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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendment, claim(s) 15, 26-27, and 30-31 is/are amended. Claim 17 was previously canceled. Claims 15-16 and 18-31 are now pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15, 26, and 30 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Regarding claim 15, Examiner agrees the amended limitation “locking element (8) is a tab (8) mounted on the first component (3) between a distal end of the actuating element (5) and the first pivot axis” overcomes the previous rejection as written. Regarding claim 26, Examiner agrees the newly added limitation “wherein each of the first teeth extends from a root to a peak along a first tooth height direction, the first tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane, and wherein each of the second teeth extends from a root to a peak along a second tooth height direction, the second tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane” overcomes the previous rejection as written. Regarding claim 30, Examiner agrees the newly added limitation “a locking tab (8) arranged on the first arm (3) between a distal end of the first scissor eye (5) and the pivot axis” overcomes the previous rejection as written. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hsu in view of Buysse.
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: “unlocking element” in claim 15.
Claim 15 recites the limitation of a “unlocking element”. The term “element” is used as a substitute for “means” and is modified by functional language “unlocking”. There is no corresponding structure in the claim, therefore invoking 112(f). Based on the specification, the corresponding structure for “unlocking element” is “a "one-sided lever device"” (Paragraph 0038) or equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18-20, and 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20170071618 A1) (previously of record) in view of Buysse (US 7241296 B2).
Regarding claims 15, Hsu discloses a surgical instrument (9) for carrying out a surgical procedure (Figure 2-4), comprising:
two individual components (one of 952 + 931, second of 952+932) that are hinged to one another (Figure 3-4; Paragraph 0039), each having an actuating element (931, handle including 932, labeled in Annotated Figure 4), wherein the actuating elements can be displaced away from one another relative to one another in a direction of spreading by a spreading movement (Figure 4; Paragraph 0033; 0039), whereby the individual components can be pivoted with respect to one another within a first pivot plane and about a first pivot axis from an initial position (closed) into an actuating position (open) (Paragraph 0033; 0039); and
a locking device (961+962),
wherein the locking device has a locking element (962) that is, in a locked position, in operative connection with the individual components in such a manner that the two individual components can be locked in a displacement position (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039),
wherein the locking device has an unlocking element (961) that can be displaced along an unlocking path arranged within a second pivot plane and in a direction of unlocking and can be brought into operative connection with the locking element, by which the locking element can be transferred into a release position and the individual components can be pivoted relative to one another (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039),
wherein the unlocking element can be actuated along the unlocking path in a direction of unlocking that is the same as the direction of spreading (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039),
wherein the two individual components include a first component (second of 952+932), and
a second component (one of 952 + 931) (Figure 2-4),
wherein the locking element is a tab (962) mounted on the first component (the locking element is located on the first component) (Figure 4), and
wherein the tab includes a first toothing section (pawl) configured for interlocking engagement with a corresponding second toothing section (96) formed on the second component (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039).
Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the locking element is mounted between a distal end of the actuating element and the first pivot axis.
However, Buysse is directed to a surgical instrument and teaches wherein the locking element (24+25) is mounted between a distal end of the actuating element (20+21) and the first pivot axis (33) (Figure 1).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hsu such that the locking element is mounted between a distal end of the actuating element and the first pivot axis, as taught by Buysse, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical instruments. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu with the teachings of Buysse by incorporating the locking element is mounted between a distal end of the actuating element and the first pivot axis in order to increase pressure to the locking mechanism to prevent premature unlocking (Buysse Col 7 line 5-8).
Regarding claim 16, Hsu further discloses wherein the second pivot plane is aligned parallel to the first pivot plane and the unlocking element can be actuated along the unlocking path in a direction of unlocking aligned in the same direction as the direction of spreading (Figure 1-4; Paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 18, Hsu further discloses wherein, in the locked position, the individual components can be displaced from the initial position into an actuating position (Paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 19, Hsu further discloses wherein the individual components and the locking element are mounted in a prestressed state, such that a prestressing force is generated by a locking force acting on the individual components by the locking element and the individual components can be locked in the displacement position (Paragraph 0039-40) (the opening and closing of the plier-like member 952 is controlled by a central screw driven by an inner torsion spring or an outer torsion spring, thus creating a prestressed state with prestressing force).
Regarding claim 20, Hsu further discloses wherein the prestressing force is generated by a spring element (963) arranged between at least one individual component and the locking element (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039-40).
