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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received 06/11/2026.
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment of claims 1, 13, and 16.
Acknowledgement is made to the cancellation of claims 11 and 14-15.
Any claims listed above as cancelled have sufficiently overcome any rejections set forth in any of the prior office actions.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16-21 are pending. A complete action on the merits appears 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell (US 20120078248 A1) in view of Dycus (US 20040087943 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Worrell teaches a forceps system (Fig. 1; electrosurgical instrument 10) comprising:
an elongate body (Fig. 1; outer sheath 32) with a longitudinal axis that extends from a distal end of the elongate body toward a proximal end of the elongate body;
a forceps (Fig. 1; end effector 40) located at the distal end of the elongate body, the forceps including a first jaw and a second jaw (Fig. 1; first jaw 42 and second jaw 44) opposing the first jaw, at least one of the first jaw or the second jaw being pivotable around a pivot point ([0065]);
a wire guide (Fig. 1-8; articulation section 100) located at a distal portion of the elongate body proximal to the first jaw and the second jaw; and
a wire extending through the wire guide ([0083]- [0084]), and inside the elongate body towards the proximal end of the elongate body,
the wire guide including a spacer ([0083]) shaped to offset the wire from the longitudinal axis.
However, Worrell fails to teach the forceps including a jaw flange configured to engage a drive pin such that proximal movement of the drive pin urges the at least one of the first jaw or the second jaw together.
Worrel instead teaches the use of a firing beam that is longitudinally moveable along part of the end effector and is configured to cam against a feature to provide closure of the jaws ([0069]- [0072]).
Dycus teaches an electrosurgical forceps device having an end effector having two jaw members, a handle assembly, and a shaft located between said end effector and said handle assembly (Abstract, [0059]- [0060]), where the jaw members are controlled by the handle of the handle assembly ([0120]).
Dycus further teaches squeezing the handle to close the jaw members relative to one another as squeezing the handle causes a drive rod to be pulled proximally, which in turn causes a cam pin to move proximally within cam slots of the jaw members and produce the closing action of the jaw members relative to one another ([0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the firing beam which produces the closure of the jaws by camming against the jaws, as is taught by Worrell with the drive rod which proximally moves a cam pin within slots of the jaws to produce the closing action of the jaw members as is taught by Dycus, to produce the predictable result using a driving element to control the closure of the jaws, as is taught by Dycus, as it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
However, Worrell further fails to teach the wire extending along a lateral outside surface of at least one of the first and second jaws.
Dycus teaches an electrosurgical forceps device having an end effector having two jaw members, a handle assembly, and a shaft located between said end effector and said handle assembly (Abstract, [0059]- [0060]). The end effector receiving electrosurgical energy via electrical cables (Fig. 14-15; electrical cables 310a and 310b), which extend from a source of electrosurgical energy, such as a generator, through the handle assembly, extending through the shaft to the end effector ([0061], [0074]).
Dycus further teaches the electrosurgical cables as extending from the distal portion of the shaft to the end effector jaws by extending along a lateral outside surface of the jaws, through a bushing having a seal and along a distal end of the elongated body ([0076], [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the electrosurgical cables extending along the later outside surface of the jaws, as is taught by Dycus into the wire extending through the elongated body to the jaws of Worrell, to produce the predictable result of connecting an electrosurgical from an electrosurgical power source through a handle and elongated body to end effector jaws, as is taught by Dycus, as it has been held that the incorporation of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III)
Regarding claim 2, Worrell further teaches the forceps system of claim 1, wherein:
each of the first jaw comprises a first jaw flange extending proximally into the elongate body from a pivot point ([0069]);
and the second jaw comprises a second jaw flange extending proximally into the elongate body from the pivot point (Fig. 2; flanges 62 and 64).
In accordance with the above rejection of claim 1, Dycus further teaches the wire extends around the first jaw flange and around the second jaw flange within the elongate body ([0074], [0094]).
Regarding claim 3, Worrell teaches the forceps system of claim 1, wherein:
the elongate body comprises an inner shaft (Fig. 6-8; firing beam 160 extends through bore 130) at least partially disposed within an outer shaft;
the inner shaft and the outer shaft extend between the proximal end of the elongate body and the distal end of the elongate body; and the wire extends from the wire guide into the inner shaft ([0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Worrell teaches the forceps system of claim 3, wherein the inner shaft comprises a drive shaft for actuating at least one of the first jaw or the second jaw ([0083]- [0084]).
Regarding claim 5, Worrell teaches the forceps system of claim 4, wherein the wire guide comprises a slot arranged for passthrough of the inner shaft from the proximal end of the elongate body towards the forceps ([0083]).
Regarding claim 6, Worrell teaches the forceps system of claim 1, wherein the wire guide comprises one or more wire holders for securing the wire through the wire guide ([0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Worrell teaches the forceps system of claim 1, further comprising a handle extending from the proximal end of the elongate body, the handle shaped for operator grip of the forceps, the wire internally extending towards the handle (Fig. 1; handpiece 20).
Regarding claim 8, Dycus further teaches the forceps system of claim 3, further comprising one or more cutouts on the distal end of the outer shaft to permit clearance for wiring, the one or more cutouts extending from an outside surface of the first jaw to an inside surface of the first jaw (Fig. 14; distal portion of shaft 12 distal of channels 19a and 19b).
Regarding claim 9, Dycus further teaches the forceps system of claim 8, wherein the one or more cutouts comprises a stepped cut ([0074], [0094]).
Regarding claim 10, Dycus further teaches the forceps system of claim 8, wherein the one or more angled cuts cutouts comprises a curved cut ([0074], [0094]).
Regarding claim 12, Worrell teaches the forceps system of claim 3, wherein the spacer comprises a curved perimeter to allow clearance between the outer shaft and the wire guide ([0081]- [0083]).
Regarding claims 16-20, the method steps are the same as described as the steps the apparatus and system are configured to be produced from and therefore taught in the same way as seen in claims 1-10 and 12.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerkle (US 20140239036 A1) in view of Yanuma (US 20080009857 A1) and Dycus (US 20040087943 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Zerkle teaches a forceps device (Fig. 1; surgical instrument 10) comprising:
an elongate body (Fig. 1; closure tube 32) extending from a distal portion of the elongate body to a proximal portion of the elongate body; and
a forceps (Fig. 1; end effector 12) extending from the distal portion of the elongate body,
the forceps including a first jaw (Fig. 1; lower jaw 16) that is attached to the elongate body at an attachment locus ([0044]- [0045]),
the forceps including a second jaw (Fig. 1; pivotable anvil 18) opposing the first jaw and being actuatable for opening and closing the forceps.
However, Zerkle fails to teach the second jaw including a jaw flange configured to engage a drive pin such that proximal movement of the drive pin urges the second jaw towards the first jaw.
Zerkle instead teaches the use of a firing beam that is longitudinally translatable is configured to provide closure of the jaws ([0046]).
Dycus teaches an electrosurgical forceps device having an end effector having two jaw members, a handle assembly, and a shaft located between said end effector and said handle assembly (Abstract, [0059]- [0060]), where the jaw members are controlled by the handle of the handle assembly ([0120]).
Dycus further teaches squeezing the handle to close the jaw members relative to one another as squeezing the handle causes a drive rod to be pulled proximally, which in turn causes a cam pin to move proximally within cam slots of the jaw members and produce the closing action of the jaw members relative to one another ([0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the firing beam which produces the closure of the jaws by, as is taught by Zerkle with the drive rod which proximally moves a cam pin within slots of the jaws to produce the closing action of the jaw members as is taught by Dycus, to produce the predictable result using a driving element to control the closure of the jaws, as is taught by Dycus, as it has been held that the substitution of one known element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Zerkle further fails to teach the first jaw being offset toward a lateral side of the elongate.
Yanuma teaches a treatment instrument having forceps where a first forceps piece is freely rotatable so as to hold biological tissue (Abstract).
Yanuma further teaches the treatment portion body as having a protruding condition so as to support and rotatably attach the first forceps piece (Fig. 27-29).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the supporting portion as being a portion which is protruding to provide a known position for the movable forceps piece to be attached, as is taught by Yanuma, into the forceps device having a moveable and immovable jaw as is taught by Zerkle, to produce the predictable result of a known configuration which allows the movable forceps jaw to be attached to and movable relative to the immovable jaw, as is taught by Yanuma, as broadly as is currently claimed, as it has been held that the incorporation of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerkle (US 20140239036 A1) in view of Yanuma (US 20080009857 A1), Dycus (US 20040087943 A1) and Ward (US 20150105821 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Zerkle teaches the forceps device of claim 13, wherein: the first jaw is attached to the elongate body ([0040], [0042], [0045]).
However, Zerkle fails to specifically teach this attachment as being via welding; and
the attachment locus is a weld.
Zerkle further teaches the distal portion of the elongate body as being connected to the jaws of the forceps by an articulation joint which is controlled by a camming engagement (Abstract, [0038], [0049]).
Ward teaches a forceps device having a handpiece, a tubular member, and a pair of jaws (Abstract), wherein the jaws are connected by a pivot joint having a camming control ([0065]).
Ward further teaches the connection at the point of the camming shafts as being any of a variety of connections, such as welding ([0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the known connection of welding within a camming control of jaws to the distal end of a tubular shaft of a forceps device, as is taught by Ward, into the forceps device having camming engagement for controlling distal jaws, as is taught by Zerkle, to produce the predictable result of controlling jaws by an articulation joint which relies of camming control, as is taught by Ward, as it has been held that the incorporation of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result is an obvious modification. MPEP 2141(III).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Specifically, applicant’s arguments of the limitations that art not taught by the Worrell in view of Dycus and Slater reference are moot in view of the new rejections under the newly provided rejection of Worrell and Dycus.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY REGAN LANCASTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-4 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached on (571) 272-1213. 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.
/L.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights