Detailed Action1
America Invents Act 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 USC 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2012/0079701 (“Blocher”).
Claim 1 recites a device configured to apply an insulating sleeve to an electrosurgical instrument. Blocher teaches a device to apply a sleeve onto the distal end of an elongated surgical instrument (figs. 1-3, ¶ [0002]). One of skill in the art will appreciate based on the structure of the device, and the shape of the surgical instrument used therewith, that the device can be used to apply an insulating sleeve to an electrosurgical instrument since the device is configured to hold sleeves and configured to apply them to ends of elongated surgical instruments. Blocher teaches the device comprising a housing (i.e. the box-shaped portion of body 5 above the legs), the housing comprising: a first end; a second end (see figure 1 & annotated figure 3 of Blocher below).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in annotated figure 3 of Blocher, above, the top of the device is the first end of the housing, the bottom of the box-shaped body 5 (not including the legs) is interpreted as the second end of the housing, the bottom of plate 7 forms a ledge between a first portion of the channel (i.e. channel within plate 7—including sections 8 and/or 14) and a second portion of the channel (i.e. channel within the box-shaped body 5 from the ledge to the second end of the housing).
Blocher further teaches a hollow channel extending from the first end to the second end (fig. 3), the channel being configured to receive an electrosurgical instrument comprising an end effector connected to a shaft by a distal articulation (¶ [0043], [0045] & [0051]-[0054], wherein since the instrument in Blocher comprises jaw members at a distal end, the device is capable of receiving an end effector of a surgical instrument); a support structure (6) internal to the channel (fig. 3, ¶ [0044]-[0045] & [0048]-[0049], wherein support structure 6 is internal to the portion of the channel), wherein the proximal end of the support structure is located on a ledge that separates a first portion of the channel from a second portion of the channel (see annotated fig. 3 above, wherein support structure/protrusions 6 extend from bottom surface/ledge of plate 7 separating the two channels), the proximal end of the support structure being the end of the support structure closest to the first end of the housing (see annotated fig. 3 above), the support structure being configured to: support an insulating sleeve such that the insulating sleeve surrounds the electrosurgical instrument when the electrosurgical instrument is received by the channel (figs. 3-4); and when the electrosurgical instrument is advanced through the channel from the first end to the second end, release the insulating sleeve onto the electrosurgical instrument (¶ [0051]-[0054]).
Claim 2 recites the first portion of the channel is narrower than the second portion of the channel. As illustrated in figs. 2-3, the first portion of the channel (i.e. portion within plate 7) is narrower than the second portion of the channel (i.e. portion below the ledge) since the plate 7 extends inward from the second channel delimited by the box-shaped body.
Claim 3 recites the first portion of the channel is circular in cross section, the first portion further comprising an opening located on the ledge. As illustrated in figs. 2A & 3, the channel within plate 7 has different portions 8 & 14 (see ¶ [0043] & [0055]), wherein the plurality of protrusions 6 are arranged in a circular shape so that they define circular channel 8 (see also ¶ [0043]-[0045]). This channel 8 reads on the first portion of the channel since this channel 8 is within plate 7, i.e. ledge, has an opening on the plate/ledge 7, and is separated from the second portion of the channel via the bottom of plate/ledge 7 (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Blocher further teaches the support structure comprises a plurality of protrusions (6) surrounding the opening (figs. 2-3), the plurality of protrusions extending distally along an axis that is parallel to an axis along which the channel extends (figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Blocher further teaches the protrusions of the support structure are uniformly positioned around the opening (fig. 2A, ¶ [0044]-[0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-6 and 8-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
On page 9-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the crosshatching of Blocher illustrates the spreading elements 6 extending to the top surface of the plate—thus, not having a proximal end on the ledge.
When applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, the spreading elements can be interpreted as extending from the bottom of the plate 7, i.e. ledge. The spreading elements are integral with plate 7 (see figs. 2a & 3, ¶ [0043]-[0044]). Thus, there can be different reasonable interpretations on where the spreading element begins to extend from the plate. As illustrated in the annotated figure provided in the rejection to claim 1, above, the portion above the ledge can reasonably be interpreted as part of the plate since this portion is planar with and has substantially the same thickness as the rest of the plate 7. Whereas the portions extending downward from the plate can be interpreted as the spreading elements since these elements 6 clearly protrude from a bottom surface of the plate and are not planar with the rest of the plate.
Thus, the examiner believes that it is reasonable to interpret the proximal end of the element as extending from the bottom of the plate, i.e. ledge.
On page 8 of the remarks, Applicant states that the 112b rejections were addressed. The examiner agrees. While the “hollow channel” limitation was not addressed, the examiner has withdrawn this rejection as one of skill in the art would interpret this as an empty channel that allows fluid or objects to pass therethrough.
Conclusion
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 Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Prosecution Insights