Regarding claim 26, Hsu discloses a needle holder (9) (Paragraph 0038),
wherein the needle holder has two individual components (one of 952 + 931, second of 952+932) that are hinged to one another (Figure 2-4; Paragraph 0039), each having an actuating element (labeled in Annotated Figure 4),
wherein the two individual components include
a first component (one of 952+932) (Figure 3-4; Paragraph 0039), and
a second component (second of 952 + 931) (Figure 2-4; Paragraph 0039-40),
wherein the actuating elements can be displaced away from one another relative to one another in a direction of spreading by a spreading movement (Figure 2-4; Paragraph 0033; 0039), such that the individual components can be pivoted with respect to one another within a first pivot plane and about a first pivot axis from an initial position into an actuating position (Figure 2-3; Paragraph 0039),
wherein a locking device (961+962) has a locking element (962) that is in operative connection with the individual components in a locked position such that the individual components can be locked in a displacement position (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039),
wherein the locking device has an unlocking element (961) that can be displaced along an unlocking path arranged within a second pivot plane and in a direction of unlocking and can be brought into operative connection with the locking element, by which the locking element can be transferred into a release position and the individual components can be pivoted relative one another (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039),
wherein the second pivot plane is aligned parallel to the first pivot plane and the unlocking element can be actuated along the unlocking path in a direction of unlocking that is aligned in the same direction as the direction of spreading (Paragraph 0039), and
wherein a spring element (963) arranged between the second component and the locking element generates a prestressing force, by which the unlocking element is held in a preferred position (the opening and closing of the plier-like member 952 is controlled by a central screw driven by an inner torsion spring or an outer torsion spring, thus creating a prestressed state with prestressing force) (Figure 2-4; Paragraph 0039-40),
wherein the locking element is a tab (962) mounted on the first component (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039), and wherein the tab (8) includes a first toothing section (9) including first teeth configured for interlocking engagement with a corresponding second toothing section (96) formed on the second component including second teeth (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039).
Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the first teeth extends from a root to a peak along a first tooth height direction, the first tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane, and wherein each of the second teeth extends from a root to a peak along a second tooth height direction, the second tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane.
However, Buysse is directed to a surgical instrument and teaches wherein each of the first teeth (26) extends from a root to a peak along a first tooth height direction, the first tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane (direction of opening of 14 and 15) (Figure 1; Col 5, line 34-52)., and wherein each of the second teeth (27) extends from a root to a peak along a second tooth height direction, the second tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane (Figure 1; Col 5, line 34-52).
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu with the teachings of Buysse by incorporating wherein each of the first teeth extends from a root to a peak along a first tooth height direction, the first tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane, and wherein each of the second teeth extends from a root to a peak along a second tooth height direction, the second tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane in order to create a secure closure to prevent inadvertent opening of the jaws (Buysse Col 5, line 34-40).
Regarding claim 27, Hsu further discloses wherein the first toothing section and the corresponding second toothing section are configured for unidirectional ratcheting (Paragraph 0039) (Paragraph 0039 states “the pawl 962 would not bounce back by spring sheet 963 since the locking member 96 is in an irreversible position”, thus the toothing sections are configured for unidirectional ratcheting.) and wherein the first toothing section and the corresponding second toothing section include teeth extending substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane (the first and second toothing sections include teeth which are depicted as substantially perpendicular to the pivot axis and intersect at a substantially perpendicular angle, thus also are substantially perpendicular to the pivot plane, as depicted in Annotated Figure 4) (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039).
Hsu fails to explicitly disclose each of the teeth extending from a root to a peak along a respective tooth height direction, the tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane.
However, Buysse teaches each of the teeth (each tooth of 26 and 27) extending from a root to a peak along a respective tooth height direction, the tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane (Figure 1; Col 5, line 34-52).
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu with the teachings of Buysse by incorporating each of the teeth extending from a root to a peak along a respective tooth height direction, the tooth height direction being substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane in order to create a secure closure to prevent inadvertent opening of the jaws (Buysse Col 5, line 34-40).
