DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/14/26 has been entered. Claims 29-30, 33-36, and 39 have been amended. Claims 21-40 are addressed in the following office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-26 and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 6,132,368) in view of Pier et al. (US 5,695,502), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 21, an invention relating to clip appliers, Cooper discloses (Figs. 1, 3A-B, 5-6) a robotic clip applier tool (4), comprising: a driver (124 & 126) configured to receive a motor-driven input from a robot (Col. 4, lines 38-67; Col. 5, lines 1-18; Col. 8, lines 1-26); an elongate shaft (56); an end effector (62), comprising: a first jaw; and a second jaw, wherein at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw is movable based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 8, lines 1-26). However, Cooper discloses an end effector, comprising: a first jaw defining a first channel configured to receive a first portion of a clip; and a second jaw defining a second channel configured to receive a second portion of the clip; a firing chamber; and a clip magazine, comprising: a housing defining a storage chamber; a plurality of clips removably stored in the storage chamber; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber toward the firing chamber.
In the analogous art of clip appliers, Pier teaches (Figs. 1-3A & 11) an end effector (14), comprising: a first jaw (59) defining a first channel [i.e. element 54 in first jaw] configured to receive a first portion of a clip; and a second jaw (59) defining a second channel [i.e. element 54 in second jaw] configured to receive a second portion of the clip (see annotated figure below); a firing chamber [i.e. stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-48)]; and a clip magazine (12), comprising: a housing (36) defining a storage chamber [i.e. clip path (26) before stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-57)]; a plurality of clips (10) removably stored in the storage chamber; and a spring (35) positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber toward the firing chamber (Col. 6, lines 34-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
185
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have modified Cooper to have an end effector, comprising: a first jaw defining a first channel configured to receive a first portion of a clip; and a second jaw defining a second channel configured to receive a second portion of the clip; a firing chamber; and a clip magazine, comprising: a housing defining a storage chamber; a plurality of clips removably stored in the storage chamber; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber toward the firing chamber, as taught by Pier. Cooper discloses the tool may include opening and closing jaws applying clips (Col. 8, lines 18-21 & lines 61-67), thus Pier’s clip applier would have provided Cooper with a sufficient means for applying clips.
Regarding claim 22, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses wherein the clip magazine defines the firing chamber [i.e. partition 40, see Pier’s figure 3A and column 6, lines 10-46].
Regarding claim 24, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses the robotic clip applier tool of Claim 21. Cooper further discloses (Figs. 6-7) wherein the driver comprises a first driver (126), and wherein the robotic clip applier tool further comprises: a second driver (124) configured to receive a second motor-driven input from the robot; and an articulation joint (60), wherein the end effector is rotatable relative to the elongate shaft about the articulation joint based on the second driver receiving the second motor- driven input from the robot (Col. 4, lines 59-67; Col. 5, lines 1-45; Col. 8, lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 25, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses the robotic clip applier tool of Claim 21. Cooper further discloses (Figs. 6-7) wherein the driver comprises a first driver (126), wherein the elongate shaft defines a longitudinal axis [i.e. Z axis], wherein the robotic clip applier tool further comprises a second driver (124) configured to receive a second motor- driven input from the robot, and wherein the elongate shaft is rotatable about the longitudinal axis based on the second driver receiving the second motor-driven input (Col. 4, lines 59-67; Col. 5, lines 1-45; Col. 8, lines 13-17 & lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 26, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses wherein the first channel and the second channel co-operatively define a receiving chamber [i.e. clip guidance path, see Pier’s figures 1 & 11 reference number 54], and wherein the robotic clip applier tool further comprises a firing driver [i.e. connecting rod, see Pier’s figures 1 & 8 reference number 8] configured to advance a clip of the plurality of clips from the firing chamber toward the receiving chamber [i.e. see Pier’s Column 6, lines 5-9 & lines 38-46].
Regarding claim 28, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses wherein the housing further defines a window [i.e. element 39, see Pier figure 3A], and wherein the firing driver is configured to move through the window to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing chamber toward the receiving chamber [i.e. see Pier’s Column 5, lines 39-43 and Column 6, lines 5-9 & lines 38-46].
