DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to amendments received on 02/04/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended and claim 2 canceled. A complete action on the merits of claims 1 and 3-20 follows below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “an underside of the upper lobe”. It is notes that claim 1 has been amended to introduce “a lower surface of the upper lobe”, it is unclear if the two are the same or different. Clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the distal underside of the upper lobe”. Since no distal underside of the upper lobe has been introduced prior to this recitation, it is unclear what area “the” refers to. In addition, it is notes that claim 1 has been amended to introduce “a lower surface of the upper lobe”, it is unclear if the two are the same or different. Clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomez (US Pub. No. 2019/0274666).
Regarding Claim 1, Gomez teaches a handheld instrument 101 (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
an upper lobe 104; a lower lobe 108/109; and a neck 106 operable to be contacted by a user’s hand when the handheld instrument is in use (“a recessed or narrow portion 106 (also referred to herein as recessed hand purlicue area 106)” [0025] and Figs. 1-3);
wherein the upper lobe 104 and the lower lobe 108/109 are joined at the neck 106 and extend from the neck (each of sections 104 and 108/109 are joined at the narrow section 106), and wherein the upper lobe is substantially perpendicular to the lower lobe (Figs. 1-6 and annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
259
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a lower surface of the upper lobe 104 tapers towards the neck 106 (see the annotated figure below); and wherein a middle portion of the neck is narrower than the upper lobe and the lower lobe (see the annotated figure below where diameter b is narrower than diameter a and c).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
418
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Gomez teaches wherein a cross sectional dimension of the lower lobe relative to the neck is selected from the group consisting of: 2:1 ratio, 3:1 ratio, 4:1 ratio, or 5:1 ratio (given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the lower lobe is at least twice (maybe more) than the diameter of the neck portion, see the annotated figure below L2 vs. L3).
PNG
media_image4.png
247
321
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Gomez teaches wherein weight is distributed across the upper lobe and the lower lobe to cause the handheld instrument to balance at a point between the upper lobe and the lower lobe proximate to the neck, wherein the point is an equilibrium position, wherein the upper lobe counterbalances the handheld instrument, and wherein the handheld instrument is held in between a user's thumb and index finger (Figs. 4-6) and returns to the equilibrium position when the upper lobe or the lower lobe is subject to a perturbance that displaces the handheld instrument from the equilibrium position ([0025]-[0031]).
Regarding Claim 5, Gomez teaches wherein a distal portion of an underside of the upper lobe and a proximate portion of the back of the lower lobe form an arcuate and concave profile with an open C shape configured as a catch for the handheld instrument to rest on a thenar web space in between a user's thumb and index finger (Figs. 1-6, especially seeing the underside of the upper lobe in Fig. 5B and a proximate portion of the back of the lower lobe in Fig. 5A forming an open c configured as a catch for the handheld instrument to rest on a thenar web space in between a user's thumb and index finger in Figs. 4A, 5B and 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Gomez teaches wherein a first angle between a surface of the distal underside of the upper lobe and a surface of the proximate back of the lower lobe is acute (Figs. 1-6), wherein a second angle between a longitudinal axis of the upper lobe and a longitudinal axis of the lower lobe is obtuse, and wherein the first angle and the second angle are configured for a thumb and index finger to touch the longitudinal axis of the upper lobe above the neck (Figs. Figs. 4A, 5B and 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Gomez teaches wherein the upper lobe is oriented about a first axis and the lower lobe is oriented about a second axis, wherein an angle between the first axis and the second axis is between 80 degrees and 120 degrees (in the annotated figure below, the angle ɵ appears to be 90 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
259
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Gomez teaches wherein the handheld instrument further comprises: a socket positioned at a distal portion of the upper lobe (at a position distal to the upper lobe 104 as seen in Figs. 1-6, shaft connector 122 couples to the main body 101), wherein the socket is configured to connect to one of a plurality of modular surgical tools (“a shaft connector 122 that connects an elongated shaft 124 to the main body 101” [0027] and [0031]); and a modular surgical tool, from among the plurality of modular surgical tools, extending from the socket (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 18, Gomez teaches wherein the modular surgical tool further comprises a connector 122 configured to plug into the socket ([0027] and Figs. 1-3).
