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 Arguments
Objections
In regards to Applicant’s response filed 09/30/2025, the amended Specification has overcome the objections made in the Non-Final Office Action filed 06/30/2025. The objections are hereby withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument due to the change in scope of the amended claim.
The Independent claim has been amended to include the limitation of the frame comprising a connection interface defining an opening sized to receive the surgical instrument through an opening in the proximal end of the frame. New grounds of rejection are detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/26/2022, 06/28/2023, 03/06/2024, 05/20/2024, and 09/30/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
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. The following claim limitation(s) of claim 1 being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) is/are:
“a plurality of receptables,” [for engaging with a plurality of engagers to actuate the end effector in an open/closed degree of freedom via a first and second pair of force transmitting elements] as identified as elements 312a, 312b, 316a, 316b, and/or 318 in the specification, which may have a hook shape or any other shape understood in the art to interface with the engagers, and which translate as a result of corresponding translation of the plurality of engagers;
“a plurality of engagers,” [for actuating the end effector in a close degree of freedom] as identified as elements 220a-e in the specification, which may have a hook shape or any other shape understood in the art to interface with the adaptor receptacles;
“a first pair of force transmitting elements,” [for actuating the end effector in a close degree of freedom] as identified as elements 224a and 224b, described as rigid elements such as steel, composite or polymeric rods, flexible elements such as tungsten, steel, polymer, or Dyneema cables, wires or ropes, or semi-rigid elements such as a metal band located at one end of the force transmitting elements, the other end coupled to a component of the end effector; and
“a second pair of force transmitting elements,” [for actuating the end effector in an open degree of freedom] not labeled but presumed to be the same as the first pair of force transmitting elements.
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
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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al (US 20140236174 A1) in view of Peine et al (US 20110112517 A1) and Malinouskas et al (US 20110121049 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a handheld adapter (100) for actuating a surgical instrument (200) having an end-effector (400), the handheld adapter comprising:
a frame (102) comprising an instrument connection interface (108a) sized and shaped to receive the surgical instrument (See at least Figs. 1 and 3; [0088]);
a plurality of receptacles (118, 120, 122) configured to engage with respective engagers of a plurality of engagers of the surgical instrument (218, 220, 222) to actuate the end effector in a close degree of freedom via a first pair of force transmitting elements (see [0105] for drive shaft 214 and [0147], Fig. 19 for drive beam 466) of the surgical instrument and to actuate the end effector in an open degree of freedom via a second pair of force transmitting elements (see [0105] for drive shaft 214 and [0147], Fig. 19 for actuation sled 418) of the surgical instrument (see [0093]; drive connectors 118, 120, and 122 allow surgical device 100 to selectively actuate different functions of end effector 400);
a handle (106) comprising a trigger (124, 126) configured to be actuated to cause movement of the plurality of receptacles, which causes movement of the respective engagers to thereby actuate the end-effector in the close degree of freedom (see [0095]; finger actuated control buttons); and
a spring (biasing elements 224, 226, and/or 228; depicted as springs in Fig. 8) coupled to the frame and the plurality of receptacles and configured to provide a predetermined tension on the first and second pair of force transmitting elements when the surgical instrument is received by the frame, such that upon release of the trigger, the spring causes movement of the plurality of receptacles, which causes movement of the respective engagers to thereby actuate the end-effector in the open degree of freedom (see [0103]; biasing member(s) 224, 226 and/or 228, depicted as springs in Fig. 8, will cause respective first, second and/or third connector sleeve(s) 218, 220 and/or 222 to slide back proximally, effectively coupling drive connectors 118, 120, 122 of surgical device 100 to first, second and/or third proximal drive shaft(s) 212, 214 and 216 of shaft coupling assembly).
Williams is silent regarding the mechanism of the finger actuated buttons 124 and 126; and
the instrument connection interface defining an opening sized and shaped to receive the surgical instrument through the proximal end of the frame.
Malinouskas is incorporated by reference in paragraph [0085] of Williams for a detailed description of the construction and operation of the described hand-held surgical device. Malinouskas details the frame of the hand-held surgical device where the buttons 124 and 126 of Williams correspond with the buttons 507 and 508 as seen in Malinouskas Fig. 5a. In paragraphs [0120-0129] Malinouskas teaches finger actuated control buttons 507 and 508 which when actuated control the actuation of the end effector, for example between an open and closed state by sending a control signal to the function selection module 5210 which selects which engagers are to be driven by the drive input system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the claimed invention to use the hand-held surgical device of the incorporated reference Malinouskas having finger actuated control buttons to select which engages are driven by the drive input in the endoscopic apparatus as taught by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have accessible selective control over the actuation of the end effector via the connection interface of the instrument and the hand-held adapter (Malinouskas [0123-0125]).
Peine teaches a hand-held adaptor for a surgical instrument having an end effector (see Peine Fig. 1, [0040]), the hand-held adaptor comprising:
a frame (see Fig. 1, [0057]; handle portion 12 comprising horn 13) comprising an instrument connection interface defining an opening sized and shaped to receive the surgical instrument (see [0067]; shaft assembly 270 comprising a proximal end and a distal end comprising the shaft 14 and end effector 16) through the proximal end of the frame (see Fig. 4, [0066]; the handle portion 12 opens via clamshell portions 260 and 262 which allows for shaft assembly 270 to be inserted through the proximal end of the handle assembly).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handheld adaptor as taught by Williams with the incorporation of Malinouskas with the proximal end entry as taught by Peine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to easily and securely couple the instrument shaft assembly to the hand-held adaptor while providing an open structure of the handle assembly that is readily accessible and easy to clean when the instrument shaft is removed (Peine [0061-0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Williams in view of Malinouskas and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 1. Williams further teaches wherein the instrument connection interface comprises a locking mechanism (at least the recess (108b)) configured to lock the surgical instrument relative to the frame (see Fig. 1; connecting portion 108a and shaft coupling assembly 208a). The shaft coupling assembly 208a and connecting portion 108a are interpreted as a locking mechanism because they act to mate together the handheld adapter and the instrument shaft in a secure manner for use of the instrument (Williams [0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Williams in view of Malinouskas and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 2. Williams further teaches wherein the locking mechanism (108a) comprises a circumferential groove (see Fig. 2, grooves located on connecting portion 108a) sized and shaped to rotatably receive a locking pin of the surgical instrument (see Fig. 3, shaft coupling assembly 208a). It can be seen in Fig. 3 that the shaft coupling assembly 208a has grooves on the outside that mate with the circumferential grooves of handheld adapter connecting portion 108a, additionally shaft coupling assembly has electrical contact pins 290a and 290b which interface with the handheld adapter, locking the two assemblies together.
Regarding claim 4, Williams in view of Malinouskas and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 1. Williams further teaches the handheld adapter comprising an opening sized and shaped to receive an instrument shaft of the surgical instrument therethrough, the opening comprising a geometry configured to transmit torque to the instrument shaft of the surgical instrument (see Fig. 1; connecting portion 108a and shaft coupling assembly 208a).
It can be appreciated that Peine also teaches an opening (see Peine Fig. 4, [0060]; opening through cinch ring 200) sized and shaped to receive an instrument shaft of the surgical instrument therethrough, the opening comprising a geometry configured to transmit torque to the instrument shaft of the surgical instrument (see Peine [0068-0071]; connection interface between handle portion 12 and shaft portion 270 which allows for the connection to the drive input and secures the shaft in groove 278 to prevent linear movement when force is applied).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hand-held adapter as taught by Williams with the actuation controls of Malinouskas with the opening sized and shaped to receive the instrument shaft therethrough of Peine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to securely couple the instrument shaft to the hand-held adaptor while minimizing unwanted translation as a result of forces applied during actuation of the instrument (Peine [0069]).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9-10, 12-13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge et al (US 20120022526 A1) in view of Peine et al (US 20110112517 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aldridge teaches a handheld adapter (101) for actuating a surgical instrument having an end-effector (110), the handheld adapter comprising:
a frame (105) comprising an instrument connection interface sized and shaped to receive the surgical instrument (see annotated Fig. 2 below);
a plurality of receptacles (144A, 144B) configured to engage with respective engagers of a plurality of engagers of the surgical instrument (142A, 142B located on end instrument jaws 120A and 120B respectively) to actuate the end effector in a close degree of freedom via a first pair of force transmitting elements (shuttle 146 and movable member 140A) of the surgical instrument and to actuate the end effector in an open degree of freedom via a second pair of force transmitting elements (shuttle 146 and movable member 140B) of the surgical instrument (see [0087]; the axially moveable member 140 may slide within the channels 142A, 142B to open and close first jaw 120A and second jaw 120B);
a handle (105) comprising a trigger (128) configured to be actuated to cause movement of the plurality of receptacles, which causes movement of the respective engagers to thereby actuate the end-effector in the close degree of freedom (see [0084]; lever arm 128 may be coupled to an axially moveable member 140 disposed within elongate shaft 108); and
a spring (141) coupled to the frame and the plurality of receptacles and configured to provide a predetermined tension on the first and second pair of force transmitting elements when the surgical instrument is received by the frame, such that upon release of the trigger, the spring causes movement of the plurality of receptacles, which causes movement of the respective engagers to thereby actuate the end-effector in the open degree of freedom (see [0084]; spring 141, which may also be connected to the second handle body 106B, to bias the shuttle 146 and thus the axially moveable member 140 in a proximal direction, thereby urging the jaws 120A and 120B to an open position).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aldridge is silent regarding the instrument connection interface defining an opening sized and shaped to receive the surgical instrument through the proximal end of the frame.
Peine teaches a hand-held adaptor for a surgical instrument having an end effector (see Peine Fig. 1, [0040]), the hand-held adaptor comprising:
a frame (see Fig. 1, [0057]; handle portion 12 comprising horn 13) comprising an instrument connection interface defining an opening sized and shaped to receive the surgical instrument (see [0067]; shaft assembly 270 comprising a proximal end and a distal end comprising the shaft 14 and end effector 16) through the proximal end of the frame (see Fig. 4, [0066]; the handle portion 12 opens via clamshell portions 260 and 262 which allows for shaft assembly 270 to be inserted through the proximal end of the handle assembly).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handheld adaptor as taught by Aldridge with the proximal end entry as taught by Peine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to easily and securely couple the instrument shaft assembly to the hand-held adaptor while providing an open structure of the handle assembly that is readily accessible and easy to clean when the instrument shaft is removed (Peine [0061-0062]).
Regarding claim 5, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 1. Aldridge further teaches wherein the plurality of receptacles comprises a first pair of receptacles (144A) and a second pair of receptacles (144B),
the first pair of receptacles configured to engage with a first pair of engagers (142A) of the plurality of engagers of the surgical instrument to actuate the end-effector in the close degree of freedom via the first pair of force transmitting elements of the surgical instrument (140A), and
the second pair of receptacles configured to engage with a second pair of engagers (142B) of the plurality of engagers of the surgical instrument to actuate the end-effector in the open degree of freedom via the second pair of force transmitting elements (140B) of the surgical instrument (see 0087]; the axially moveable member 140 may slide within the channels 142A, 142B to open and close first jaw 120A and second jaw 120B).
Regarding claim 6, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 5. Aldridge further teaches wherein the spring (141) is coupled to the second pair of receptacles (144B),
such that upon release of the trigger, the spring causes translational movement of the second pair of receptacles, which causes translational movement of the second pair of engagers to thereby actuate the end-effector in the open degree of freedom (see [0084]; spring 141, which may also be connected to the second handle body 106B, to bias the shuttle 146 and thus the axially moveable member 140 in a proximal direction, thereby urging the jaws 120A and 120B to an open position). Examiner notes that the engagers 142A and 142B are located within the body of the jaws of the end effector 120, such that when the spring causes translational movement in the second pair of receptacles 144B, the upper and lower jaws 120A and 120B, including the engagers 142A and 142B experience translational motion as the actuator opens.
Regarding claim 9, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 5. Aldridge further teaches the handheld adapter comprising a slider (140) slidably moveable within the frame,
wherein the second pair of receptacles (144B) extends from the slider,
and wherein the spring (141) is coupled to the second pair of receptacles via the slider (see [0084]; spring 141, which may also be connected to the second handle body 106B, to bias the shuttle 146 and thus the axially moveable member 140).
Regarding claim 10, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 5. They are silent regarding the handheld adapter further comprising a third pair of receptacles configured to engage with a third pair of engagers of the surgical instrument to prevent actuation of the third pair of engagers.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include a third set of receptables and engagers on the handheld adapter and surgical instrument respectively in order to increase the degrees of freedom of the articulation between the end effector as caused by the handheld adapter. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art when the duplication does not yield any new or unexpected result. In the device of the prior art, an additional set of receptacles and engagers of the surgical instrument would merely increase the degrees of freedom of the end effector in a predictable way, wherein the end effector would comprise three jaws rather than two and the receptables would engage with an additional jaw for actuation of the end effector in a third degree of freedom. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 1. Aldridge further teaches wherein the plurality of receptacles (144A and 144B) comprises a pair of receptacles configured to engage with a pair of engagers of the plurality of engagers of the surgical instrument (142A and 142B),
such that movement of the pair of receptacles in a first direction actuates the end-effector in a close degree of freedom via the first pair of force transmitting elements of the surgical instrument, and
movement of the pair of receptacles in a second direction opposite to the first direction actuates the end-effector in an open degree of freedom via the second pair of force transmitting elements of the surgical instrument (see [0087]; the axially moveable member 140 may slide within the channels 142A, 142B to open and close first jaw 120A and second jaw 120B), and
wherein the spring is coupled to the pair of receptacles, such that upon release of the trigger, the spring causes movement of the pair of receptacles in the second direction, which causes movement of the second pair of engagers in the second direction to thereby actuate the end-effector in the open degree of freedom (see [0084]; spring 141, which may also be connected to the second handle body 106B, to bias the shuttle 146 and thus the axially moveable member 140 in a proximal direction, thereby urging the jaws 120A and 120B to an open position).
Regarding claim 13, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 12. In another non-limiting embodiment, Aldridge teaches a rack (244) slidably moveable within the frame (directions 272 and 276), wherein the plurality of receptacles comprises a pair of pinions (246 and 252) configured to rotatably engage with the rack, wherein the spring (251) is coupled to the plurality of receptacles (246, 252) via a rack (244).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the elements from the two embodiments as taught by Aldridge in order to regulate or otherwise control the axial movement of the actuation assembly (Aldridge [0094]).
Regarding claim 17, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 12. Aldridge further teaches the handheld adapter comprising a slider (140) slidably moveable within the frame, the slider comprising the pair of receptacles (144A and 144B), and wherein the spring (141) is coupled to the pair of receptacles via the slider.
Regarding claim 18, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 17. Aldridge further teaches wherein the pair of receptacles (144A and 144B) comprises a pair of grooves (see Fig. 5, grooves 144A/B on either side of slider 140) sized and shaped to receive the pair of engagers (142A and 142B) therein when the surgical instrument is received by the frame.
Regarding claim 19, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 17. Aldridge further teaches wherein actuation of the trigger (128) causes translational movement of the slider (140), which causes translational movement of the pair of engagers (142A and 142B) in the first direction to thereby actuate the end-effector in the close degree of freedom (see [0084]; spring 141, which may also be connected to the second handle body 106B, to bias the shuttle 146 and thus the axially moveable member 140 in a proximal direction, thereby urging the jaws 120A and 120B to an open position).
Regarding claim 20, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 19. Aldridge further teaches wherein translational movement of the slider (140) in the first direction causes the spring (141) to compress axially, such that, upon release of the trigger (128), the spring causes movement of the pair of receptacles in the second direction via the slider (see [0088]; the advancement of the axially movable member 140 may close the end effector from the open configuration as shown in Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge et al (US 20120022526 A1) in view of Peine et al (US 20110112517 A1), and Steege et al (US 20160113732 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 5. They are silent regarding wherein translational movement of the first pair of engagers causes translational movement of the second pair of engagers in an equal and opposite direction via the first and second pair of force transmitting elements, such that, upon actuation of the trigger, the translational movement of the second pair of engagers causes translational movement of the second pair of receptacles, which causes the spring to compress axially.
However, Steege teaches a surgical tool comprising a handheld adapter for actuating said surgical tool having an end-effector (100) wherein translational movement of the first pair of engagers (XY) causes translational movement of the second pair of engagers (WZ) in an equal and opposite direction via the first and second pair of force transmitting elements (see [0114]; the jaw is opened by a XY/WZ motion, and can thus be closed by a WZ/XY motion), such that, upon actuation of the trigger (406), the translational movement of the second pair of engagers causes translational movement of the second pair of receptacles, which causes the spring (408) to compress axially .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aldridge’s handheld adapter with the configuration of engagers wherein a translational movement of one set causes an equal and opposite translational movement for the second set as taught by Steege. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manipulate the instrument end effector without any net change in the gain or loss of the tension members due to the equal and opposite translation/relaxation of opposite cables (Steege [0120]).
Regarding claim 11, Aldridge and Peine teach a surgical instrument configured to be coupled to and actuated via the handheld adapter of claim 6. Aldridge further teaches the surgical instrument comprising:
an instrument shaft (108) having an end effector (110);
a surgical instrument interface comprising a first pair of engagers (142A) configured to engage with the first pair of receptacles (144A) of the handheld adapter to actuate the end effector in the close degree of freedom, and
a second pair of engagers (142B) configured to engage with the second pair of receptacles (144B) to actuate the end effector in the open degree of freedom (see [0087]; the axially moveable member 140 may slide within the channels 142A, 142B to open and close first jaw 120A and second jaw 120B).
Aldridge is silent regarding a first pair of force transmitting elements extending through the instrument shaft and coupled to the first pair of engagers and the end effector; and
a second pair of force transmitting element extending through the instrument shaft and coupled to the second pair of engagers and the end effector,
wherein movement of the first pair of force transmitting elements causes a corresponding movement of the second pair of force transmitting elements in an equal and opposite direction.
However, Steege teaches a surgical tool comprising a handheld adapter with a first pair of force transmitting elements extending through the instrument shaft (cables W and X) and coupled to the first pair of engagers and the end effector (100); and
a second pair of force transmitting element extending through the instrument shaft (cables Y and Z) and coupled to the second pair of engagers and the end effector,
wherein movement of the first pair of force transmitting elements causes a corresponding movement of the second pair of force transmitting elements in an equal and opposite direction (see [0114]; the jaw is opened by a XY/WZ motion, and can thus be closed by a WZ/XY motion).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aldridge’s handheld adapter with the configuration of engagers wherein a translational movement of one set causes an equal and opposite translational movement for the second set as taught by Steege. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manipulate the instrument end effector without any net change in the gain or loss of the tension members due to the equal and opposite translation/relaxation of opposite cables (Steege [0120]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge et al (US 20120022526 A1) in view of Peine et al (US 20110112517 A1), and Wingardner et al (US 20140110453 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 5. Aldridge is silent regarding wherein the second pair of receptacles comprises a hook shape configured to interengage with the second pair of engagers of the surgical instrument.
However, Wingardner teaches a surgical instrument having a handle assembly, a jaw assembly, and a drive assembly wherein the receptacle of the adapter comprises a hook shape (see Wingardner [0066]; a coupling hook of adapter 200) to interengage with an engager (366a) of the surgical instrument (see Windgardner [0066]; hooked proximal end 366a of articulation link 366 engages a coupling hook of adapter 200 when end effector 300 is secured to distal housing 232 of adapter 200).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aldridge’s handheld adapter with the hook shaped receptable as taught by Wingardner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to secure the end effector to the adapter housing for use together.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge et al (US 20120022526 A1) in view of Peine et al (US 20110112517 A1), and Boudreaux et al (US 20190209201 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Aldridge and Peine teach the handheld adapter of claim 13. Aldridge is silent regarding wherein the pair of engagers comprises a pair of spools configured to engage with the pair of pinions when the surgical instrument is received by the frame.
However, Boudreaux teaches a surgical instrument coupled with an end effector wherein the pair of engagers comprises a pair of spools (612) configured to engage with the pair of pinions (614 and 626) when the surgical instrument is received by the frame (see Fig. 34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aldridge’s handheld adapter having a pair of pinions with Boudreaux’s pair of spools configured to engage with the pair of pinions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to couple the rotatable spools with the gear mechanism to provide shaft articulation including opening and closing the jaws of the clamp instrument (Boudreaux [0181[).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Aldridge teaches the handheld adapter of claim 13 comprising a rack slidably movable within the frame wherein the plurality of receptacles comprises a pair of pinions configured to rotatably engage with the rack, and wherein the spring is coupled to the plurality of receptacles via the rack.
Aldridge is silent regarding wherein actuation of the trigger causes translational movement of the rack, which causes rotational movement of the pair of engagers in the first direction to thereby actuate the end-effector in the close degree of freedom; and wherein said translational movement of the rack in the first direction causes the spring to compress axially, such that, upon release of the trigger, the spring causes movement of the pair of receptacles in the second direction via the rack.
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 ALISHA J SIRCAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9-6:30, Friday 9-5:30 CT.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792