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
The amendments filed on 06/12/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smith et al. (US 2021/0022720).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2021/0022720).
Regarding claim 1, Smith et al. discloses a mounting device (108, FIG 2, [0019, 0022-0026]) for releasably coupling a detector (10, FIG 3-4, [0020-0023, 0025]) to a surgical instrument (114) of the type comprising first and second jaws (116 and 118) displaceably mounted with respect to each other ([0027-0028], 116 and 118 are displacable relative to each other around pivot 120), each jaw comprising a grasping surface (Inner surface of the jaws) for grasping subject tissue in a grasping region defined between the jaws (Space between the jaws which receives grasped tissue, [0027]. “In the open position, the distal ends of an anvil 116 and a head 118 of stapler 114 are spaced apart, thereby forming a gap in which materials including, but not limited to, tissue may be held within and stapled together”), the mounting device comprising: detector mounting means (Arms 109, FIG 2-4) configured for releasable mounting and retention of a detector ([0025]); and coupling means (112a, FIG 2) configured for releasably coupling the mounting device to one of the first jaw or second jaw of the surgical instrument (112a is coupled to only jaw 118, which comprises 112b, [0024]. The attachment is interpreted as a releasable connection because the elements can be decoupled by removing bin 112c. Further, the surgical instrument and jaws are not a positively recited limitation of the claim. The coupling means 112a is at least configured for releasable coupling to one of the jaws) to position the mounting device outside the grasping region (FIG 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Smith et al. discloses the detector mounting means is configured to be a releasable interference fit with the detector ([0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Smith et al. discloses the detector mounting means comprises a recess (Space inside of each ring 109 and the longitudinal space between each of the proximal and distal positioned arms 109) for receipt of the detector (FIGs 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Smith et al. discloses the recess for receipt of the detector is elongate (FIG 2-4; the recess is elongate).
Regarding claim 5, Smith et al. discloses the recess is defined by two spaced apart side walls (the walls forming each of 109 are interpreted as spaced apart side walls, FIG 2-4)
Regarding claim 6, Smith et al. discloses the side walls are elongate (The side walls are elongate at least in an up and down direction).
Regarding claim 7, Smith et al. discloses the side walls are substantially parallel (Side view of FIG 3 best shows the side walls are substantially parallel).
Regarding claim 8, Smith et al. discloses the side walls are resiliently deformable to permit the detector to be inserted into the recess and retained in the recess by the side walls ([0022] “Each arm 109 may deflect, or flex radially outward to accept the medical device, and be biased radially inward to rigidly couple to the medical device, e.g., to engage circumferentially around the endoscope 10”).
Regarding claim 9, Smith et al. discloses the detector mounting means is configured to receive the detector as a press fit ([0022] “Each arm 109 may deflect, or flex radially outward to accept the medical device, and be biased radially inward to rigidly couple to the medical device, e.g., to engage circumferentially around the endoscope 10” is interpreted as a press fit).
Regarding claim 10, Smith et al. discloses the coupling means is configured for releasably coupling the mounting device to an outer surface of one of the first and second jaws of the surgical instrument (FIG 2 shows attachment to an outer surface of jaw 118).
Regarding claim 11, Smith et al. discloses a portion of the coupling means is shaped to be an interference fit with a portion of one of the first and second jaws of the surgical instrument ([0024] discloses distal support linking arm 112a and stapler linking arms 112b overlap with one another, so that distal support linking arm 112a lies between the arms of stapler linking arms 112b. Therefore, 112a is at least shaped to be an interference fit with the arms of 112b since it is inserted therebetween. Examiner notes that the portion of one of the first and second jaws is not positively recited because the surgical instrument is not a claimed element of the device).
Regarding claim 12, Smith et al. discloses a portion of the coupling means is shaped to fit with a complementarily-shaped portion of one of the first and second jaws of the surgical instrument ([0024] discloses distal support linking arm 112a and stapler linking arms 112b overlap with one another, so that distal support linking arm 112a lies between the arms of stapler linking arms 112b. This arrangement is interpreted as 112a being shaped to fit with a complementary shaped portion of 112b).
Regarding claim 13, Smith et al. discloses the coupling means comprises a projection (112a is a projection, FIG 2) which is shaped to fit with a complementarily shaped portion of one of the first and second jaws of the surgical instrument (The space between arms 112b which receives projection 112a is the complementary shaped portion, [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, Smith et al. discloses the projection is elongate (FIG 2 shows the projection is elongate).
Regarding claim 15, Smith et al. discloses the projection is located between two side walls of the detector mounting means (FIG 2, wherein 112a is the projection and 109 are the side walls, 112a is located therebetween).
Regarding claim 16, Smith et al. discloses the surgical instrument comprises (Examiner notes that as written, the claim still does not positively recite the surgical instrument, therefore the following limitations are interpreted as further defining an intended use of the device) a pair of forceps (stapler 114 having two jaws in interpreted as being usable as forceps) and a portion of the coupling means is shaped to fit with a complementarily- shaped portion of one of the first and second jaws (112a fits with complementary shaped portion 112 of jaw 118, [0024]).
Regarding claim 17, Smith et al. discloses wherein the coupling means further comprises one or more portions shaped to facilitate gripping by the surgical instrument (The projection of 112a which is attached to the surgical instrument via pin 112c is interpreted as being a portion shaped to facilitate gripping by the surgical instrument, wherein ‘gripping’ is the mechanical connection of the two elements).
Regarding claim 18, Smith et al. discloses the surgical instrument comprises (Examiner notes that as written, the claim still does not positively recite the surgical instrument, therefore the following limitations are interpreted as further defining an intended use of the device) a pair of forceps (jaws 116 and 118 are interpreted as being operable as forceps) and the coupling means comprises one or more portions complementarily shaped with one of the first and second jaws of the pair of forceps (The projection 112a is complementarily shaped with the slot 112b of jaw 118 and is at least configured to be complementarily shaped for another pair of forceps as well).
Regarding claim 19, Smith et al. discloses the coupling means comprises one or more recesses for receipt of a portion of one of the first and second jaws of the pair of forceps (112a comprises an aperture through which pin 112c passes, [0024]. 112c is interpreted as a portion of the jaw 118 which it is attached through via 112b).
Regarding claim 20, Smith et al. discloses the or each shaped portion is located in a side wall of the detector mounting means (FIG 2 shows projection 112a extending from the wall of 109, which is interpreted as being ‘located in’ a sidewall thereof).
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 BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights