CTFR 18/179,168 CTFR 93344 DETAILED ACTION Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from consideration. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-16 and 22-26 appears below. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Many of the limitations below are considered product-by-process claims, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698; 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10, 13-16 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brause US 20200305915 . Regarding claim 1, Brause teaches opposing first and second jaws (Fig. 1A 110 and 120), and a knife slot defined in one or both of the first and second jaws (par. [0032] channel for cutting mechanism); and a knife extendable through the knife slot (Fig. 4 knife assembly 450) and operatively coupled to a knife rod (Fig. 4 480) at a retention feature secured to a distal end of the drive rod (Fig. 4 connections between 450 and 480), wherein a central notch is defined in the retention feature (Fig. 4 transition of 481 to 480), and the knife defines a locking feature receivable within the central notch to axially constrain the knife to the retention feature and the knife rod (Fig. 4 find 483). Brause does not explicitly teach wherein a central notch is defined in the retention feature and extends between a proximal wall and a distal wall of the retention feature, and the knife includes a locking feature receivable between the proximal wall and the distal wall and within the central notch to axially constrain the knife to the retention feature and the drive rod. However, Brause teaches the knife having notches defined by proximal and distal walls (Fig. 4 cutouts for fins with walls on either side). The retention part of the drive rod is then secured to the knife between the walls (par. [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to switch the notch and walls of the knife onto the retention feature at the distal end of the drive shaft, and the locking feature onto the knife. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein , 8 USPQ 167. The knife would still be attached to the drive shaft via a retention feature and would perform equally as well to sever tissue. Regarding claim 2, Brause teaches wherein the retention feature is attached to the distal end of the drive rod via at least one of a crimped engagement, a welded interface, an adhesive attachment, an interference or shrink fit, an overmold, one or more mechanical fasteners, and any combination thereof (par. [0046] product by process limitation the cap 481 becomes a unitary unit with the drive rod through welding or crimping). Regarding claim 3, Brause teaches wherein the locking feature is formed in the knife via at least one of, laser cutting, wire electrical discharge machining, milling, chemical etching, water jetting, and stamping (par. [0046] product by process limitation fins are etched in the knife). Regarding claim 4, Brause teaches wherein the locking feature extends into the central notch without contacting a bottom of the central notch such that a gap is defined between the bottom of the central notch the locking feature (Fig. 4 the fins 483 are pushed out so the top of the fins does not touch the rod 480, a gap can be seen between the two). Regarding claim 5, Brause teaches wherein the knife is welded to an outer surface of the retention feature (par. [0011] product by process limitation knife and rod are welded along with the dent attachment). Regarding claim 6, Brause teaches wherein the knife is welded to the outer surface of the retention feature at a first weld located distal to the central notch, and a second weld located proximal to the central notch (pars. [0011] and [0046] all of the features can be welded together). Regarding claim 7, Brause teaches wherein a length of the distal weld is smaller than a length of the proximal weld (Fig. 4 the length of the cap 481 is shorter than the length of 480 in the fins). Regarding claim 8, Brause teaches wherein a length from a proximal end of the central notch to a proximal end of the retention feature is longer than a length from a distal end of the central notch to a distal end of the retention feature (Fig. 4 the length of the cap 481 is shorter than the length of 480 in the fins). Regarding claim 9, Brause teaches wherein the locking feature is received within the central notch such that a distal end of the locking feature contacts an opposing distal end of the central notch (par. [0046] 481 is oversized so it does not slip out). Regarding claim 10, Brause teaches further comprising: an end notch defined in the distal end of the drive rod and extending through a portion of the retention feature; and an end tab defined by the knife and sized to be received within the end notch to laterally stabilize the knife as mounted to the retention feature (par. [0046] additional caps 481 or other features can be welded onto the rod, so if there is another cap one would create the end notch and the other the middle notch). Regarding claim 13, Brause teaches wherein the knife provides a leading end (Fig. 4 486) and a trailing end opposite the leading end (Fig. 4 484), and wherein a blade is provided at the leading end and the trailing end defines a reduced trailing profile, the reduced trailing profile being defined by a first arcuate surface extending from a top of the knife and transitioning to a second arcuate surface that transitions to a third arcuate surface (Annotated Fig. 4). Regarding claim 14, Brause teaches wherein the reduced trailing profile further includes: a first straight surface interposing the first and second arcuate surfaces; a second straight surface interposing the second and third arcuate surfaces; and a third straight surface extending from the third arcuate surface (Annotated Fig. 4). Regarding claim 15, Brause teaches wherein the third straight surface extends perpendicular to a centerline of the drive rod (Annotated Fig. 4). Regarding claim 16, Brause teaches wherein the central notch extends into the drive rod (Fig. 4 product by process limitation transition from 481 to 480 is considered the notch and since it is created with the rod it is considered in it). Regarding claim 24, Brause teaches comprising: opposing first and second jaws (Fig. 1A 110 and 120), and a knife slot defined in one or both of the first and second jaws; a knife extendable through the knife slot (par. [0032]) and operatively coupled to a drive rod (par. [0055] drive rod 880), the knife providing a leading end, a trailing end opposite the leading end; and a top surface extending between the leading end (Annotated Fig. 8A); a blade provided at the leading end (Fig. 8A 886); and wherein the top surface defines a reduced trailing profile that includes (Fig. 8A knife becomes thinner): a first arcuate surface extending from the leading end toward the center line; a second arcuate surface that transitions from the first arcuate surface; and a third arcuate surface that transitions from the second arcuate surface toward the center line and to the trailing end (Annotated Fig. 8A). Regarding claim 25, Brause teaches wherein the reduced trailing profile further includes: a first straight surface interposing the first and second arcuate surfaces; a second straight surface interposing the second and third arcuate surfaces; and a third straight surface extending from the third arcuate surface, wherein the third straight surface is provided at the trailing end (Annotated Fig. 8A). Regarding claim 26, Brause teaches wherein the third straight surface extends perpendicular to the centerline (Annotated Fig. 8A) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims US 20200179035 in view of Manzo US 20190216561 . Regarding claim 22, Sims teaches opposing first and second jaws (Fig. 2 210 and 220), and a knife slot defined in one or both of the first and second jaws (Fig. 9 channel 213a and 215a); and a knife extendable through the knife slot (Fig. 9 140) and operatively coupled to a knife rod (Fig. 3 156) at a retention feature secured to a distal end of the drive rod (Fig. 3 163), the knife providing a blade at a leading end of the knife (Fig. 8 148) and including: a leading cutting edge (Fig., 9 148b) extending perpendicular to a sealing plane provided between the opposing first and second jaws when the opposing first and second jaws are closed (Figs. 2 and 6 plane over plate 214); and an angled cutting edge (Fig. 9 148a) extending from the leading cutting edge at a transition point (Fig. 9 where 148 transitions between 148b and 148a), wherein the angled cutting edge extends from the leading cutting edge at an angle offset from perpendicular to the sealing plane (Fig. 9). Sims does not explicitly teach the leading edge being able to cut. Manzo, in an analogous device, teaches that the entire length of the cutting element is sharp (par. [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the knife blade of Sims to be entirely sharp, as in Manzo. This presents the advantage of allowing the entire blade to sever tissue (Manzo par. [0064]). Regarding claim 23, Sims teaches wherein the transition point is disposed below the sealing plane when the knife is advanced within the knife slot (Fig. 9 it is below plate 214 in the jaw) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brause in view of Sims . Regarding claims 11 and 12, Brause does not explicitly teach wherein a blade provided at a leading end of the knife includes: a leading cutting edge extending perpendicular to a sealing plane provided between the opposing first and second jaws when the opposing first and second jaws are closed; and an angled cutting edge extending from the leading cutting edge at a transition point, wherein the angled cutting edge extends from the leading cutting edge at an angle offset from perpendicular to the sealing plane and wherein the transition point is disposed below the sealing plane when the knife is advanced within the knife slot. However, Brause teaches many different knife configurations with different blade angles and tails (Figs. 1C-8). Sims, in an analogous device, teaches where the blade 148 has a leading end 148b that is perpendicular to the sealing plane. 148b is also inside one of the jaws and does not come over the sealing plate surface. There is an angled cutting portion 148a that comes off the leading end 148b. The part of 148 going from 148b to 148a is a transition portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the knife blade angles of Brause to have a perpendicular portion like Sims. The perpendicular portion that leads the cutting blade acts as a stop for the knife (Sims par. [0038]). Annotated Figures [AltContent: textbox (Third arcuate surface)][AltContent: textbox (First straight surface)][AltContent: textbox (Second straight surface)] [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second arcuate surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First arcuate surface)][AltContent: textbox (Third straight surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Trailing end)][AltContent: textbox (Leading end)][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 187 268 media_image1.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-26 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. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 RYAN T. CLARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7606. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM MT. 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached on (571)272-1213. 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. /R.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 2 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 3 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 4 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 5 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 6 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 7 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 8 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 9 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 10 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/179,168 Page 11 Art Unit: 3794
Prosecution Insights