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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The Response filed January 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 9-23 are pending in the application with claims 16-20 being withdrawn from further consideration. The previous rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Response to applicant's arguments can be found at the end of this Office action
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s statement acknowledging that claims 16-20 were previously withdrawn (Response pg. 7) without further comment or argument is taken as an affirmation of the election of Invention I drawn to a tissue recruiting device and an actuation assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binmoeller et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10639031; hereinafter “Binmoeller”).
Regarding claim 1, Binmoeller discloses an actuation assembly of a tissue recruiting device operable to independently control first (14) and second(16) grasping devices to grasp tissue (Figs. 1-9):
a body (11; Fig. 1) defining a first channel (13) and a second channel (15);
a first actuation element (114) extending through the first channel and coupled with the first grasping device (14; col. 5, ln. 52 – col. 6, ln. 3);
a second actuation (116) element extending through the second channel and coupled with the second grasping device (16; col. 6, ln. 61 – col. 7, ln. 19);
a first control actuator (combination of first slide button (88) and first thumbwheel (96); Figs. 7-9; col. 8, ll. 49-65) operable to control the translation and rotation of the first grasping device to grasp tissue via the first actuation element (col. 8, ln. 66 – col. 9, ll. 11);
a second control actuator (combination of second slide button (90) and second thumbwheel (94); figs. 7-9; col. 8, ll. 49-65) operable to control the translation and rotation of the second grasping device to grasp tissue via the second actuation element (col. 9, ll. 12-25);
wherein the first control actuator is operable to control the translation and rotation of the first grasping device independently from the second grasping device (col. 11, ll. 5-46).
Regarding claim 2, Binmoeller discloses the actuation assembly further comprising an actuation sheath (78; Figs. 7-8) disposed around a proximal end of each of the actuation elements (col. 8, ln. 49 – col. 9, ln. 25).
Regarding claim 9, Binmoeller discloses a tissue recruiting device (10; Figs. 1-9) comprising:
a first grasping device (14) and a second grasping device (16), each grasping device operable to grasp tissue (Fig. 3; col. 11, ll. 5-46);
a first actuation element (114) extending through a first channel (13) of a body (11; Fig. 1), a proximal end of the first actuation element being coupled to a first control actuator (combination of first slide button (88) and first thumbwheel (96); Figs. 7-9) and a distal end of the first actuation element being coupled to the first grasping device (Fig. 3);
a second actuation element (116) extending through a second channel (15) of the body (Fig. 1), a proximal end of the second actuation element being coupled to a second control actuator (combination of second slide button (90) and second thumbwheel (94); figs. 7-9) and a distal end of the second actuation element being coupled to the second grasping device (Fig. 3);
wherein the first control actuator is independently operable to translate and rotate the first gasping device to grasp tissue via the first actuation element (col. 11, ll. 5-25);
wherein the second control actuator is independently operable to translate and rotate the second grasping device to grasp tissue via the second actuation element (col. 11, ll. 26-37).
Regarding claim 10, Binmoeller discloses wherein the first grasping device may grasp tissue at a first location and the second grasping device may be moved to grasp tissue at a second location different from the first location (col. 11, ll. 5-37).
Regarding claim 11, Binmoeller discloses wherein each grasping device includes a plurality of helical coils configured to grasp tissue (col. 10, ll. 34-64).
Regarding claim 12, Binmoeller discloses wherein the control actuators are operable to retract the grasping devices when the grasping devices grasp tissue (col. 11, ll. 5-37).
Regarding claim 13, Binmoeller discloses wherein the grasping devices and actuation elements are extended through a catheter (11; Figs. 1-3)).
Regarding claim 15, Binmoeller discloses the device further comprising a clamp (fork; col. 5, ln. 61 – col. 6, ln. 3; see also col. 7, ll. 10-19) configured to frictionally maintain the translation and rotation of the actuation elements (forks frictionally maintains relative translation and rotation between the actuation members (114, 116) and anchors (26, 42), respectively).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binmoeller in view of Meade et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5478351; hereinafter “Meade”).
Regarding claim 3, Binmoeller discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for the actuation assembly including a biasing element.
Meade, a reference in the surgical tissue grasper field of endeavor, teaches providing an actuation assembly with a biasing element (152) configured to maintain translation and rotation of actuation elements (Fig. 3; spring clip (152) is structured to be capable of maintaining translational and rotational positioning of rotator knob (156); col. 5, ln. 62 – col. 6, ln. 3) relative to a handle) to provide retention force against inadvertent rotation of a tool (col. 5, ln. 66 – col. 6, ln. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the actuation assembly with a biasing element configured to maintain the translation and rotation of the actuation elements, in view of Meade, in order to limit inadvertent rotation of the actuation elements and helical tissue graspers.
Regarding claim 4, Binmoeller discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for the actuation assembly including a biasing element.
Meade teaches providing an actuation assembly with a biasing element (152) configured to produce detectable feedback at rotational intervals of a tool (col. 5, ln. 62 – col. 6, ln. 3) to provide retention force against inadvertent rotation of a tool (col. 5, ln. 66 – col. 6, ln. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the actuation assembly with a biasing element configured to produce detectable feedback at rotational intervals of the actuation elements, in view of Meade, in order to limit inadvertent rotation of the actuation elements and helical tissue graspers.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device, as applied to claim 3 above, discloses wherein the second actuation element is operable to control the translation and rotation of the second grasping device when the first control actuator controls the translation and rotation of the first grasping device (Binmoeller col. 11, ll. 5-37).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binmoeller in view of Morey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190274699; hereinafter “Morey”).
Regarding claim 14, Binmoeller discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for the control actuators being elongated hexagons.
Morey, a reference in the surgical tissue grasper field of endeavor, teaches configuring a control actuator (501; Figs. 7A-7B) as an elongated hexagon (para. [0060]) to engage a rotary knob (596) to transfer rotation of the knob to the control actuator (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the thumbwheels (96, 94) and tubular members (114, 116) of Binmoeller to include hexagonal engaging surfaces, such that the control actuators (114, 116) are elongated hexagons, in view of Morey, in order to facilitate transfer or rotating motion from the thumbwheels to respective tubular members to rotate the tissue graspers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binmoeller in view of Pasricha et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020156344; hereinafter “Pasricha”).
Regarding claim 21, Binmoeller further discloses wherein the first and second channels (13, 15) each have a first portion extending distally from a proximal end of the body (e.g., adjacent to the connection with handle mechanism (70); col. 5, ll. 28-38; Fig. 7) and a second portion extending from the respective first portion to a distal end of the body (e.g., to terminate at distal openings of lumens (13, 15); Fig. 1); and wherein the first portions have a first width (e.g., allowing passage of shafts (114, 116) therethrough), the second portions have a second width (e.g., allowing passage of shafts (114, 116) therethrough).
Binmoeller is not explicitly disclosed with the first width being larger than the second width.
Pasricha, a reference in the surgical tissue grasper field of endeavor, teaches constructing an inner tubular lumen to have a first proximal portion with a first width larger than a second width of a second distal portion of the lumen (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the fist and second channels of Binmoeller such that the first width is larger than the second width, in view of Pasricha, in order to facilitate passing shafts (114, 116) into the channels from the proximal end for extension from the distal end of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 23 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the prior art does not show by itself or in combination the limitation “the biasing element extends laterally into the first and second channels when the biasing element is in a normal position,” as read with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art does not show by itself or in combination, the limitation “the body further comprise a first biasing projection extending laterally into the first channel and a second biasing element extending laterally into the second channel,” as read with all the limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant argues that Binmoeller does disclose or suggest “control actuators which are operable to control both the translation and rotation of grasping devices,” as recited in claim 1 (Response pg. 8). This argument is not persuasive because the combination of slide button (88) and thumbwheel (96) of Binmoeller meets the claimed first control actuator and the combination of slide button (90) and thumbwheel (94) meets the claimed second control actuator.
Binmoeller discloses first slide button (88) and first thumbwheel (96) being operable to control translation and rotation of the first grasping device (Figs. 7-9; col. 8, ln. 49 – col. 9, ln. 11).
Thus, the combination of slide button (88) and thumbwheel (96) constitutes a first control actuator for the first grasping device because those two elements operate to effect movement of the first grasping device.
Therefore, the combination of slide button (88) and thumbwheel (96) meets the limitation of a “first control actuator” as recited in claim 1.
Similarly, Binmoeller discloses second slide button (90) and second thumbwheel (94) operating to effect translational and rotational movement of the second grasping device (Figs. 7-9; col. 8, ll. 49-65).
Hence, the combination of slide button (90) and thumbwheel (94) constitutes a second control actuator for the second grasping device and meets the limitation of a “second control actuator” as recited in claim 1.
For the reasons above, Examiner maintains that Binmoeller discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and anticipates the claim.
On page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues that Binmoeller does not disclose “wherein the first control actuator is independently operable to translate and rotate the first gasping device to grasp tissue via the first actuation element; wherein the second control actuator is independently operable to translate and rotate the second grasping device to grasp tissue via the second actuation element,” as recited in claim 9 (Response pg. 9). This argument is not persuasive.
As explained above, the combination of slide button (88) and thumbwheel (96) constitute a first control actuator for the first grasping device. The combination of slide button (90) and thumbwheel (96) constitute a second control actuator for the second grasping device. Further, each of the first control actuator and second control actuator are independently operable (col. 11, ll. 5-37).
Therefore, Binmoeller discloses “wherein the first control actuator is independently operable to translate and rotate the first gasping device to grasp tissue via the first actuation element” and “wherein the second control actuator is independently operable to translate and rotate the second grasping device to grasp tissue via the second actuation element,” as recited in claim 9.
Hence, Examiner maintains that Binmoeller discloses all the limitations of claim 9 and anticipates the claim.
For all the reasons above, Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is not allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 Jonathan A Hollm whose telephone number is (703)756-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571) 272-7134. 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.
/J.A.H/Jonathan HollmExaminer, Art Unit 3771
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771