DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 11/17/25, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 25- 31, 36-37, and 39-49 are pending with claims 33-35, 38 canceled, claims 45-49 added, and claims 25, 26, 29, 36, 37, 39, and 40 amended. The following is a complete response to the 11/17/25 communication.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 36-37, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrell (US 2013/0023868) in view of Marczyk (US 2013/0123783).
Regarding claim 36, Worrell teaches a surgical system, comprising: an end effector (40),
comprising: a first jaw defining a first slot (42); a second jaw defining a second slot (44), wherein the first jaw is moveable relative to the second jaw between an open position and a closed position (Figs. 3-4 jaws open and close, par. [0048]); and an electrode configured to apply radiofrequency (RF) energy to tissue positioned between the first jaw and the second jaw (electrodes 50, 52 as in par. [0049] to apply RF energy to tissue between the jaws); a knife configured to move through the first slot and the second slot (146); a tube comprising an articulation section and extending along a longitudinal axis (130 with articulation section 136); a non-rotatable member coupled to the end effector (par. [0072] no rotation of any portion of shaft proximal to 136), wherein the end effector is rotatable about the longitudinal axis relative to the non-rotatable member and the tube based on the rotation of the knife (end effector rotates via knob 134 relative to 130 as in par. [0072]).
Worrell is silent regarding a rotatable closure member coupled to the tube, wherein the rotatable closure member is rotatable about the longitudinal axis relative to the non-rotatable member and the tube based on rotation of the end effector, and wherein the rotatable closure member is configured to move the first jaw toward the closed position.
However, Marczyk teaches a rotatable closure member coupled to a distal end of an outer tube (76 at the distal end of tube 46), wherein the rotatable closure member is configured to rotate the first jaw toward the closed position (76 advances to close the jaws 40 and 42 as in Fig. 4); and a link coupled to the rotatable closure member and the first jaw (link 78 between 76 and the jaws), wherein the link is configured to rotate the first jaw toward the open position (when 76 retracts, 78 slides along 80a-b to open the jaws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Worrell with the closure mechanism of Marczyk as an alternate way to close the jaws that would work equally well.
Regarding claim 37, Worrell teaches the system further comprising a link coupled to the rotatable closure member (driver tube 138 coupled to trigger and end effector as in par. [0071]), wherein the link is configured to move the first jaw toward the open position (driver tube 138 to actuate the jaw).
Regarding claim 39, Worrell further teaches: a first articulation band coupled to the non-rotatable member (articulation band 160); and a second articulation band coupled to the non-rotatable member (articulation band 170), wherein the end effector is configured to rotate about the articulation section based on movement of the first articulation band in a first direction and movement of the second articulation band in a second direction opposite the first direction (end effector rotates about 136 based on 160 and 170 moving).
Regarding claim 48, Worrell is silent, but Marczyk teaches wherein the tube is translatable between a first position and a second position (46 translates in a proximal or distal position), and wherein the rotatable closure member is configured to move the first jaw toward the closed position based on the outer tube translating toward the second position (76 moves the jaws to the closed position based on the translated position of 76).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-31, 40-47, and 49 are allowed.
The closest prior art of record found are Worrell, Marczyk, and Garrison (US 2012/0259331). However, the prior art does not teach the first and second link pins. While Marczyk teaches pins 70 and 78, the link pin 78 is not rotatably coupled to the link, but rather is a camming pin. Garrison teaches a forceps device with jaws that rotate via a pin and tube, but not a link with two link pins for rotating the jaws.
Examiner has not found any piece of art that discloses, fairly suggests, or makes obvious the arrangement.
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 BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights