABS, nylon, ceramic, etc.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the first component is a ceramic as taught by Moua to electrically insulate the sealing plates of the device (Moua [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, and Moua further discloses an end effector further comprising an electrode (Figure 2A: sealing plate 148) held by the first component ([0056]: “Each jaw member 130, 132 includes a jaw insert 140 and an insulator 142 that serves to electrically insulate the sealing plates 150, 148 from the jaw insert 140 of jaw members 130, 132, respectively.”), wherein the first electrically non-conductive material isolates the electrode from one or more of a second electrode or the second component ([0056]: “Each jaw member 130, 132 includes a jaw insert 140 and an insulator 142 that serves to electrically insulate the sealing plates 150, 148 from the jaw insert 140 of jaw members 130, 132, respectively.” And Figure 3A: insulator would also insulate the sealing plates 148 and 150 and actuation member 180 from each other).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that it includes an electrode held by the first component as taught by Moua to permit delivery of electrosurgical energy to the tissue (Moua [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, and Moua further discloses an end effector wherein the second material is at least one of a metal, a metal alloy, a graphite or a carbon ([0057]: “The inner actuation member 180 may be a rod, shaft, stamped metal, or other suitable mechanical component.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the second material is at least one of a metal, a metal alloy, a graphite or a carbon as taught by Moua 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockrohr in view of Moua, further in view of Jun et al., US 20210298762, herein referred to as “Jun”.
Regarding claim 5, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the second material is Cobalt-Chromium- Nickel-Molybdenum alloy.
However, Jun teaches a device (Figure 2) wherein the second material is Cobalt-Chromium- Nickel-Molybdenum alloy ([0027]: “Suitable memory material metals (a memory material) include stainless steel, cobalt, nickel, chromium, molybdenumtitanium, Nitinol, tantalum, platinum-iridium alloy, gold, magnesium, MP35N, MP20N, or combinations “MP35N” consists of 35% cobalt, 35% nickel, 20% chromium, and 10% molybdenum. “MP20N” consists of 50% cobalt, 20% nickel, 20% chromium, and 10% molybdenum. ”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the second material is Cobalt-Chromium- Nickel-Molybdenum alloy as taught by Jun so that the material is a memory material metal (Jun [0027]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockrohr in view of Moua, further in view of Kaplan et al., US 20150283298, herein referred to as “Kaplan”.
Regarding claim 7, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, with Moua disclosing a forceps wherein the first component ([0070]: “The insulator 142 may be constructed of an electrically insulative plastic such as a polyphthalamide (PPA) (e.g., Amodel.RTM.), polycarbonate (PC), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), a blend of PC and ABS, nylon, ceramic, etc.”) and the second component have different material properties ([0057]: “The inner actuation member 180 may be a rod, shaft, stamped metal, or other suitable mechanical component.”), but Rockrohr in view of Moua does not explicitly disclose a device wherein both the first component and the second component are a ceramic with a same chemical formula, and wherein the first component has different material properties than the second component.
However, Kaplan teaches a device wherein both the first component and the second component are a ceramic with a same chemical formula, and wherein the first component has different material properties than the second component ([0102]: “Without wishing to be bound by a theory, higher sintering temperature provides ceramic material of higher strength but lower porosity. Thus, the sintering temperature can be optimized to obtain ceramic material of desired strength and/or porosity.” And [0223]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end effector disclosed by Moua so that both the first component and the second component are a ceramic with a same chemical formula, and wherein the first component has different material properties than the second component, 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockrohr in view of Moua, further in view of Shelton, IV et al., US 20210186502, herein referred to as “Shelton”.
Regarding claim 9, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an end effector wherein the joint is configured to allow a first relative movement of the first component relative to the second component during a first part of articulating movement of the first component, and wherein the joint is configured to allow a second more restrictive relative movement of the first component relative to the second component during a second part of the articulating movement of the first component.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Figures 75-76) wherein the joint is configured to allow a first relative movement of the first component relative to the second component during a first part of articulating movement of the first component ([0608]: “When the closure member 33620 contacts the distal cam surface 33233, the closure member 33620 rotates the second jaw 33230 downwardly at a first rate.”), and wherein the joint is configured to allow a second more restrictive relative movement of the first component relative to the second component during a second part of the articulating movement of the first component ([0608]: “When the closure member 33620 contacts the proximal cam surface 33235, the closure member 33620 rotates the second jaw 33230 downwardly at a second rate which is faster than the first rate. As a result, the initial clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is fast while the final clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is slower.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the joint is configured to allow a first relative movement of the first component relative to the second component during a first part of articulating movement of the first component, and wherein the joint is configured to allow a second more restrictive relative movement of the first component relative to the second component during a second part of the articulating movement of the first component as taught by Shelton to allow the jaw to apply a large clamping force to the tissue during the final clamping motion (Shelton [0608]).
Regarding claim 10, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an end effector wherein the joint has a first shape at a first portion thereof such that, during a first part of the movement of the first component, the first component is subject to a first bending moment, wherein the joint has a second shape at a second portion thereof such that during a second part of the movement of the first component the first component is subject to a second different bending moment.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Figures 75-76) wherein the joint has a first shape at a first portion thereof (Figures 75-76: distal cam surface 33233) such that, during a first part of the movement of the first component, the first component is subject to a first bending moment ([0608]: “Notably, the distal cam surface 33233 comprises a linear, or an at least substantially linear, angled surface. When the closure member 33620 contacts the distal cam surface 33233, the closure member 33620 rotates the second jaw 33230 downwardly at a first rate.”), wherein the joint has a second shape at a second portion thereof (Figure 75-76: proximal cam surface 33235) such that during a second part of the movement of the first component, the first component is subject to a second different bending moment ([0608]: “When the closure member 33620 contacts the proximal cam surface 33235, the closure member 33620 rotates the second jaw 33230 downwardly at a second rate which is faster than the first rate. As a result, the initial clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is fast while the final clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is slower. Moreover, the shallower cam angle of the proximal cam surface 33235 allows the second jaw 33230 to apply a large clamping force to the tissue during the final clamping motion of the second jaw 33230.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the joint has a first shape at a first portion thereof such that, during a first part of the movement of the first component, the first component is subject to a first bending moment, wherein the joint has a second shape at a second portion thereof such that during a second part of the movement of the first component the first component is subject to a second different bending moment as taught by Shelton to allow the jaw to apply a large clamping force to the tissue during the final clamping motion (Shelton [0608]).
Regarding claim 11, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an end effector wherein the joint is configured to provide for a relative movement between the first component and the second component for a first portion of the movement of the first component, and wherein the joint is configured to provide for intimate contact between the first component and the second component through a second portion of the movement of the first component.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Figures 75-76) wherein the joint is configured to provide for a relative movement between the first component (Figures 75-76: second jaw 33230) and the second component (Figures 75-76: closure member 33620) for a first portion of the movement of the first component (Figures 75-76: there is relative movement between second jaw 33230 and closure member 33620), and wherein the joint is configured to provide for direct contact between the first component and the second component through a second portion of the movement of the first component (Figure 76: there is direct contact between second jaw 33230 and closure member 33620 at proximal cam surface 33235 and distal cam surface 33233).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the joint is configured to provide for a relative movement between the first component and the second component for a first portion of the movement of the first component, and wherein the joint is configured to provide for direct contact between the first component and the second component through a second portion of the movement of the first component as taught by Shelton to allow the jaw to apply a large clamping force to the tissue during the final clamping motion (Shelton [0608]).
Regarding claim 12, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an end effector wherein the joint is configured to provide the first component with at least two closure regimes such that a plot of at least two different bending moments through the movement has a step function.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Figures 75-76) wherein the joint is configured to provide the first component with at least two closure regimes (Figures 75-76: the two closure regimes are distal cam surface 33233 and proximal cam surface 33235) such that a plot of at least two different bending moments through the movement has a step function (Figures 75-76: the step function is the intersection of distal cam surface 33233 and proximal cam surface 33235).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the joint is configured to provide the first component with at least two closure regimes such that a plot of at least two different bending moments through the movement has a step function as taught by Shelton to allow the jaw to apply a large clamping force to the tissue during the final clamping motion (Shelton [0608]).
Regarding claim 13, Rockrohr in view of Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an end effector wherein the joint has a plurality of arcuate segments each having a different degree of curvature relative to one another.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Figures 75-76) wherein the joint has a plurality of arcuate segments each having a different degree of curvature relative to one another (Figures 75-76: distal cam surface 33233 and proximal cam surface 33235 and closure member 33620).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Rockrohr so that the joint has a plurality of arcuate segments each having a different degree of curvature relative to one another as taught by Shelton to allow the jaw to apply a large clamping force to the tissue during the final clamping motion (Shelton [0608]).
Claims 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Rockrohr.
Regarding claim 14, Shelton discloses a forceps (Figures 1-2), comprising: a shaft (Figures 1-2: shaft 1100); an actuator routed along the shaft ([0598]: “the closure drive system 1600 comprises a rotatable drive shaft 1610 which is driven by an electric motor operably coupled to the drive shaft 1610 by a flexible drive shaft 1910. The flexible drive shaft 1910 extends through the shaft 1100 and the articulation joint 1300 such that a distal end of the flexible drive shaft 1910 is coupled to the closure drive shaft 1610 at a location which is distal with respect to the articulation joint 1300, although the closure drive shaft 1610 can be coupled to the flexible drive shaft 1910 at any suitable location.” Wherein the electric motor is the actuator) and a cam pin connected to the actuator ([0599]: “Each of the drive arms 1634 comprises a drive pin 1639 extending inwardly into a drive recess 1239 defined in the second jaw 1230 such that, when the quick-closure member 1630 is pushed proximally by the high-force closure member 1620, the quick-closure member 1630 rotates the second jaw 1230 into a closed position. As a result of this arrangement, the initial closing motion of the second jaw 1230 is caused by the quick-closure member 1630.”; and a jaw positioned at an end portion of the shaft and coupled to the actuator ([0598] and Figures 1-2: first and second jaws 1220 and 1230 and Figures 75-76: second jaw 33230), the jaw comprising: a body (Figures 1-2: the jaws have a body and Figures 75-76: second jaw 33230 has a body), an electrode coupled to the body ([0780]: “Moreover, various embodiments are envisioned which utilize any suitable means for sealing tissue. For instance, an end effector in accordance with various embodiments can comprise electrodes configured to heat and seal the tissue. ”), and a frame coupled to the body at a joint (Figures 75-76: closure member 33620 is coupled to second jaw 33230 at a joint) and coupled to the actuator ([0608]: “The closure system 33600 comprises a rotatable drive shaft 33610 including a distal end rotatably supported by the first jaw by a bearing.”; the rotatable drive shaft is coupled to an electric motor), wherein the joint is shaped such that the actuator applies at least two different forces each of a different degree to the frame through a movement of the body (Figures 75-76: distal cam surface 33233 and proximal cam surface 33235 and [0608]: “ As a result, the initial clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is fast while the final clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is slower.”). Shelton does not explicitly disclose a forceps comprising a frame including a cam track configured to receive the cam pin therein, the actuator operable to move the cam pin along the cam track to cause the jaw to move.
However, Rockrohr discloses a forceps (Figure 39), comprising a frame (Figure 43: support plate 454) including a cam track (Figure 39: slot 452a) configured to receive the cam pin therein (Figure 43: camming pin 466), the actuator operable to move the cam pin along the cam track to cause the jaw to move ([0154]-[0155]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the forceps disclosed by Shelton so that the frame includes a cam track configured to receive the cam pin therein, the actuator operable to move the cam pin along the cam track to cause the jaw to move as taught by Rockrohr to vary or alter a closing/opening characteristic of the forceps, such as for example, to increase a clamping force (Rockrohr [0146]).
Regarding claim 16, Shelton in view of Rockrohr discloses the forceps of claim 14, and Shelton further discloses a forceps wherein, when actuated by the actuator, the frame is configured to facilitate articulating movement of the body relative to the shaft ([0608]: “The closure system 33600 comprises a rotatable drive shaft 33610 including a distal end rotatably supported by the first jaw by a bearing. The closure system 33600 further comprises a closure member, or nut, 33620 threadably engaged with a threaded portion of the rotatable drive shaft 33610. When the drive shaft 33610 is rotated in a first direction, the closure member 33620 is driven proximally to close the end effector 33200 and, when the drive shaft 33610 is rotated in a second, or opposite, direction, the closure member 33620 is driven distally to allow the end effector 32200 to be opened. ”), and wherein the joint is shaped to provide the body with at least two different bending moments during articulating movement of the body ([0608]: “Notably, the distal cam surface 33233 comprises a linear, or an at least substantially linear, angled surface. When the closure member 33620 contacts the distal cam surface 33233, the closure member 33620 rotates the second jaw 33230 downwardly at a first rate… “When the closure member 33620 contacts the proximal cam surface 33235, the closure member 33620 rotates the second jaw 33230 downwardly at a second rate which is faster than the first rate. As a result, the initial clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is fast while the final clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is slower. Moreover, the shallower cam angle of the proximal cam surface 33235 allows the second jaw 33230 to apply a large clamping force to the tissue during the final clamping motion of the second jaw 33230.”)
Regarding claim 17, Shelton in view of Rockrohr discloses the forceps of claim 16, and Shelton further discloses a forceps wherein the body has at least two closure regimes (Figures 75-76: the two closure regimes are distal cam surface 33233 and proximal cam surface 33235) such that a plot of the at least two different bending moments during the articulating movement has a step function (Figures 75-76: the step function is the intersection of distal cam surface 33233 and proximal cam surface 33235).
Regarding claim 18, Shelton in view of Rockrohr discloses the forceps of claim 14, and Shelton further discloses a forceps wherein the joint has a plurality of arcuate segments each having a different degree of curvature relative to one another(Figures 75-76: distal cam surface 33233 and proximal cam surface 33235 and closure member 33620), and wherein at least one of the plurality of arcuate segments is curved along an axis perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the jaw to counteract an off-axis roll of the jaw upon initial contact with tissue of a patient (Figures 75-76: closure member 33620 is curved and thus would counteract an off-axis roll of the jaw upon initial contact with tissue).
Regarding claim 19, Shelton in view of Rockrohr discloses the forceps of claim 14, and Shelton further discloses a forceps wherein the joint allows a first ratio of travel of the body per an amount of applied force by the actuator upon initial contact with a tissue of a patient and through a first part of the movement ([0608]: “When the closure member 33620 contacts the distal cam surface 33233, the closure member 33620 rotates the second jaw 33230 downwardly at a first rate… As a result, the initial clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is fast while the final clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is slower.”), and wherein the joint allows for a second ratio of travel of the body per the amount of applied force by the actuator through a second part of the movement of the body, wherein the second ratio is smaller than the first ratio ([0608]: “When the closure member 33620 contacts the distal cam surface 33233, the closure member 33620 rotates the second jaw 33230 downwardly at a first rate… As a result, the initial clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is fast while the final clamping motion of the second jaw 33230 is slower.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Rockrohr, further in view of Moua.
Regarding claim 15, Shelton in view of Rockrohr discloses the forceps of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose a forceps wherein the body is formed of a first electrically non-conductive material that electrically isolates the electrode, and wherein the frame is formed of a different second material with a crystalline microstructure.
However, Moua teaches a forceps (Figure 1: forceps 100) wherein the body is formed of a first electrically non- conductive material that electrically isolates the electrode ([0070]: “The insulator 142 may be constructed of an electrically insulative plastic such as a polyphthalamide (PPA) (e.g., Amodel.RTM.), polycarbonate (PC), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), a blend of PC and ABS, nylon, ceramic, etc.” and [0056]: “Each jaw member 130, 132 includes a jaw insert 140 and an insulator 142 that serves to electrically insulate the sealing plates 150, 148 from the jaw insert 140 of jaw members 130, 132, respectively.”), and wherein the frame is formed of a different second material with a crystalline microstructure ([0057]: “The inner actuation member 180 may be a rod, shaft, stamped metal, or other suitable mechanical component.”; wherein metals have a crystalline structure as solids).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the forceps disclosed by Shelton so that the body is formed of a first electrically non- conductive material that electrically isolates the electrode and the frame is formed of a different second material with a crystalline microstructure as taught by Moua 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Rockrohr, further in view of Morgan et al., US 20200029962, herein referred to as “Morgan”.
Regarding claim 21, Shelton in view of Rockrohr discloses the forceps of claim 14, with Rockrohr further disclosing a forceps wherein the frame includes: a flange defining the cam track (Figure 39: slot 454a is on a flange of support plate 454), but Shelton in view of Rockrohr does not explicitly disclose a forceps wherein the frame includes an arm extending from the flange and extending at least partially into the body to form the joint.
However, Morgan teaches a forceps (Figure 1) wherein the frame (Figures 150-151: cartridge 8004) includes an arm extending from the flange (Figure 150: anvil coupling member 8006) and extending at least partially into the body to form the joint (Figure 151 and [0442]-[0443]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the forceps disclosed by Shelton so that the frame includes an arm extending from the flange and extending at least partially into the body to form the joint as taught by Morgan so that the frame can move slidably within the body (Morgan [0440]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nora W Rhodes whose telephone number is (571)272-8126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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 on 3032974276. 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.
/NORA W RHODES/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794