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
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 6/24/2026.
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. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockrohr in view of Moua. Now, based on amendments to the claim language, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moua.
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 9-13, 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 claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 regarding claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that Shelton in view of Rockrohr does not disclose the claim language “a frame coupled to the body at a joint and coupled to the actuator, 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, the 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”. Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Shelton so that the frame includes a cam track configured to receive a cam pin therein. However, 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). The “frame” of claim 14 is disclosed by closure member 33620, which has a slot configured to receive a pin therein (rotatable drive shaft 33610 of Shelton). The slot of closure member 33620 is not specifically a cam track and the pin is not specifically a cam pin, which is why Rockrohr discloses those particular elements. Applicant argues that by modifying closure member 33620 of Shelton to include a cam track, the closure member 33620 would no longer move as the cam pin move along cam track, and thus the actuator would not be operable to move the cam pin along the cam track to cause the jaw to move. It appears that applicant is arguing that the slot in closure member 33620 cannot be a cam slot for the device to operate as intended. This is not the combination that the examiner is describing. Rather, the cam slot and cam pin of Rockrohr would be added additionally to the slot that contains rotatable drive shaft 33610. Thus, in combination, as closure member 33620 moves distally and proximally, a cam pin attached to closure member 33620 and second jaw 33230 would also move within the cam slot, thus causing the jaw to move. Therefore, the combination does disclose the claim language of claim 14 and the previous rejection of claim 14 stands.
Regarding claims 15 and 21, see arguments above regarding claim 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 1-2, 4 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moua, US 20140257285, herein referred to as “Moua”.
Regarding claim 1, Moua discloses an end effector for a surgical device (Figures 2A-3A), comprising: a jaw body of the end effector (Figure 2A: jaw member 132 and insulator 142), the jaw body 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 a frame (Figure 2A: jaw member 130) coupled to the jaw body at a joint (Figure 2A: the joint is the region where pivot pin 144 and cam pin 192 are located), at least a portion of the frame movable relative to the jaw body about the joint (Figures 2A-B), the frame connecting the jaw body to the surgical device (Figures 2A-B: jaw member 130 connects jaw member 132 to outer shaft member 160), the frame including: a cam track configured to receive a cam pin therein ([0065]: “The cam pin 192 extends through the flags 132a, 132b of the lower jaw member 132 and the flags 130a and 130b of the upper jaw member 130.”), the cam pin movable along the cam track to cause the jaw body and the frame to move together ([0067]); and one or more features that are configured to facilitate movement of the jaw body ([0065] and [0061]); wherein: the jaw body is configured to receive at least a portion of the frame to at least partially define the joint (Figure 2A: proximal portion of jaw member 132 surrounds proximal portion of jaw member 130). Moua does not explicitly disclose an end effector wherein the frame is formed of a second material or is formed of the first material but is processed differently from the first material.
However, 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 frame of Moua so that it is formed of a second material or is formed of the first material but is processed differently from the first material, 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.
Regarding claim 2, Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, 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.”).
Regarding claim 4, Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, further comprising an electrode (Figure 2A: sealing plate 148) held by the jaw body ([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 frame ([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.”).
Regarding claim 25, Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, wherein: the portion of the frame movable relative to the jaw body about the joint is a first portion (Figures 2A-B: jaw member 130 is movable relative to jaw member 132 about a joint at camp pin 192); and a second portion of the frame is fixed to the jaw body (Figures 2A-B: portion of jaw member 130 at pivot pin 144).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moua in view of Jun et al., US 20210298762, herein referred to as “Jun”.
Regarding claim 5, 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 Moua 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 Moua in view of Kaplan et al., US 20150283298, herein referred to as “Kaplan”.
Regarding claim 7, Moua discloses the end effector of claim 1, wherein both the jaw body and the frame are both a material with a same chemical formula ([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.”), but does not explicitly disclose a device wherein both the jaw body and the frame are a ceramic with a same chemical formula, and wherein the jaw body has different material properties than the frame.
However, Kaplan teaches a device wherein both the jaw body and the frame are a ceramic with a same chemical formula, and wherein the jaw body has different material properties than the frame ([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 jaw body and the frame are a ceramic with a same chemical formula, and wherein the jaw body has different material properties than the frame, 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 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moua in view of Shelton, IV et al., US 20210186502, herein referred to as “Shelton”.
Regarding claim 9, 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 jaw body relative to the frame during a first part of articulating movement of the jaw body, and wherein the joint is configured to allow a second more restrictive relative movement of the jaw body relative to the frame during a second part of the articulating movement of the jaw body.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Figures 75-76) wherein the joint is configured to allow a first relative movement of the jaw body relative to the frame during a first part of articulating movement of the jaw body ([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 jaw body relative to the frame during a second part of the articulating movement of the jaw body ([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 Moua so that the joint is configured to allow a first relative movement of the jaw body relative to the frame during a first part of articulating movement of the jaw body, and wherein the joint is configured to allow a second more restrictive relative movement of the jaw body relative to the frame during a second part of the articulating movement of the jaw body 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, 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 jaw body, the jaw body 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 jaw body the jaw body 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 jaw body, the jaw body 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 jaw body, the jaw body 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 Moua so that the joint has a first shape at a first portion thereof such that, during a first part of the movement of the jaw body, the jaw body 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 jaw body the jaw body 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, 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 jaw body and the frame for a first portion of the movement of the jaw body, and wherein the joint is configured to provide for intimate contact between the jaw body and the frame through a second portion of the movement of the jaw body.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Figures 75-76) wherein the joint is configured to provide for a relative movement between the jaw body (Figures 75-76: second jaw 33230) and the frame (Figures 75-76: closure member 33620) for a first portion of the movement of the jaw body (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 jaw body and the frame through a second portion of the movement of the jaw body (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 Moua so that the joint is configured to provide for a relative movement between the jaw body and the frame for a first portion of the movement of the jaw body, and wherein the joint is configured to provide for direct contact between the jaw body and the frame through a second portion of the movement of the jaw body 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, 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 Moua 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, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton in view of Rockrohr, US 20160303743, herein referred to as “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 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]).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney et al., US 20130079774, herein referred to as “Whitney”.
Regarding claim 22, Whitney discloses an end effector for a surgical device (Figure 1: end-effector assembly 22), comprising: a jaw body (Figure 3: first support base 129 and insulator 129’) formed of a first material that is electrically non-conductive (Figure 3: insulator 129’), the jaw body including a recess (Figure 4: inner lateral surface 136 and notch “N”); and a frame coupled to the jaw body at a joint (Figures 4-5: arm member 123 and [0075]: “Engagement structure 131b of the second support base 129 and the engagement structure 141 of the second arm member 123 may be joined by a welding-type process, e.g., laser welded, or joined together by other suitable process, e.g., adhesively joined.”), the frame configured to connect the jaw body to the surgical device (Figures 1 and 5), the frame including: a flange portion (Figures 4-5: part of arm member 123 where elongated angled slot 181b and pivot hole 186b are located), the flange portion including: a pivot journal configured to receive a pivot pin therein to pivotably couple the frame to the surgical device (Figure 3: pivot hole 186b); and a cam track configured to receive a drive pin therein (Figure 3: elongated angled shot 181b), the drive pin movable along the cam track to articulate the end effector ([0048]: “As can be appreciated, squeezing the movable handle 40 toward the fixed handle 50 pulls the drive sleeve (not shown) proximally to impart movement to the jaw assemblies 110 and 120 from an open position, wherein the jaw assemblies 110 and 120 are disposed in spaced relation relative to one another, to a clamping or closed position, wherein the jaw assemblies 110 and 120 cooperate to grasp tissue therebetween.”); and a beam extending distally from the flange portion (Figure 4: engagement structure 141), the beam configured to be received by the recess to at least partially define the joint ([0076]). Whitney does not explicitly disclose an end effector comprising a frame formed of a second material or is formed of the first material but is processed differently from the first material.
However, 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 frame of Whitney so that it is formed of a second material or is formed of the first material but is processed differently from the first material, 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.
Regarding claim 23, Whitney discloses the end effector of claim 22, wherein: a first portion of the frame is movable relative to the jaw body about the joint; and a second portion of the frame is fixed to the jaw body ([0077]; also see Figure 7 for reference).
Regarding claim 24, Whitney discloses the end effector of claim 22, wherein the recess is configured such that a first portion of the beam is fixed within the recess and a second portion of the beam is movable within the recess ([0077]; also see Figure 7 for reference).
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 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
Prosecution Insights