Regarding claim 28, Hsu further discloses wherein the unlocking element is a pivoting lever (961) hingedly coupled to the first component (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039),
wherein the pivoting lever includes a wedge-shaped surface (portion of 961 contacting 962) (Figure 4), and
wherein the tab slides along the wedge-shaped surface when the pivoting lever is displaced along the unlocking path, thereby pushing the tab substantially perpendicular to the first pivot plane away from the second component and the first toothing section out of the interlocking engagement with the corresponding second toothing section (the tab travels in a direction that would substantially perpendicularly extend into the pivot axis, thus is substantially perpendicular to the pivot plane as shown in Annotated Figure 4) (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 29, Hsu further discloses wherein the first toothing section includes a longitudinal toothing and the second toothing section includes a corresponding longitudinal toothing (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 30, Hsu discloses a surgical instrument (9) (Figure 2-4), comprising:
a first arm (one of 952+932) (Figure 3-4; Paragraph 0039);
a second arm (other of 952+931) pivotally connected to the first arm at a pivot axis (Figure 2-4), the first arm and the second arm being configured to pivot with respect to one another within a pivot plane about the pivot axis (Figure 3-4; Paragraph 0033; 0039);
a first scissor eye (finger opening of 932) formed at a proximal end of the first arm (Figure 4);
a second scissor eye (finger opening of 931) formed at a proximal end of the second arm (Figure 4);
a locking tab (962) arranged on the first arm, the locking tab extending within the pivot plane (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039);
a first toothing (pawl) formed on the locking tab (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039);
a second toothing (96) formed on the second arm (Figure 4; Paragraph 0039); and
an unlocking lever (961) pivotably connected to the first arm and configured to push the locking tab from a locked position, in which the first toothing is in interlocking engagement with the second toothing, to an unlocked position in which the first toothing does not engage the second toothing (Figure 2-4; Paragraph 0039),
wherein the unlocking lever extends from the first arm in the pivot axis proximal to the first scissor eye (Figure 4), and wherein the first toothing and the second toothing are configured for unidirectional ratcheting (Paragraph 0039) (Paragraph 0039 states “the pawl 962 would not bounce back by spring sheet 963 since the locking member 96 is in an irreversible position”, thus the toothing sections are configured for unidirectional ratcheting.).
Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the locking element is mounted between a distal end of the actuating element and the first pivot axis.
However, Buysse is directed to a surgical instrument and teaches wherein the locking element (24+25) is mounted between a distal end of the actuating element (20+21) and the first pivot axis (33) (Figure 1).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hsu such that the locking element is mounted between a distal end of the actuating element and the first pivot axis, as taught by Buysse, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical instruments. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu with the teachings of Buysse by incorporating the locking element is mounted between a distal end of the actuating element and the first pivot axis in order to increase pressure to the locking mechanism to prevent premature unlocking (Buysse Col 7 line 5-8).
Regarding claim 31, Hsu as modified by Buysse discloses the surgical instrument according to claim 30 and Buysse further discloses wherein the first toothing (26) and the second toothing (27) each comprise a plurality of teeth, each extending from a root to a peak along a tooth height direction substantially perpendicular to the pivot plane (Figure 1; Col 5, line 34-52).
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu with the teachings of Buysse by incorporating wherein the first toothing and the second toothing each comprise a plurality of teeth, each extending from a root to a peak along a tooth height direction substantially perpendicular to the pivot plane in order to create a secure closure to prevent inadvertent opening of the jaws (Buysse Col 5, line 34-40).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Buysse, as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Artale et al. (US 20120083827 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 21, Hsu as modified by Buysse discloses the surgical instrument according to claim 20 but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spring element is designed as a compression spring or as a tension spring.
However, Artale is directed to a forceps device and teaches a locking mechanism (360+380) with a compression spring (398) (Paragraph 0061; 0063).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the torsion spring of Hsu as modified by Buysse to be a compression spring, as taught by Artale, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to actuating surgical devices. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu as modified by Buysse with the teachings of Artale by incorporating compression spring in order to maintain biasing of the handle and jaws (Artale Paragraph 0061), as Hsu’s spring sheet 963 performs the same function (Hsu Paragraph 0039).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element, for another namely a spring sheet for a compression spring, yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, namely, by substituting one form of spring for another, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Buysse as applied to claim 15 above, Meade et al. (US 5499992 A) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 22, Hsu as modified by Buysse discloses the surgical instrument according to claim 15, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the unlocking element and the locking element are connected to one another via a gear unit.
However, Meade is directed to a similar device and teaches wherein the unlocking element (1042) (As indicated above, the limitation “unlocking element” invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure in Meade is a tab protruding into a port, which is equivalent to a one-sided lever, as disclosed in the present disclosure.) and the locking element (1040) (The corresponding structure in Meade is a tab protruding into a port, which is equivalent to “a tab-like design”, thus serving as a locking element.) are connected to one another via a gear unit (1026+1030) (Figure 37A-B; Col 15, line 51-65).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hsu as modified by Buysse such that wherein the unlocking element and the locking element are connected to one another via a gear unit, as taught by Meade, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical forceps. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Buysse as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (US 5746768 A) and Kanehira et al. (US 20030171747 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 23-25, Hsu as modified by Buysse discloses the surgical instrument according to claim 15, and further discloses wherein the individual components and the unlocking element each have at least one sliding surface region (inner surfaces of 952, 961) (Figure 3-4), wherein a sliding surface region forms a pair of sliding surfaces with at least one sliding surface region of a further individual component (Figure 3; Paragraph 0033), wherein the sliding surface regions bear against one another at least in sliding surface region sections of the sliding surface regions (in the closed position) (Paragraph 0033).
Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the individual components and the unlocking element are made of a metallic or metal-containing material at least in sections that are allocated to the sliding surface regions, wherein only one of the sliding surface regions of each pair of sliding surfaces has a hard material surface layer, which is connected in a firmly bonded manner to the individual component in the respective sliding surface region, wherein only one sliding surface region section of an individual component or the unlocking element of the pair of sliding surfaces has the hard material surface layer, wherein the individual components having a sliding surface region are made entirely of the metallic or metal-containing material.
However, Lewis is directed to a forceps instrument and teaches the individual components (18, 19) and the unlocking element (labeled in Annotated Figure 2) are made of a metallic or metal-containing material at least in sections that are allocated to the sliding surface regions (21, 26) (Figure 2; Col 3, line 64-66) (As indicated above, the limitation “unlocking element” invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure in Meade is a tab, which is equivalent to a one-sided lever, as disclosed in the present disclosure.), wherein each of the individual components having the sliding surface regions are made entirely of the metallic or metal-containing material (21 and 26 are formed in a solid piece with each of 18 and 19 respectively, thus are also made of the metallic alloy) (Col 3, line 64-66).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hsu as modified by Buysse such that the individual components and the unlocking element are made of a metallic or metal-containing material at least in sections that are allocated to the sliding surface regions and wherein the individual components having a sliding surface region are made entirely of the metallic or metal-containing material, as taught by Lewis, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical instruments. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu as modified by Buysse with the teachings of Lewis by incorporating the individual components and the unlocking element are made of a metallic or metal-containing material at least in sections that are allocated to the sliding surface regions and wherein the individual components having a sliding surface region are made entirely of the metallic or metal-containing material, which is known to be an electrically conductive material.
Further, Kanehira is directed to surgical forceps and teaches wherein only one of the sliding surface regions (108) of each pair of sliding surfaces (108, 109) has a hard material surface layer (114a+118) (Figure 14D; Paragraph 0243; 0266), which is connected in a firmly bonded manner to the individual component (105) in the respective sliding surface region (Figure 12; Paragraph 0265), wherein only one sliding surface region section of an individual component of the pair of sliding surfaces has the hard material surface layer (Figure 14D; Paragraph 0266).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hsu as modified by Buysse and Lewis such that only one of the sliding surface regions of each pair of sliding surfaces has a hard material surface layer, which is connected in a firmly bonded manner to the individual component in the respective sliding surface region, wherein only one sliding surface region section of an individual component or the unlocking element of the pair of sliding surfaces has the hard material surface layer, as taught by Kanehira, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical forceps. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu as modified by Buysse and Lewis with the teachings of Kanehira by incorporating only one of the sliding surface regions of each pair of sliding surfaces has a hard material surface layer, which is connected in a firmly bonded manner to the individual component in the respective sliding surface region, wherein only one sliding surface region section of an individual component or the unlocking element of the pair of sliding surfaces has the hard material surface layer since Teflon is a hard material comprising a hard material surface layer and can serve to prevent scorching of a patient’s tissue (Kanehira Paragraph 0243).
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 ZEHRA JAFFRI whose telephone number is (571)272-7738. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM-5:30 PM.
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, DARWIN EREZO can be reached on (571) 272-4695. 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.
/Z.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights