DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on December 5, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 21-26 are currently pending.
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
Concerning the “Claim Objections” section on page 7 of the Applicant’s Response filed on December 5, 2025, the amendments to claims 1, 6, and 8 have obviated the necessity of the objections to the claims, and the cancellation of claim 3 has rendered the objection to the claim moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Concerning the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)” section and the “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103” section of the Applicant’s Response filed on December 5, 2025, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berkelaar (US 5,860,995).
Concerning claim 1, the Berkelaar prior art reference teaches an end effector assembly of a surgical instrument (Figures 1 & 5), comprising: a clevis defining a longitudinal axis and including first (Figure 5; 44) and second arms (Figure 5; 46) spaced-apart relative to one another; and first and second jaws supported by the clevis (Figure 5; 40, 42), one of the first or second jaw members movable relative to the other of the first and second jaw members and the clevis between a spaced-apart position and an approximated position for cutting or grasping tissue between the first and second jaw members (Column 4, Lines 5-13 | tissue may be grasped by the cutting jaws before cutting), wherein the clevis includes first and second locating features at outwardly facing sides of the first and second spaced-apart arms, respectively (Figures 1 & 5; 50), the first and second locating features configured to facilitate engagement and alignment of the end effector assembly (Column 4, Lines 5-13, 26-29; cable receiving holes 50 are configured to receive articulating cables 68 therein contributing to the facilitation of engagement and alignment of the end effector assembly via articulation of the end effector) and wherein the first and second locating features are cylindrical holes (Figure 5; 50) configured to receive pins from an external structure (the external structure and pins are not positively recited and may be any diameter, wherein the cable receiving holes are capable of receiving pins that are much smaller in diameter than the cable).
Concerning claim 2, the Berkelaar reference teaches the end effector assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first and second locating features define an axis therethrough that is substantially perpendicular relative to the longitudinal axis of the clevis (Figure 5; 50).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkelaar (US 5,860,995) in view of Carter et al (US 2001/0056283, hereinafter Carter).
Concerning claim 4, the Berkelaar reference teaches the end effector assembly according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach the second jaw member being fixed relative to the clevis and wherein the first jaw member is pivotable relative to the second jaw member and the clevis.
However, the Carter reference teaches an end effector assembly of a surgical instrument similar to that of the Berkelaar reference, wherein the reference teaches a clevis defining a longitudinal axis (Figure 7A; portion of shaft which includes pin 28) and including first and second arms spaced-apart relative to one another, and first and second cutting jaws supported by the clevis (Figure 10; 50, 52), the first cutting jaw movable relative to the second cutting jaw and the clevis between a spaced apart position (Figure 10) and an approximated position (Figure 8) for grasping or cutting tissue between the first and second jaw members, wherein the second jaw member is fixed relative to the clevis (Figure 10; 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first jaw pivotable relative to the second jaw member and clevis and the second jaw fixed relative to the clevis as in the Carter reference as a simple substitution of one known configuration for cutting jaws (two pivotable jaws as in Berkelaar) for another known configuration for cutting jaws (one pivotal jaw and one fixed jaw as in Carter) which would yield the predictable result of performing essentially in the same manner as the cutting jaws of the Carter reference.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkelaar (US 5,860,995) in view of Hunt et al. (US 6,358,268, hereinafter Hunt).
Concerning claim 5, the Berkelaar reference teaches the end effector assembly according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach a knife configured for deployment between the first and second jaw members.
However, the Hunt reference teaches an end effector assembly, therein being in the same field of endeavor as the Berkelaar reference, wherein the reference teaches first and second jaw members (Figure 5; 64, 66) and additionally teaches a knife configured for deployment between the first and second jaw members (Figure 5; 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the end effector of the Berkelaar reference include the knife of the Hunt reference to allow the end effector to perform both tissue cutting procedures and tissue grasping procedures (Column 5, Lines 33-47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-15 and 21-26 are allowed.
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 MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 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 at 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 3/5/2026