DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 June 2025 has been entered in light of the response filed 29 December 2025.
Notice of 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 Arguments
Applicant argues the term “pushing members” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112f because the claim was amended to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Specifically, claim 1 was amended to recite the pushing member is “disposed within tubular members”. This language does not provide sufficient structure for the pushing member – it merely discloses where the pushing member is located on the instrument relative to other elements. As claimed, the “tubular member” is not part of the pushing member; rather, the tubular member surrounds the pushing member. For these reasons, the term “pushing member” is interpreted under 112f.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “the set of constrictors are positioned in a curved shape to form a hook-like structure”. Similar language was previous recited in dependent claim 9 and rejected under Heiliger’989 in view of Witt’787. Applicant argues this language overcomes Witt’787 because Witt’787’s constrictors (i.e. jaws 220a, 220b) are not curved to form a hook-like structure. This argument is not persuasive. The term hook is defined as “a curved or bent tool for catching, holding, or pulling something” according to Britannica Dictionary (accessed online 16 March 2026). Applicant’s own constrictors in Figure 1 are merely curved into a hook-like structure. The specification does not provide additional guidance on what is meant by the term “hook-like” so under broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “hook-like” is given its plain and ordinary meaning. In light of this, the curved constrictors of Witt’787 teach a hook-like structure. Therefore, the rejection is updated to reflect the amended claim language but otherwise maintained.
No specific arguments were presented regarding the rejections under Yates’452 and Tischer’216.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tubular members recited in claims 1 and 5, the bob recited in claim 1 and the second set of levers introduced in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 1 recites a “a first set of pushing members disposed within tubular members”. However, Figure 1 only shows a single tubular member associated with a single pushing member 104a1. There is a second pushing member 104a2 associated with a second tubular member; however this is separate element introduced in claim 4. Therefore, the figures do not show a first set (i.e. a plurality) of pushing members disposed within multiple tubular members. Similarly, the figures do not show a second set of pushing members, as recited in claim 4.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 14 recites “wherein movement of the set of constrictors into contracted position…”. This should be amended to recite “wherein movement of the set of constrictors into the contracted position…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4, line 9 recites “the at least winding member”. This should be amended to recite “the at least one winding member”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pushing members” in claim 1, “pushing member” in claim 2, “winding member” in claim 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-5 and 7-8 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “bobs coupled to the set of constrictors”. The term “bob” is used in [0025], [0049] and [0056] of the specification; however, these passages describe the bobs as coupled to the pushing member, not the set of constrictors. None of these passages describe the bobs being pushed by the pushing member. The bobs are not shown in the drawings.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “a first set of pushing members disposed within tubular members”. However, the specification and drawings, as filed, only show the first set of pushing members 104a1 in a single tubular member – see Figure 1 and paragraph [0048]. The specification and drawings show a second tubular member associated with the second set of pushing members 104a2. However, there is no disclosure of a plurality of tubular members associated with the first set of pushing members, as recited in amended claim 1.
Similarly, claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites “a set of tubular members”. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is reciting at least four tubular members: “tubular members” in claim 1 and “a set of tubular members” in claim 5. However, the specification only discloses two tubular members.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “bobs coupled to the set of constrictors”. The term “bob” is used in [0025], [0049] and [0056] of the specification. However, it is unclear what is meant by this term. The term “bob” has different meanings, including “a quick up and down movement”, “a small polishing wheel of solid felt or leather with rounded edges”, “a hanging ball or weight” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed online 15 October 2024). However, none of these definitions make sense in the context of Applicant’s claim. No further guidance is provided by the specification and the “bob” is not shown in the figures. Therefore, it is unclear how Applicant intends to limit claim 1.
Examiner notes original claim 6 recited a bob and a similar rejection was made in the 11/4/2024 Office Action. Original claim 6 was subsequently cancelled.
Claim 1 introduces “a first set of pushing members disposed within tubular members”. This is unclear because the drawings only show a single pushing member 104a1 and a single tubular member, which is unlabeled but shown in Figure 1 surrounded 104a1. Paragraph [0059] of the disclosure as filed states the first set of pushing members may include one or more pushing members.
In light of this disclosure, the term “a first set of pushing members” is interpreted to include a single pushing member. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The phrase “a first set of pushing members” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a single pushing member” while the accepted meaning is “multiple pushing members”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 4 has similar issues with respect to the “second set of pushing members”. In light of the disclosure in paragraph [0059], the term “a second set of pushing members” is interpreted to include a single pushing member.
Further regarding the “first set of pushing members” in claim 1, it is unclear how the single pushing member connects to the constrictors. For example, Figure 1 shows the pushing member 104a1 connected to a winding member 104c. However, in Figure 1, the pushing member 104a1 is discontinuous with the elongate members extending distally from the winding member 104c.
Claim 4 introduces a winding member. This is shown in Figure 1 as a tubular element 104c. Based on the description and the drawings, it is unclear how this element performs any sort of winding function. It appears to be a tube that, at most, moves in a linear direction via actuation of the second set of pushing members. Further, the “winding member” 104c is also connected to the first set of pushing members 104a1. Therefore, does the winding member also move upon actuation on the first set of pushing members? If so, how? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “a first set of pushing members disposed within tubular members”. Claim 5 recites “a set of tubular members”. It is unclear if claim 5 is referring to the same tubular members introduced in claim 1 or different, additional tubular members. As discussed in the 112a rejection above, the specification discloses a single tubular member associated with the first set of pushing members and a second, single tubular member associated with the second set of pushing members. Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim four different tubular members or a single tubular member associated with the first set of pushing members and a second single tubular member associated with the second set of tubular members. Clarification is needed.
Any claim not specifically address is rejected based on its dependency from a base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heiliger (US Patent Publication 2019/0059989) in view of Lichtman (US Patent 5,318,589) in view of Witt et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0105787).
Claim 1: Heiliger’989 discloses a surgical instrument (paragraph [0002]), the instrument comprising:
a handle (30) configured to move between an open position and a closed position (paragraph [0071]);
at least one clamping structure (141, 148, 110, 120) coupled to the handle (Figure 5), the at least one clamping structure comprising:
a first set of pushing members (141, interpreted to be a single pushing member in light of the description in the specification – see 112b rejections above) disposed within tubular members (82 and 210) and operatively coupled to the handle via levers (46, 46; Figure 5) wherein movement of the handle from the open position to the closed position facilitates longitudinal movement of the first set of pushing members (paragraphs [0072], [0073]);
a set of constrictors (110, 120) coupled to the first set pushing members (Figure 5) such that movement of the first set of pushing members pushes bobs (150a, 150b) (enables movement of the set of constrictors from a designed position in which the set of constrictors are positioned away from each other (open) and to a contracted position (closed) in which the set of constrictors are positioned close to each other (paragraph [0073]),
wherein movement of the set of constrictors into contracted position facilitate clamping of a tissue (the jaws 110, 120 can be used to clamp tissue).
Heiliger’989 does not teach at least three constrictors.
Like Heiliger’989, Lichtman’589 teaches a pair of constrictors (4, 6) for grasping tissues. Alternately, Lichtman’589 teaches the pair of constrictors can be split into three or more constrictors (column 6, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Heiliger’989 such that the constrictors into three or more, as taught by Lichtman’589, in order to allow the surgeon to more easily to grasp tissue having a different shape or thickness.
Heiliger’989 does not teach the constrictors are curved to form a hook-like structure.
Like Heiliger’989, Witt’787 teaches a pair of constrictors (220a, 220b). Witt’787 teaches the constrictors have a curved shape with a hook-like structure (Figures 6, 7). Witt’787 teaches this advantageous for improving access to tissue (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Heiliger’989 such that the pair of constrictors are curved, as taught by Witt’787, in order to provide the stated advantage.
Claim 2: Heiliger’989 discloses the instrument comprises a cutting structure that comprises:
a trigger (62) configured with the handle and to switch between an extended position and a pushed position (Figure 5; paragraph [0083]);
a pushing member (162; interpreted under 112f to be a shaft and its equivalents) configured with the trigger such that switching of the trigger from the extended position to the pushed position enables linear movement of the pushing member (paragraph [0084], [0085]); and
a cutting tool (164) coupled with the pushing member (paragraph [0085]) such that the movement of the pushing member moves the cutting tool to cut the tissue (paragraph [0085]).
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiliger’989 in view of Lichtman’589 in view of Witt’787, as applied to claim 2, further in view of Erickson et al. (US Patent Publication 2019/0053904).
Claim 7: Heiliger’989 does not teach a second clamping structure.
Like Heiliger’989, Erickson’904 teaches a device having a handle (39) and a clamping structure having a pushing member (68R) and a set of constrictors (jaws 52R).
Erickson’904 further teaches providing the device with a second clamping structure including a pushing member (68L) and a set of constrictors (jaws 52L). There is a cutting structure (78) located between the first and second clamping structures (Figure 10; paragraph [0045])
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that providing a second clamping structure, as taught by Erickson’904, is advantageous because it provides a secure grip on the tissue to be cut.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Heiliger’989 such that there is a second clamping structure and the cutting structure is located between the clamping structures, as taught by Erickson’904, in order to provide the stated advantages.
Claim 8: Heiliger’989 teaches the surgical instrument comprises a first lever (153) coupled with the first clamping structure (Figure 5). Heiliger’989 does not teach a second lever coupled with a second clamping structure.
Like Heiliger’989, Erickson’904 teaches a device having a handle (39) and a clamping structure having a pushing member (68R) and a set of constrictors (jaws 52R).
Erickson’904 renders the use of a second clamping structure obvious -see the rejection to claim 7 above.
In the resulting device – in which Heiliger’989’s instrument has a first and second clamping structure, as rendered obvious by Erickson’904 - Heiliger’989 would further have a second lever coupled to the second clamping structure, in the same way that the first lever (153) is coupled to the first clamping structure (Figure 5).
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates (US Patent 5,624,452) in view of Lichtman (US Patent 5,318,589) in view of Witt et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0105787).
Claim 1: Yates’452 discloses a surgical instrument (column 1, lines 5-10), the instrument comprising:
a handle (16, 12) configured to move between an open position and a closed position (Figure 1 shows open; Figure 2 shows closed);
at least one clamping structure (38, 66, 32, 34) coupled to the handle (16, 12), the at least one clamping structure comprising:
a first set of pushing members (38, interpreted to be a single pushing member in light of the description in the specification – see 112b rejections above) disposed within tubular members (30, 44) and operatively coupled to the handle via levers (66 and 37a; Figure 5, 6) wherein movement of the handle from open position to the closed position facilitates the movement of the first set of pushing members into longitudinal direction (column 4, lines 31-34 and column 5, lines 35-41);
a set of constrictors (32, 34) coupled to the first set of the pushing members (Figures 1, 2, 5) such that longitudinal movement of the first set of the pushing members pushes bobs (detent at the distal end of 38) coupled to the set of constrictors (Figure 1) and enables movement of the set of constrictors from a designed position in which the set of constrictors are positioned away from each other (open) and to a contracted position (closed) in which the set of constrictors are positioned closed to each other (column 5, lines 35-41),
wherein movement of the set of constrictors into contracted position facilitate clamping of a tissue (the jaws clamp tissue).
Yates’452 does not teach at least three constrictors.
Like Yates’452, Lichtman’589 teaches a pair of constrictors (4, 6) for grasping tissues. Alternately, Lichtman’589 teaches the pair of constrictors can be split into three or more jaws (column 6, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Yates’452 such that the constrictors into three or more, as taught by Lichtman’589, in order to allow the surgeon to more easily to grasp tissue having a different shape or thickness.
Yates’452 does not teach the constrictors are curved to form a hook-like structure.
Like Yates’452, Witt’787 teaches a pair of constrictors (220a, 220b) that have a curved shape with a hook-like structure (Figures 6, 7). Witt’787 teaches this advantageous for improving access to tissue (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Yates’452 such that the pair of constrictors are curved, as taught by Witt’787, in order to provide the stated advantage.
Claim 4: Yates’452 discloses the at least one clamping structure comprises:
a second set of pushing members (41, 13) coupled to the handle (Figure 5, 6);
and at least one winding member (17) movably coupled to the second set of pushing members such that movement of the second set of pushing members enables the movement of the at least one winding member (column 4, lines 49-59),
wherein the set of constrictors are positioned with a predefined gap between adjacent edges of the corresponding constrictors (there is a gap between the jaws when grasping tissue), and wherein the at least winding member is configured to pass through the gap between two adjacent constrictors (winding members 17 are fired from jaw 32 towards jaw 34).
Claim 5, as best understood: Yates’452 discloses the instrument comprises a set of tubular members (30, 44) having a hollow structure (Figures, 1, 5). Each of the tubular members (30, 44) comprising each of the first and second sets of pushing members (sheath 30 surrounds the first pushing member 38 and second set of pushing members 41, 43; sheath 44 surrounds 38 and 41, 43 – see Figure 5).
Claims 1, 2, 3 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischer (US Patent 4,655,216) in view of Lichtman (US Patent 5,318,589) in view of Witt et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0105787).
Claim 1: Tischer’216 discloses a surgical instrument (column 1, lines 7-8), the instrument comprising:
a handle (1, 2) configured to move between an open position and a closed position (column 4, lines 19-21);
at least one clamping structure (A, B, C, D) coupled to the handle (1, 2), the at least one clamping structure comprising:
a first set of pushing members (D; interpreted to be a single pushing member in light of the description in the specification – see 112b rejections above ) disposed within tubular members (bottom of 7 and 8) and operatively coupled to the handle via levers (top of element 2 above pivot and top of element 1 above pivot; Figure 1, 2) wherein movement of the handle from open position to the closed position facilitates the longitudinal movement of the first set of pushing members (column 4, lines 20-25 and column 4, lines 42-43);
a set of constrictors (A, B) coupled to the first set of pushing members (Figures 1, 2) such that longitudinal movement of the first set of the pushing members enables movement of the set of pushing members pushes bobs (I; Figure 2) coupled to the set of constrictors from a designed position in which the set of constrictors are positioned away from each other (open) and to a contracted position (closed) in which the set of constrictors are positioned closed to each other (column 5, lines 9-11),
wherein movement of the set of constrictors into contracted position facilitate clamping of a tissue (the jaws clamp tissue).
Tischer’216 does not teach at least three constrictors.
Like Tischer’216, Lichtman’589 teaches a pair of constrictors (4, 6) for grasping tissues. Alternately, Lichtman’589 teaches the pair of constrictors can be split into three or more constrictors (column 6, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Tischer’216 such that the constrictors into three or more, as taught by Lichtman’589, in order to allow the surgeon to more easily to grasp tissue having a different shape or thickness.
Tischer’216 does not teach the constrictors are curved to form a hook-like structure.
Like Tischer’216, Witt’787 teaches a pair of constrictors (220a, 220b). Witt’787 teaches the constrictors have a curved shape with a hook-like structure (Figures 6, 7). Witt’787 teaches this advantageous for improving access to tissue (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Yates’452 such that the pair of constrictors are curved, as taught by Witt’787, in order to provide the stated advantage.
Claim 2: Tischer’216 discloses the instrument comprises a cutting structure that comprises:
a trigger (3) configured with the handle and to switch between an extended position and a pushed position (column 4, lines 19-21);
a pushing member (H; interpreted under 112f to be a shaft and its equivalents) configured with the trigger such that switching of the trigger from the extended position to the pushed position enables linear movement of the pushing member (column 5, lines 10-12) ; and
a cutting tool (F) coupled with the pushing member (Figure 2; column 5, lines 10-12) such that the movement of the pushing member moves the cutting tool to cut the tissue (column 5, lines 32-33).
Claim 3: Tischer’216 discloses the cutting structure comprises two rotating members (pivot J, pivot at connection between trigger 3 and pushing member H), the two rotating members being movably configured on opposite side of the pushing member in longitudinal direction (Figures 1, 2), wherein one of the two rotating members is movably coupled to the trigger such that switching of the trigger from the extended position to the pushed position facilitates rotation of the one of the two rotating members (Figure 1 shows that actuating the trigger allows for pivoting at proximal end), and wherein another one of the two rotating members is movably coupled to the cutting tool such that rotation of the another one of the two rotating members facilitates operation of the cutting tool (Figure 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY BACHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm and alternating Fridays.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached on 571-272-7134. 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.
Lindsey Bachman
/L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 16 March 2026
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771