Claims 1, 5-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cybulski (US Pub. No. 2011/0276113).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Cybulski teaches a handheld instrument (Fig. 3B) comprising:
an upper lobe 351; a lower lobe 310; and a neck operable to be contacted by a user's hand when the handheld instrument is in use (see the annotated figure below); wherein the upper lobe and the lower lobe are joined at the neck and extend from the neck ([0143] and annotated Fig. 3B below), and wherein the upper lobe is substantially perpendicular to the lower lobe, wherein the upper lobe is oriented about a first axis and the lower lobe is oriented about a second axis, wherein an angle between the first axis and the second axis is between 80 degrees and 120 degrees (Fig. 3B shows “Adapter 310 is form fitted to couple to the hand-held piece 351 at interface locations 363 and to provide a space 370 between the inner arc or "u" of the adapter 310 and the hand-held piece 351, thus allowing the user to grip the hand-held piece 351” as explained in [0143]. Although the two are not coupled at a 90 degree angle, they are interpreted to be “substantially perpendicular” with one another, especially in view of claim 9, “wherein an angle between the first axis and the second axis is between 80 degrees and 120 degrees” as section 351 and 310 extend along two different axis that are interpreted to make an angle of between 80 degrees and 120 degrees, thus “substantially perpendicular”);
wherein a lower surface of the upper lobe tapers towards the neck (a lower surface of 351 tapers toward the section interpreted to be the neck); and wherein a middle portion of the neck is narrower than the upper lobe and the lower lobe (see d2 vs. d1 and d3 on the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
544
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Cybulski teaches wherein a distal portion of an underside of the upper lobe and a proximate portion of the back of the lower lobe form an arcuate and concave profile with an open C shape configured as a catch for the handheld instrument to rest on a thenar web space in between a user's thumb and index finger (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 6, Cybulski teaches wherein a first angle between a surface of the distal underside of the upper lobe 351 and a surface of the proximate back of the lower lobe 310 is acute, wherein a second angle between a longitudinal axis of the upper lobe and a longitudinal axis of the lower lobe is obtuse, and wherein the first angle and the second angle are configured for a thumb and index finger to touch the longitudinal axis of the upper lobe above the neck (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 7, Cybulski teaches wherein the upper lobe and the lower lobe are substantially cylindrical in shape, and wherein diameters of the upper lobe and the lower lobe are greater than a diameter of the neck and the lower lobe is adapted to fit in a user's hand (see the annotated figure above).
Regarding Claim 8, Cybulski teaches wherein the upper lobe and the lower lobe are substantially cylindrical in shape, and wherein a diameter of the lower lobe is greater than or equal to a diameter of the upper lobe such that the lower lobe is adapted to fit in a user's hand (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 16, Cybulski teaches wherein the handheld instrument further comprises: a socket (mechanical connector 114) positioned at a distal portion of the upper lobe, wherein the socket is configured to connect to one of a plurality of modular surgical tools 110; and a modular surgical tool, from among the plurality of modular surgical tools, extending from the socket (Fig. 1 and [0125]).
Regarding Claim 17, Cybulski teaches wherein the modular surgical tool comprises a monopolar surgical instrument or a bipolar surgical instrument ([0072], [0132]).
Regarding Claim 18, Cybulski teaches wherein the modular surgical tool further comprises a connector configured to plug into the socket ([0125] and [0129]).
Regarding Claim 19, Cybulski teaches wherein one or more of the upper lobe or the lower lobe comprises one or more feedback devices configured to send data to control energy delivery through the modular surgical tool ([0125], and switches/controllers marked 358 in Fig. 3B, [0141]).
Regarding Claim 20, Cybulski teaches wherein the handheld instrument further comprises: a display at a proximate end of the upper lobe 351 (a monitor 354, Fig. 3B); a camera at a distal end of the upper lobe (video processor module, [0121], [0131], [0204]); and a light source on the distal end of the upper lobe ([0099]-[010]); wherein the camera is configured to capture imagery and send the imagery to the display ([0077], [0091], [0130] and [0204]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cybulski as applied above in view of Gomez as applied above.
Regarding Claim 4, Cybulski teaches “the hand-held control unit may have a configuration that is amenable to gripping by the human adult hand. The weight of the hand-held control unit may vary, but in some instances is 10 lbs or less, including 5 lbs or less, such 3 lbs or less. In some instances, the weight of the hand-held control may weigh 2 lbs or less, including 1 lb or less” in [0075]; however, is silent in teaching wherein weight is distributed across the upper lobe and the lower lobe to cause the handheld instrument to balance at a point between the upper lobe and the lower lobe proximate to the neck, wherein the point is an equilibrium position, wherein the upper lobe counterbalances the handheld instrument, and wherein the handheld instrument is held in between a user's thumb and index finger and returns to the equilibrium position when the upper lobe or the lower lobe is subject to a perturbance that displaces the handheld instrument from the equilibrium position.
In the same field of hand-held instruments, Gomez teaches a handle to rest comfortably and balanced on the hand and a balanced ergonomic surgical handle is designed to minimizing fatigue to the user and to accommodate multiple grip styles ([0025]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to distribute the weights to the upper and lower lobes of Cybulski in order to balance the handle to prevent fatigue to the user operating the device in view of the teachings of Gomez.
Claims 10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez as applied above in view of Houser (US Pub. No. 2012/0116364).
Regarding Claim 10, Gomez teaches the invention as applied above, but does not specifically teach wherein one or more of the upper lobe or the lower lobe comprises a housing for an electronics module configured to detect when a modular surgical tool is connected to the handheld instrument, and a housing for a battery, and wherein a mass of the battery is greater than a mass of the electronics module to cause a center of mass of the handheld instrument to be proximate to the neck.
In the same field of invention, Houser teaches the use of a “Feedback systems utilized by haptic user feedback system (400)” [0044] positioned in the upper housing of the handle as seen in Fig. 3 to detect when a modular surgical tool is connected to the handheld instrument “a torque sensor may determine when an ultrasonic blade of end effector (80A) and transmission assembly (70A) is properly attached to multi-piece handle assembly (60A) and provide a tactile "click" to a user to indicate such attachment. Also, for surgical instruments requiring one or more electrical connections, a feedback tactile "click" may be sent to a user once a required electrical connection is made” [0044] and a housing for a battery 402 (Fig. 3). Although Houser does not specify and wherein a mass of the battery is greater than a mass of the electronics module to cause a center of mass of the handheld instrument to be proximate to the neck, examiner takes the position that since Gomez is concerned about balancing the weight of the device it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to choose a mass of the battery to be greater than a mass of the electronics module to cause a center of mass of the handheld instrument to be proximate to the neck in order to keep the balance of the handheld instrument.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to have at least one of the upper lobe or the lower lobe of Gomez comprise a housing for an electronics module configured to detect when a modular surgical tool is connected to the handheld instrument in view of the teachings of Houser, and to make the instrument battery powered to make it portable by having a housing for a battery, and to have a mass of the battery be greater than a mass of the electronics module to cause a center of mass of the handheld instrument to be proximate to the neck in order to detect when a modular surgical tool is connected to the handheld portable instrument while keeping the balance of the instrument.
Regarding Claim 17, Gomez teaches the modular surgical tool and a power connector being a cauterization plug 118 and the treatment tip being a peanut ablation head 126, although examiner takes the position that the peanut ablation head is an electrode configured to apply energy to tissue, Gomez does not specifically teach the energy type or the electrode configuration to know if it is a monopolar surgical instrument or a bipolar surgical instrument.
In the same field of invention, Houser teaches an end effector coupled to a control module configured to perform cauterization by monopolar or bipolar RF electrodes in [0025]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to have the peanut head electrode of Gomez to be a monopolar or bipolar energy transition element to better cauterize tissue.
Regarding Claim 19, Gomez in view of Houser teaches wherein one or more of the upper lobe or the lower lobe comprises one or more feedback devices 400 configured to send data to control energy delivery through the modular surgical tool ([0044] of Houser).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez as applied above in view of Geiges (US Patent No. 5,830,231).
Regarding Claim 11, Gomez teaches the invention as applied above, but does not specifically teach wherein the lower lobe comprises an actuator configured to change a mode of operation of the instrument.
In the same field of invention, Geiges teaches positioning a trigger of an actuator on the lower lobe in order to make it easier for the operator to control with the index finger (Fig. 3, “trigger 23 of the actuating mechanism. An extension 24 of the handle extends rearwardly at an acute angle from the grip 21 to permit the handle 20 to be cradled in the web between the thumb and index finger of the surgeon, and to place the longitudinal axis of the cannula in close proximity to the operative plane of the surgeon's forearm and wrist when using the apparatus. Another advantage of the rearward extension of the handle is that its weight and mass provides a "balanced feel" which minimizes muscle fatigue in the surgeon's hand” Col. 3, ll. 62-Col. 4, ll. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to position the actuator on the lower lobe in order to allow the operator to use their index finger to control the treatment instrument while keeping the tool balanced in one hand while minimizing muscle fatigue in the surgeon's hand as Geiges teaches.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cybulski as applied above in view of Geiges (US Patent No. 5,830,231).
Regarding Claim 11, Cybulski teaches the invention as applied above, but does not specifically teach wherein the lower lobe comprises an actuator configured to change a mode of operation of the instrument.
In the same field of invention, Geiges teaches positioning a trigger of an actuator on the lower lobe in order to make it easier for the operator to control with the index finger (Fig. 3, “trigger 23 of the actuating mechanism. An extension 24 of the handle extends rearwardly at an acute angle from the grip 21 to permit the handle 20 to be cradled in the web between the thumb and index finger of the surgeon, and to place the longitudinal axis of the cannula in close proximity to the operative plane of the surgeon's forearm and wrist when using the apparatus. Another advantage of the rearward extension of the handle is that its weight and mass provides a "balanced feel" which minimizes muscle fatigue in the surgeon's hand” Col. 3, ll. 62-Col. 4, ll. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to position the actuator on the lower lobe in order to allow the operator to use their index finger to control the treatment instrument while keeping the tool balanced in one hand while minimizing muscle fatigue in the surgeon's hand as Geiges teaches.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez as applied above in view of Geiges and further in view of Zacharias (US Patent No. 5,720,742).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Gomez in view of Geiges teaches the invention as applied above, but not wherein the actuator is a pressure-sensitive tactile pad configured to be programmed for providing a desired input to the handheld instrument in response to a gesture and wherein the lower lobe comprises one or more sensors configured to process one or more inputs from a user of the handheld instrument.
