CTFR 18/176,984 CTFR 91418 DETAILED ACTION Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 5/28/26, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-22 are pending with claims 6-7 and 16 canceled, claims 21-22 new, and claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, and 20 amended. The following is a complete response to the 5/28/26 communication. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr (US 2011/0276048) in view of Davison (US 2012/0083783) . Regarding claim 21, Kerr teaches an end effector, comprising: a first jaw having a first electrode that includes (jaw 210 with 212): a first planar portion (212 on a left side);a first inner lateral extent extending from the first planar portion (side of diamond as in Fig. 7 on a top left side); a second planar portion laterally offset from the first planar portion (212 on a right side); and a second inner lateral extent extending from the second planar portion (side of diamond as in Fig. 7 on a top right side); and a second jaw having a second electrode that includes (jaw 220 with 222): a third planar portion confronting the first planar portion when the first and second jaws are closed (222 on a left side); a third inner lateral extent extending from the third planar portion (side of diamond as in Fig. 7 on a bottom left side); a fourth planar portion laterally offset from the third planar portion and confronting the second planar portion when the first and second jaws are closed (222 on a right side); and a fourth inner lateral extent extending from the fourth planar portion (side of diamond as in Fig. 7 on a bottom right side); wherein, when the first and second jaws are closed, the first, second, third, and fourth inner lateral extents define a diamond shaped cross-section (Fig. 7), and wherein the first inner lateral extent extends away from the first planar portion and out of a plane extending through first planar portion (Fig. 9 with extents that define the diamond shape extending from the planar portions and the plane of the extents cross the planes of the first and second portions).Kerr does not each the inner lateral extents as part of the first and second electrodes.However, Davison teaches lateral extents from first and second planar portions of an electrode (Fig. 6 with electrode 277 having first and second planar portions and lateral extents moving toward a knife channel).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the electrode having the lateral extents of Davison, allowing for reducing charring of tissue (par. [0095]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 8-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr in view of Davison, in further view of Carlton (US 2008/0091189) . Regarding claim 1, Kerr teaches an end effector, comprising: a first jaw having a first electrode and a first insulator secured thereto (210 with electrode 212); a second jaw having a second electrode and a second insulator secured thereto (220 with electrode 222), the first and second jaws being pivotable between open and closed positions (similar to par. [0041]); and wherein the first and second electrodes each provide a first planar portion (212 and 222 on a left side as in Fig. 9), a second planar portion laterally offset from the first planar portion (212 and 22 on a right side as in Fig. 9), and inner lateral extents extending from the first and second planar portions (diamond shape channel with sides extending from the first and second planar portions), wherein the inner lateral extents cooperatively define a diamond-shape cross-section when the first and second jaws are in the closed position (inner edges of 212 and 222 help to define the diamond shape as in Fig. 9), and wherein the inner lateral extents extend away from the corresponding first and second planar portions of the first jaw and out of a plane extending through the first and second planar portions of the first jaw (Fig. 9 with extents that define the diamond shape extending from the planar portions and the plane of the extents cross the planes of the first and second portions).Kerr does not each the inner lateral extents as part of the first and second electrodes.However, Davison teaches lateral extents from first and second planar portions of an electrode (Fig. 6 with electrode 277 having first and second planar portions and lateral extents moving toward a knife channel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the electrode having the lateral extents of Davison, allowing for reducing charring of tissue (par. [0095]). Kerr is not explicit regarding the insulators. However, Carlton teaches insulators 290 and 292 on jaws of a similar electrosurgical forceps device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the insulators of Carlton, to prevent unwanted damage to tissue. Regarding claim 2, Kerr teaches wherein the first electrode define a first slot portion (electrode 212 on left and right sides of a slot), and the second electrode define a second slot portion (electrode 222 on left and right sides of a slot), and wherein the first and second slot portions and the inner lateral extents cooperatively define the knife slot when the first and second jaws are in the closed position (Fig. 7). Kerr is not explicit regarding the insulators cooperating with the electrodes to define the slots. However, Carlton teaches the insulators 290 and 292 as in claim 1. The insulative material helps to form the jaw shape, including the channel for the knives (par. [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the insulative material helping form the knife slot, as in Carlton, as the material of the jaw would help to inform the knife channel therein. Regarding claim 3, Kerr is silent wherein the planar portions each provide an outer lateral extent extending away from the first planar portion and embedded within the first insulator, and the second portions each provide an outer lateral extent extending away from the second planar portion and embedded within the second insulator. However, Carlton teaches the first left and right portions each provide an outer lateral extent extending away from the first planar surface and embedded within the first insulator (291 embedded within the insulator of 280), and the second left and right portions each provide an outer lateral extent extending away from the second planar surface and embedded within the second insulator (293 embedded within the insulator of 282). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the outer lateral extent shapes of the electrodes, as in Carlton, to provide a secure engagement of the electrodes to the jaw members (par. [0034]). Regarding claim 4, Kerr is silent wherein each outer lateral extent provides an electrically exposed edge that provides a transition between the outer lateral extent and the first and second planar sealing portions, respectively. However, Carlton teaches the outer lateral extents each provide an electrically exposed edge that provides a transition between the outer lateral extent and the first and second planar sealing surfaces (Fig. 3, 291 and 293 with transition edges that are exposed on the sides of the planar surfaces of the tissue contacting planes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the outer lateral extent shapes of the electrodes, as in Carlton, to provide a secure engagement of the electrodes to the jaw members (par. [0034]). Regarding claim 5, Kerr is not explicit, but Carlton teaches wherein the outer lateral extents are embedded within the first and second insulators such that the first and second insulators provide a flush interface with the first and second planar portions, respectively (insulators provide a flush interface with the planar sealing surfaces as in Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the outer lateral extent shapes of the electrodes, as in Carlton, to provide a secure engagement of the electrodes to the jaw members (par. [0034]). Regarding claim 8, Kerr is not explicit wherein the first and second insulators each define a trough section extending laterally across the knife slot and thereby structurally connecting lateral sides of the first and second insulators. However, Carlton teaches the insulators with a trough section to connect lateral sides of the first and second insulators (Figs. 2-3 with insulative material of each jaw from the left to right). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the outer lateral extent shapes of the electrodes, as in Carlton, to provide a secure engagement of the electrodes to the jaw members (par. [0034]). Regarding claim 9, Kerr teaches wherein the first and second electrodes each provide an elongate body with opposing distal and proximal ends (elongate body best seen in Fig. 2a with a proximal end near the hinge and a distal end at the end), and an elongate channel is defined in the body and extends between the distal and proximal ends to form part of the knife slot (Fig. 2a 115b between the distal and proximal sections). Regarding claim 10, Kerr is not explicit regarding a first electrical connector extending from the proximal end of the first electrode and configured to receive a first electrical conductor to provide electrical energy to the first electrode; and a second electrical connector extending from the proximal end of the second electrode and configured to receive a second electrical conductor to provide electrical energy to the second electrode. However, Carlton teaches first and second electrical connectors (298 and 297 as in par. [0031]) extending from electrodes (284 and 286 as in par. [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with electrical connectors coming off the electrodes, to be able to connect the electrodes to an energy source for supplying treatment energy. Regarding claim 12, wherein the first and second electrical connectors extend away from the first and second planar sealing surfaces, respectively, such that a gap is defined between the first and second electrical connectors that accommodates a knife. However, Carlton teaches the first and second electrical connectors extend away from the planar sealing surfaces of the first and second electrodes (at least Fig. 2 with the connectors away from the planar surfaces), such that there is a channel defined between for the knife (knife channel 294 between the connectors as in Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the connections of Carlton, as known ways to connect electrodes of a forceps device to a source to allow for energy delivery to tissue. Regarding claim 13, Kerr teaches a surgical tool, comprising: a drive housing (20); an elongate shaft that extends from the drive housing (12 extends from 20); an end effector arranged at a distal end of the elongate shaft (100 arranged at a distal end of 12) and including: a first jaw having a first electrode and a first insulator secured thereto (210 analogous to 110 with electrode 212); a second jaw having a second electrode and a second insulator secured thereto (220 analogous to 120 with electrode 222), the first and second jaws being pivotable between open and closed positions (jaws as in par. [0041]); and a knife slot cooperatively defined in the first and second jaws (Fig. 7 with diamond channel for 252); a drive rod extending from the drive housing and terminating at the end effector (154 as in at least par. [0054]); and a knife operatively coupled to the drive rod and extendable into the knife slot (knife 252 as in par. [0053]), wherein the drive rod is actuatable to longitudinally move the knife within the knife slot (par. [0054]), wherein the first and second electrodes each provide a first planar portion (212 and 222 on a left side), a second planar portion laterally offset from the first planar portion (212 and 222 on a right side as in Fig. 7), and inner lateral extents extending from the first and second planar portions (portions extending from 212 and 222 to form a diamond-shape as in Fig. 7), wherein the inner lateral extends of the first and second electrodes cooperatively define a diamond-shape cross-section at the knife slot when the first and second jaws are in the closed position (inner edges of 212 and 222 help to define the diamond shape as in Fig. 7), and wherein the inner lateral extents extend away from the corresponding first and second planar portions of the first jaw and out of a plane extending through the first and second planar portions of the first jaw (Fig. 9 with extents that define the diamond shape extending from the planar portions and the plane of the extents cross the planes of the first and second portions).Kerr does not each the inner lateral extents as part of the first and second electrodes.However, Davison teaches lateral extents from first and second planar portions of an electrode (Fig. 6 with electrode 277 having first and second planar portions and lateral extents moving toward a knife channel).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the electrode having the lateral extents of Davison, allowing for reducing charring of tissue (par. [0095]). Kerr is not explicit regarding the insulators. However, Carlton teaches insulators 290 and 292 on jaws of a similar electrosurgical forceps device.It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the insulators of Carlton, to prevent unwanted damage to tissue. Regarding claim 14, Kerr teaches wherein the first electrode define a first slot portion into first left and right portions (electrode 212 on left and right sides), and the second electrode define a second slot portion into second left and right portions (electrode 222 on left and right sides), and wherein the first and second slot portions and the inner lateral extents cooperatively define the knife slot when the first and second jaws are in the closed position (Fig. 7). Regarding claim 15, Kerr is not explicit regarding wherein the first planar portions provide opposing outer lateral extents extending away from the first planar portions and embedded within the first insulator, and the second planar portion provides opposing outer lateral extents extending away from the second planar surface and embedded within the second insulator. However, Carlton teaches the first planar surface provides opposing outer lateral extents extending away from the first planar surface and embedded within the first insulator (291 on left and right sides embedded within the insulator of 280), and the second planar surface provides opposing outer lateral extents extending away from the second planar surface and embedded within the second insulator (293 on left and right sides embedded within the insulator of 282). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the outer lateral extent shapes of the electrodes, as in Carlton, to provide a secure engagement of the electrodes to the jaw members (par. [0034]). Regarding claim 17, Kerr teaches wherein each electrode provides an elongate body with opposing distal and proximal ends (elongate body best seen in Fig. 2a with a proximal end near the hinge and a distal end at the end), and an elongate channel is defined in the body and extends between the distal and proximal ends to form part of the knife slot (Fig. 2a 115b between the distal and proximal sections). Regarding claim 18, Kerr is not explicit regarding: a first electrical connector extending from the proximal end of the first electrode; a first electrical conductor extending from the drive housing and coupled to the first electrical connector to provide electrical energy to the first electrode; a second electrical connector extending from the proximal end of the second electrode; and a second electrical conductor extending from the drive housing and coupled to the second electrical connector to provide electrical energy to the second electrode. However, Carlton teaches first and second electrical connectors (307 and 308 as in par. [0031]) extending from electrodes (284 and 286 as in par. [0030]), and electrical conductors extending from the housing to couple to the connectors (par. [0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the connections of Carlton, as known ways to connect electrodes of a forceps device to a source to allow for energy delivery to tissue. Regarding claim 20, Kerr is not explicit wherein the first and second electrical connectors extend away from the first and second planar portions, respectively, such that a gap is defined between the first and second electrical connectors that accommodates the knife. However, Carlton teaches the first and second electrical connectors extend away from the planar sealing surfaces of the first and second electrodes (at least Fig. 2 with the connectors away from the planar surfaces). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the connections of Carlton, as known ways to connect electrodes of a forceps device to a source to allow for energy delivery to tissue. Regarding claim 22, Kerr is not explicit regarding the insulators. However, Carlton teaches insulators 290 and 292 on jaws of a similar electrosurgical forceps device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the insulators of Carlton, to prevent unwanted damage to tissue. In the combination, the first insulator and the first electrode cooperatively define a first slot portion (the portions of the jaws surround a knife slot in the first jaw), and wherein the second insulator and the second electrode cooperatively define a second slot portion (the portions of the jaws surround a knife slot in the second jaw) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr in view of Davison, in view of Carlton, in further view of Kazuno (US 2017/0215941) . Regarding claim 11, Kerr is not explicit wherein each electrical connector defines a generally U- shaped passage such that each electrode is connected at both the distal and proximal ends, and wherein the knife is extendable into the knife slot by extending at least partially through the U-shaped passage of each electrical connector. However, Kazuno teaches U shape electrical connector passages as in par. [0065] and Fig. 5a. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the U shape connector of Kazuno, allowing for space for the knife channel. Regarding claim 19, Kerr is not explicit wherein each electrical connector defines a generally U- shaped passage such that each electrode is connected at both the distal and proximal ends, and wherein the knife is extendable into the knife slot by extending at least partially through the U-shaped passage of each electrical connector. However, Kazuno teaches U shape electrical connector passages as in par. [0065] and Fig. 5a. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kerr with the U shape connector of Kazuno, allowing for space for the knife channel . Response to Arguments 07-38-02 AIA Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks , filed 2/17/26 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 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 Davison as a secondary reference . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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. /DANIEL W FOWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 2 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 3 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 4 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 5 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 6 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 7 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 8 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 9 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 10 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 11 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 12 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 13 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/176,984 Page 14 Art Unit: 3794
Prosecution Insights