Regarding claim 29, an invention relating to clip appliers, Cooper discloses (Figs. 1, 3A-B, 5-6) a robotic clip applier tool (4), comprising: a driver (124 & 126) configured to receive a motor-driven input from a robot (Col. 4, lines 38-67; Col. 5, lines 1-18; Col. 8, lines 1-26); an elongate shaft (56); an end effector (62) configurable between an open configuration and a closed configuration [i.e. opening and closing of jaws], wherein the end effector is transitionable toward the closed configuration based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 8, lines 1-26). However, Cooper fails to disclose wherein the end effector defines a receiving chamber to support a clip, and wherein the end effector comprises: a first jaw defining a first portion of the receiving chamber; and a second jaw defining a second portion of the receiving chamber; and a clip magazine releasably attachable to the elongate shaft to sequentially provide clips for the receiving chamber, wherein the clip magazine comprises a storage chamber including a plurality of clips arranged along a supply axis; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis toward a firing chamber, the firing chamber located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis.
In the analogous art of clip appliers, Pier teaches (Figs. 1-3A & 11) wherein an end effector (14) defines a receiving chamber (54) to support a clip (Col. 6, lines 5-9), and wherein the end effector comprises: a first jaw (59) defining a first portion of the receiving chamber (see annotated figure below); and a second jaw (59) defining a second portion of the receiving chamber (see annotated figure below); and a clip magazine (12) releasably attachable to the elongate shaft to sequentially provide clips for the receiving chamber (Col. 4, lines 62-67), wherein the clip magazine comprises a storage chamber [i.e. clip path (26) before stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-57)] including a plurality of clips (10) arranged along a supply axis (see annotated figure below); and a spring (35) positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis toward a firing chamber, the firing chamber located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis (see annotated figure below & Col. 6, lines 34-44).
PNG
media_image2.png
185
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
229
773
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Cooper to have wherein the end effector defines a receiving chamber to support a clip, and wherein the end effector comprises: a first jaw defining a first portion of the receiving chamber; and a second jaw defining a second portion of the receiving chamber; and a clip magazine releasably attachable to the elongate shaft to sequentially provide clips for the receiving chamber, wherein the clip magazine comprises a storage chamber including a plurality of clips arranged along a supply axis; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis toward a firing chamber, the firing chamber located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis, as taught by Pier. Cooper discloses the tool may include opening and closing jaws applying clips (Col. 8, lines 18-21 & lines 61-67), thus Pier’s clip applier would have provided Cooper with a sufficient means for applying clips.
Regarding claim 31, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses the robotic clip applier tool of Claim 29. Cooper further discloses (Figs. 6-7) wherein the driver comprises a first driver (126), and wherein the robotic clip applier tool further comprises: a second driver (124) configured to receive a second motor-driven input from the robot; and an articulation joint (60), wherein the end effector is rotatable relative to the elongate shaft about the articulation joint based on the second driver receiving the second motor- driven input from the robot (Col. 4, lines 59-67; Col. 5, lines 1-45; Col. 8, lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 32, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses the robotic clip applier tool of Claim 29. Cooper further discloses (Figs. 6-7) wherein the driver comprises a first driver (126), wherein the elongate shaft defines a longitudinal axis [i.e. Z axis], wherein the robotic clip applier tool further comprises a second driver (124) configured to receive a second motor- driven input from the robot, and wherein the elongate shaft is rotatable about the longitudinal axis based on the driver receiving the second motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 4, lines 59-67; Col. 5, lines 1-45; Col. 8, lines 13-17 & lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 33, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses further comprising a firing driver configured to advance a clip of the plurality of clips from the clip magazine toward the receiving chamber along the firing axis [i.e. connecting rod 8, see Pier’s figure 8 and column 4, lines 62-67; column 5, lines 1-4; column 5, lines 66-67; column 6, lines 1-10].
Regarding claim 35, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses wherein the clip magazine defines a window [i.e. element 39, see Pier figure 3A], and wherein the firing driver is configured to move through the window to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the clip magazine toward the receiving chamber along the firing axis [i.e. see Pier’s Column 5, lines 39-43 and Column 6, lines 5-9 & lines 38-46].
ALTERNATIVE REJECTION OF CLAIM 21 – different interpretation of the “elongate shaft”.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, an invention relating to clip appliers, Cooper discloses (Figs. 1, 3A-B, 5-6) a robotic clip applier tool (4), comprising: a driver (124 & 126) configured to receive a motor-driven input from a robot (Col. 4, lines 38-67; Col. 5, lines 1-18; Col. 8, lines 1-26); an end effector (62), comprising: a first jaw; and a second jaw, wherein at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw is movable based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 8, lines 1-26). However, Cooper discloses an elongate shaft; the end effector, comprising: a first jaw defining a first channel configured to receive a first portion of a clip; and a second jaw defining a second channel configured to receive a second portion of the clip; a firing chamber; and a clip magazine, comprising: a housing defining a storage chamber; a plurality of clips removably stored in the storage chamber; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber toward the firing chamber [Claim 21]; and wherein a portion of the elongate shaft and a portion of the clip magazine define the firing chamber [Claim 23].
In the analogous art of clip appliers, Pier teaches (Figs. 1-3A & 11) an elongate shaft (6); an end effector (14), comprising: a first jaw (59) defining a first channel [i.e. element 54 in first jaw] configured to receive a first portion of a clip; and a second jaw (59) defining a second channel [i.e. element 54 in second jaw] configured to receive a second portion of the clip (see annotated figure below); a firing chamber [i.e. stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-48)]; and a clip magazine (12), comprising: a housing (36) defining a storage chamber [i.e. clip path (26) before stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-57)]; a plurality of clips (10) removably stored in the storage chamber; and a spring (35) positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber toward the firing chamber (Col. 6, lines 34-44); and wherein a portion of the elongate shaft and a portion of the clip magazine define the firing chamber (Figs. 3A & 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
185
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have modified Cooper to have an elongate shaft; the end effector, comprising: a first jaw defining a first channel configured to receive a first portion of a clip; and a second jaw defining a second channel configured to receive a second portion of the clip; a firing chamber; and a clip magazine, comprising: a housing defining a storage chamber; a plurality of clips removably stored in the storage chamber; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber toward the firing chamber [Claim 21]; and wherein a portion of the elongate shaft and a portion of the clip magazine define the firing chamber [Claim 23], as taught by Pier. Cooper discloses the tool may include opening and closing jaws applying clips (Col. 8, lines 18-21 & lines 61-67), thus Pier’s clip applier would have provided Cooper with a sufficient means for applying clips.
ALTERNATIVE REJECTION OF CLAIM 29 – different interpretation of the “elongate shaft”.
Regarding claims 29-30, an invention relating to clip appliers, Cooper discloses (Figs. 1, 3A-B, 5-6) a robotic clip applier tool (4), comprising: a driver (124 & 126) configured to receive a motor-driven input from a robot (Col. 4, lines 38-67; Col. 5, lines 1-18; Col. 8, lines 1-26); an end effector (62) configurable between an open configuration and a closed configuration [i.e. opening and closing of jaws], wherein the end effector is transitionable toward the closed configuration based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 8, lines 1-26). However, Cooper fails to disclose wherein an elongate shaft; the end effector defines a receiving chamber to support a clip, and wherein the end effector comprises: a first jaw defining a first portion of the receiving chamber; and a second jaw defining a second portion of the receiving chamber; and a clip magazine releasably attachable to the elongate shaft to sequentially provide clips for the receiving chamber, wherein the clip magazine comprises a storage chamber including a plurality of clips arranged along a supply axis; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis toward a firing chamber, the firing chamber located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis [Claim 29]; and wherein a portion of the elongate shaft and a portion of the clip magazine define the firing chamber [Claim 30].
In the analogous art of clip appliers, Pier teaches (Figs. 1-3A & 11) wherein an elongate shaft (6); an end effector (14) defines a receiving chamber (54) to support a clip (Col. 6, lines 5-9), and wherein the end effector comprises: a first jaw (59) defining a first portion of the receiving chamber (see annotated figure below); and a second jaw (59) defining a second portion of the receiving chamber (see annotated figure below); and a clip magazine (12) releasably attachable to the elongate shaft to sequentially provide clips for the receiving chamber (Col. 4, lines 62-67), wherein the clip magazine comprises a storage chamber [i.e. clip path (26) before stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-57)] including a plurality of clips (10) arranged along a supply axis (see annotated figure below); and a spring (35) positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis toward a firing chamber, the firing chamber located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis (see annotated figure below & Col. 6, lines 34-44); wherein a portion of the elongate shaft and a portion of the clip magazine define the firing chamber (Figs. 3A & 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
185
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
229
773
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Cooper to have wherein an elongate shaft; the end effector defines a receiving chamber to support a clip, and wherein the end effector comprises: a first jaw defining a first portion of the receiving chamber; and a second jaw defining a second portion of the receiving chamber; and a clip magazine releasably attachable to the elongate shaft to sequentially provide clips for the receiving chamber, wherein the clip magazine comprises a storage chamber including a plurality of clips arranged along a supply axis; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis toward a firing chamber, the firing chamber located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis [Claim 29]; and wherein a portion of the elongate shaft and a portion of the clip magazine define the firing chamber [Claim 30], as taught by Pier. Cooper discloses the tool may include opening and closing jaws applying clips (Col. 8, lines 18-21 & lines 61-67), thus Pier’s clip applier would have provided Cooper with a sufficient means for applying clips.
Claim 27 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 6,132,368) in view of Pier et al. (US 5,695,502) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Hausen (US 7,875,029), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 27, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses the robotic clip applier tool of Claim 26. The combination fails to further explicitly disclose wherein the firing driver is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing chamber toward the receiving chamber based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot.
In the analogous art of clip appliers, Hausen teaches (Fig. 2) wherein a firing driver (32) is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing chamber toward the receiving chamber based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 5, lines 4-11 & Col. 7, lines 19-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have modified Cooper, in view of Pier, to have wherein the firing driver is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing chamber toward the receiving chamber based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot, as taught by Hausen. Cooper discloses the tool may include actuation of tool controlled by a robot (Abstract; Col. 8, lines 18-21 & lines 61-67) and Piers details the actuation involving the firing driver advancing the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing chamber toward the receiving chamber (Col. 4, lines 44-49), thus Hausen teachings would have provided Cooper, as modified by Pier, with a sufficient means wherein the firing driver is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing chamber toward the receiving chamber based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot.
Claim 34 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 6,132,368) in view of Pier et al. (US 5,695,502) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Hausen (US 7,875,029), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 34, Cooper, as modified by Pier, discloses the robotic clip applier tool of Claim 33. The combination fails to further explicitly disclose wherein the firing driver is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the clip magazine toward the receiving chamber along the firing axis based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot.
In the analogous art of clip appliers, Hausen teaches (Fig. 2) wherein a firing driver (32) is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the clip magazine toward the receiving chamber along the firing axis based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 5, lines 4-11 & Col. 7, lines 19-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have modified Cooper, in view of Pier, to have wherein the firing driver is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the clip magazine toward the receiving chamber along the firing axis based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot, as taught by Hausen. Cooper discloses the tool may include actuation of tool controlled by a robot (Abstract; Col. 8, lines 18-21 & lines 61-67) and Piers details the actuation involving the firing driver advancing the clip of the plurality of clips from the clip magazine toward the receiving chamber (Col. 4, lines 44-49), thus Hausen teachings would have provided Cooper, as modified by Pier, with a sufficient means wherein the firing driver is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the clip magazine toward the receiving chamber based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot.
Claims 36-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 6,132,368) in view of Pier et al. (US 5,695,502) and Hausen (US 7,875,029), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 36, an invention relating to clip appliers, Cooper discloses (Figs. 1, 3A-B, 5-6) a robotic clip applier tool (4), comprising: a driver (124 & 126) configured to receive a motor-driven input from a robot (Col. 4, lines 38-67; Col. 5, lines 1-18; Col. 8, lines 1-26); an elongate shaft (56); an end effector (62), comprising: a first jaw; and a second jaw (Col. 8, lines 1-26). However, Cooper fails to disclose the end effector, comprising: a first jaw defining a first recess to support a first portion of a clip; and a second jaw defining a second recess to support a second portion of the clip; a clip magazine, comprising: a storage chamber including a supply axis; a plurality of clips arranged along the supply axis in the storage chamber; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis to a firing position, the firing position located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis; and a firing driver configured to advance a clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector along the firing axis based on the driver receiving to the motor-driven input from the robot.
In the analogous art of clip appliers, Pier teaches (Figs. 1-3A & 11) an end effector (14), comprising: a first jaw (59) defining a first recess [i.e. element 54 in first jaw] to support a first portion of a clip (see annotated figure below); and a second jaw defining a second recess [i.e. element 54 in second jaw] to support a second portion of the clip (see annotated figure below); a clip magazine (12), comprising: a storage chamber [i.e. clip path (26) before stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-57)] including a supply axis (see annotated figure below); a plurality of clips (10) arranged along the supply axis in the storage chamber (see annotated figure below); and a spring (35) positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis to a firing position [i.e. stop or on-deck position (40)] (Col. 6, lines 39-48), the firing position located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis (see annotated figure below); and a firing driver (8) configured to advance a clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector along the firing axis (Col. 6, lines 5-9 & lines 38-46).
PNG
media_image3.png
229
773
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
186
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Cooper to have the end effector, comprising: a first jaw defining a first recess to support a first portion of a clip; and a second jaw defining a second recess to support a second portion of the clip; a clip magazine, comprising: a storage chamber including a supply axis; a plurality of clips arranged along the supply axis in the storage chamber; and a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis to a firing position, the firing position located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis; and a firing driver configured to advance a clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector along the firing axis, as taught by Pier. Cooper discloses the tool may include opening and closing jaws applying clips (Col. 8, lines 18-21 & lines 61-67), thus Pier’s clip applier would have provided Cooper with a sufficient means for applying clips. However, Pier fails to disclose the firing driver configured to advance a clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector based on the driver receiving to the motor-driven input from the robot.
In the analogous art of clip appliers, Hausen teaches (Fig. 2) wherein a firing driver (32) configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 5, lines 4-11 & Col. 7, lines 19-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Cooper, in view of Pier, to have wherein the firing driver is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot, as taught by Hausen. Cooper discloses the tool may include actuation of tool controlled by a robot (Abstract; Col. 8, lines 18-21 & lines 61-67) and Piers details the actuation involving the firing driver advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector (Col. 4, lines 44-49), thus Hausen teachings would have provided Cooper, as modified by Pier, with a sufficient means wherein the firing driver is configured to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector based on the driver receiving the motor-driven input from the robot.
Regarding claim 37, Cooper, as modified by Pier and Hausen, discloses the robotic clip applier tool of Claim 36. Cooper further discloses (Figs. 6-7) wherein the driver comprises a first driver (126), and wherein the robotic clip applier tool further comprises: a second driver (124) configured to receive a second motor-driven input from the robot; and an articulation joint (60), wherein the end effector is rotatable relative to the elongate shaft about the articulation joint based on the second driver receiving the second motor- driven input from the robot (Col. 4, lines 59-67; Col. 5, lines 1-45; Col. 8, lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 38, Cooper, as modified by Pier and Hausen, discloses the robotic clip applier tool of Claim 36. Cooper further discloses (Figs. 6-7) wherein the driver comprises a first driver (126), wherein the elongate shaft defines a longitudinal axis [i.e. Z axis], wherein the robotic clip applier tool further comprises a second driver (124) configured to receive a second motor- driven input from the robot, and wherein the elongate shaft is rotatable about the longitudinal axis based on the driver receiving the second motor-driven input from the robot (Col. 4, lines 59-67; Col. 5, lines 1-45; Col. 8, lines 13-17 & lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 39, Cooper, as modified by Pier and Hausen, discloses wherein the clip magazine defines a window [i.e. element 39, see Pier figure 3A], and wherein the firing driver is configured to move through the window to advance the clip of the plurality of clips from the firing position toward the end effector along the firing axis [i.e. see Pier’s Column 5, lines 39-43 and Column 6, lines 5-9 & lines 38-46].
Regarding claim 40, Cooper, as modified by Pier and Hausen, discloses wherein the clip magazine comprises a shelf configured to support the clips in the firing position, and wherein the shelf is aligned with the window [i.e. clip gripper 24, see Pier’s column 6, lines 2-4 and figure 3A]. However, the combination discloses a shelf instead of shelves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by duplicating the shelf, such that there was a set of shelves from which a selection was being made, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts would not produce a new and unobvious result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues previously cited prior art references Cooper, Pier, and Hausen, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or fairly suggest a robotic clip applier tool comprising “a firing chamber”, “a storage chamber”, and “a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber toward the firing chamber”, as recited in the independent claim 21. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pier teaches (Figs. 1-3A & 11) a firing chamber [i.e. stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-48)]; and a clip magazine (12), comprising: a housing (36) defining a storage chamber [i.e. clip path (26) before stop or on-deck position (Col. 6, lines 39-57)]; a plurality of clips (10) removably stored in the storage chamber; and a spring (35) positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber toward the firing chamber (Col. 6, lines 34-44).
Also, applicant argues previously cited prior art references Cooper, Pier, and Hausen, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or fairly suggest a robotic clip applier tool including "a storage chamber including a plurality of clips arranged along a supply axis" and "a spring positioned to sequentially bias the plurality of clips from the storage chamber along the supply axis toward a firing chamber, the firing chamber located on a firing axis transverse to the supply axis," as recited by amended independent claim 29. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, at (571) 272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights