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 .
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 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cull et al (5,147,221) in view of Sartor et al (2006/0281360).
Referring to claims 1, 10 and 19, Cull et al teaches a connector system (Figure 1) comprising: a connector plug (A) including a connector housing (24) and a connector pin (30) extending from the connector housing along a longitudinal axis (Col. 4, lines 56-59 and Col. 5, lines 20-30; Figure 1), the connector pin (30) including an elongated body (32) and a protrusion (41) extending therefrom, with the elongated body extending along the longitudinal axis and the protrusion extending in a lateral direction with respect to the longitudinal axis (Col. 5, lines 20-30; Figure 1); and a plug receptacle (B) including an electrical connector disposed therein (Col. 5, lines 30-60), the electrical connector including a substrate (62 and 63) having a notch (non labeled opening shown in Figures 1 and 2 formed by 62 and 63) defined therein and an electrical contact region disposed thereon (Col. 5, lines 60-68), the connector plug (A) removably insertable into the plug receptacle (B) such that the protrusion (41) of the connector pin (30) is positioned within the notch of the electrical connector and the elongated body (32) of the connector pin contacts the electrical contact region of the electrical connector (Col. 4, line 31 through Col. 5, line 68; Figures 1 and 2).
Cull et al fails to expressly teach a connector system for connecting an electrosurgical instrument to an electrosurgical generator. Sartor et al teaches an analogous connector system for connecting an electrosurgical instrument (12) to an electrosurgical generator (14) (paragraphs 0038 and 0040; Figure 1), a connector plug (102) coupled to the electrosurgical instrument and a plug receptacle (B) defined in the electrosurgical generator (14) (paragraphs 0037 and 0045; Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector system, as taught by Cull et al, to be used with an electrosurgical system comprising an electrosurgical instrument and an electrosurgical generator, as taught by Sartor et al, for use in electrosurgical applications to be operative on tissue (paragraph 0006).
Referring to claims 2 and 11, the modified Cull reference teaches wherein the protrusion (41) of the connector pin (30) is positioned between proximal and distal segments of the elongated body (Figures 1-2).
Referring to claims 3 and 12, the modified Cull reference teaches wherein the notch defined in the electrical connector is proximal to the electrical contact region, and the distal segment of the connector pin (30) contacts the electrical contact region when the connector plug is inserted in the plug receptacle (Col. 4, line 31 through Col. 5, line 68; Figures 1 and 2).
Referring to claims 4 and 13, the modified Cull reference teaches wherein the notch and the electrical contact region of the electrical connector are defined on a first surface of the substrate (62/63) (Col. 4, line 31 through Col. 5, line 68; Figures 1 and 2).
Referring to claims 5 and 14, the modified Cull reference teaches wherein the notch and the electrical contact region are disposed on a planar segment of the first surface, and the first surface includes a tapered segment disposed proximal to the planar segment (Col. 4, line 31 through Col. 5, line 68; Figures 1 and 2).
Referring to claims 6 and 15, the modified Cull reference teaches wherein the protrusion (41) of the connector pin and the notch of the electrical connector have complementary geometries (Col. 4, line 31 through Col. 5, line 68; Figures 1 and 2).
Referring to claims 7 and 16, the modified Cull reference teaches wherein the elongated body of the connector pin is formed from a conductive material (Col. 4, line 31 through Col. 5, line 68; Figures 1 and 2) however fails to teach that the protrusion is formed from a non- conductive material. Cull et al teaches using a variety of materials in the connector plug including adjacent material 38 of rigid insulation (38) (Col. 5, lines 20-23).
Due to a lack of disclosed criticality or unexpected result it would have been obvious to one 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 material of the protrusion, as taught by Cull, to be a non-conductive 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.
Referring to claims 9 and 18, the modified Cull reference teaches wherein during insertion of the connector plug into the plug receptacle, the protrusion of the connector pin is configured to slide along the substrate of the electrical connector such that the elongated body of the connector pin does not contact the electrical connector until the protrusion aligns with the notch of the electrical connector (Col. 4, line 31 through Col. 5, line 68; Figures 1 and 2).
Referring to claim 20, Cull et al fails to teach an electrosurgical application. However, Sartor et al teaches inserting an end effector of the electrosurgical instrument into tissue; and actuating an energy activation actuator to control a supply of energy from the electrosurgical generator to the end effector of the electrosurgical instrument (paragraphs 0038-0040; Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector system, as taught by Cull et al, to be used with an electrosurgical system comprising inserting an end effector of the electrosurgical instrument into tissue and actuating an energy activation actuator to control a supply of energy from the electrosurgical generator to the end effector of the electrosurgical instrument, as taught by Sartor et al, for use in electrosurgical applications to be operative on tissue (paragraph 0006).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cull et al (5,147,221) in view of Sartor et al (2006/0281360) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Boudreaux et al (2017/0105754).
Referring to claims 8 and 17, Cull et al fails to expressly teach wherein the electrical connector is a printed circuit board. Boudreaux et al teaches an analogous connector system comprising wherein the electrical connector is a printed circuit board (paragraphs 0142-0144; Figures 13-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical connector, as taught by Cull et al, to be a printed circuit board, as taught by Boudreaux et al, in order to communicate electrical current and to send and receive data (paragraph 0144).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 SAMANTHA M GOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Wed, 7am to 3pm.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
/SAMANTHA M GOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794