In the same field of electrosurgical devices, Zacharias teaches a surgical instrument controller and actuating system that will allow the use of the gripping hand for a precise control of surgical instruments. Zacharias further teaches with respect to Fig. 3a “the gripping force detection elements. These consist in a set of semiconductor strain gauges 36 properly arranged beneath gripping area 14 and covered by an elastic cover 38. Leads 34 of strain gauges 36 connect to the input terminals of a miniature conditioning amplifier 35 configuring a grip pressure sensing circuit 37 enclosed within hand piece 12” Col. 3, ll. 63-Col. 4, ll. 2, “The gripping force is transmitted though elastic cover 38 causing proportional deformation of strain gauges 36. Strain gages 36 and conditioning amplifier 35 conform a temperature compensated pressure sensing circuit 37 producing an output voltage that varies in proportion to the gripping force applied” in Col. 6, ll. 25-31 and “Software algorithms can be included in the microprocessor program to make it respond to particular temporal patterns of gripping force change with specific actions” in Col. 58-61.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add a similar strain gage/sensing pad to the lower lobe in order to easier control the output of the forceps based on the compressed pressure applied to the handle while allowing it to be programmed to output a desired specific action as Zacharias teaches.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cybulski as applied above in view of Geiges and further in view of Zacharias.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Cybulski in view of Geiges teaches the invention as applied above, but not wherein the actuator is a pressure-sensitive tactile pad configured to be programmed for providing a desired input to the handheld instrument in response to a gesture and wherein the lower lobe comprises one or more sensors configured to process one or more inputs from a user of the handheld instrument.
In the same field of electrosurgical devices, Zacharias teaches a surgical instrument controller and actuating system that will allow the use of the gripping hand for a precise control of surgical instruments. Zacharias further teaches with respect to Fig. 3a “the gripping force detection elements. These consist in a set of semiconductor strain gauges 36 properly arranged beneath gripping area 14 and covered by an elastic cover 38. Leads 34 of strain gauges 36 connect to the input terminals of a miniature conditioning amplifier 35 configuring a grip pressure sensing circuit 37 enclosed within hand piece 12” Col. 3, ll. 63-Col. 4, ll. 2, “The gripping force is transmitted though elastic cover 38 causing proportional deformation of strain gauges 36. Strain gages 36 and conditioning amplifier 35 conform a temperature compensated pressure sensing circuit 37 producing an output voltage that varies in proportion to the gripping force applied” in Col. 6, ll. 25-31 and “Software algorithms can be included in the microprocessor program to make it respond to particular temporal patterns of gripping force change with specific actions” in Col. 58-61.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add a similar strain gage/sensing pad to the lower lobe in order to easier control the output of the forceps based on the compressed pressure applied to the handle while allowing it to be programmed to output a desired specific action as Zacharias teaches.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez as applied above in view of Su (US Pub. No. 2008/0173139).
Regarding Claim 14, Gomez teaches a handle to rest comfortably and balanced on the hand and a balanced ergonomic surgical handle is designed to minimizing fatigue to the user and to accommodate multiple grip styles ([0025]-[0031]), but does not teach wherein the neck comprises a joint, wherein the joint is adjustable and lockable.
In the same field of hand-held devices, Su teaches “as shown in FIGS. 1 to 5, a grip portion 12 and a body portion 13 are connected rotatably about a rotational shaft portion 14 such that an angle therebetween can be changed freely. The rotational shaft 14 allows the housing 3 of the main body 2 to be varied between the straight shape and the L-shape. Further, a structure for changing the angle about the rotational shaft portion 14 and maintaining changed angle can be configured properly without being limited to a specific one. By changing the angle of the grip portion 12 as set forth above, the shape of the housing 3 can be varied to provide an easy grip for an operator” in [0032]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to include such flexibility with the neck comprising a joint, wherein the joint is adjustable and lockable in order to allow the angle of the grip to change to be handled by any user and provide a comfortable grip.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cybulski as applied above in view of Su.
Regarding Claim 14, Cybulski teaches the invention as applied above and although teaches different shaped grips for ease of handling (Figs. 1-5) does not teach wherein the neck comprises a joint, wherein the joint is adjustable and lockable.
In the same field of hand-held devices, Su teaches “as shown in FIGS. 1 to 5, a grip portion 12 and a body portion 13 are connected rotatably about a rotational shaft portion 14 such that an angle therebetween can be changed freely. The rotational shaft 14 allows the housing 3 of the main body 2 to be varied between the straight shape and the L-shape. Further, a structure for changing the angle about the rotational shaft portion 14 and maintaining changed angle can be configured properly without being limited to a specific one. By changing the angle of the grip portion 12 as set forth above, the shape of the housing 3 can be varied to provide an easy grip for an operator” in [0032]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to include such flexibility with the neck comprising a joint, wherein the joint is adjustable and lockable in order to allow the angle of the grip to change to be handled by any user and provide a comfortable grip.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez as applied above in view of Pusateri (US Patent No. 6,082,468).
Regarding Claim 15, Gomez teaches a handle to rest comfortably and balanced on the hand and a balanced ergonomic surgical handle is designed to minimizing fatigue to the user and to accommodate multiple grip styles ([0025]-[0031]), but does not teach teaches wherein the neck comprises a flexible outer sheath housing a ductile member.
In the same field of hand-held devices, Pusateri teaches “a grip 40 is provided for the handle 30, the grip 40 preferably being formed of a flexible and resilient material, such as thermoplastic material, and being of unitary, one-piece construction” in Col. 3, ll. 20-24. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add a flexible cover surrounding the lower lobe and the neck of the handle of Gomez in order to create a more comfortable grip for the user.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cybulski as applied above in view of Pusateri .
Regarding Claim 15, Cybulski teaches the invention as applied above and although teaches different shaped grips for ease of handling (Figs. 1-5) does not teach teaches wherein the neck comprises a flexible outer sheath housing a ductile member.
In the same field of hand-held devices, Pusateri teaches “a grip 40 is provided for the handle 30, the grip 40 preferably being formed of a flexible and resilient material, such as thermoplastic material, and being of unitary, one-piece construction” in Col. 3, ll. 20-24. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add a flexible cover surrounding the lower lobe and the neck of the handle of Gomez in order to create a more comfortable grip for the user.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez as applied above in view of Cybulski as applied above.
Regarding Claim 20, Gomez teaches the invention as applied above, but not wherein the handheld instrument further comprises: a display at a proximate end of the upper lobe; a camera at a distal end of the upper lobe; and a light source on the distal end of the upper lobe; wherein the camera is configured to capture imagery and send the imagery to the display.
In the same field of hand-held medical devices, Cybulski teaches providing a monitor connector 132 to allow a monitor 354 to be coupled at a proximate end of the upper lobe 351, a camera (video processor module) [0121], [0131], [0204] and a light source on the distal end of the upper lobe [0099]-[0101]; wherein the camera is configured to capture imagery and send the imagery to the display [0077], [0091], [0130] and [0204].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add a monitor to the body of the handle of Gomez proximate the upper lobe along with a light source and camera in order to allow an operator to easily see a display of the target area during the procedure as Cybulski teaches.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to prior art Gomez, applicant’s arguments on the grounds that “Gomez fails to disclose at least one of the distinguishing features of amended independent claim 1, namely: 1) wherein a lower surface of the upper lobe tapers towards the neck; and 2) wherein a middle portion of the neck is narrower than the upper lobe and the lower lobe” is not found persuasive in view of the slightly different interpretation of the reference by interpreting section 106 to be the neck rather than section 108 in light of the amendments. Thereby, as seen in the annotated figures above a lower surface of the upper lobe tapers towards the neck and a middle portion of the neck has a narrower diameter than the upper and lower lobes.
With regards to prior art Cybulski, applicant’s arguments on the grounds that by moving the limitations of the previously claim 2 into claim 1 it overcomes the reference since claim 2 was not rejected over Cybulski. In light of the amendments necessitating a change of interpretation of the neck portion from previously interpreted section 363 to now interpreting the bend region (see the annotated figure above) to be the neck. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, seepage 9, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to prior art Brannan have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-9 over Brannan have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KHADIJEH A VAHDAT whose telephone number is (571)270-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on (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.
/KHADIJEH A VAHDAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights