DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 12/8/25, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-6, 13-15, 20, 27-29, 34-36 are pending with claims 7-9 and 21 canceled, and claims 1, 13, and 27 amended. Cancelled claim 21 should not have cancelled text struck through. The following is a complete response to the 12/8/25 communication.
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 (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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2-5 recite limitations that are in amended claim 1, and fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-6, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher (US 2021/0007789) in view of DeVries (US 2014/0276407), in view of Luong-Van (US 9,492,952), in view of Birmingham (US 2017/0106061).
Regarding claim 1, Boucher teaches an electrosurgical device, comprising:
at least one jaw having an electrically conductive tissue sealing plate configured to operable couple to a source of electrosurgical energy for treating tissue (sealing plate 312 of jaw 310 coupled to source via electrical lead 325 as in par. [0043]); and
a non-stick coating (non-stick coating 400), disposed on at least a portion of the electrically conductive tissue sealing plate (400 on 312 as in par. [0042]).
Boucher is silent regarding the coating formed from a liquidphobic structure comprising a textured surface including a micro-topography, the micro-topography comprises micropillars formed in the tissue sealing plate by laser etching, chemical etching, or micromachining.
However, DeVries teaches hydrophobic coatings with a micro-topography on electrodes (par. [0165]), the micropillars integrally formed in the tissue sealing plate by laser etching (par. [0028] micropillars, applied via laser etching as in par [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher such that the coating has a microtopography as in DeVries, allowing for slipperiness to reduce material sticking to the device (par. [0165]).Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a height within a range of about 10 microns to about 250 microns.
However, Luong-Van teaches pillars of a coating with heights of 20 microns (abst.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of Boucher to have the heights of Luong-Van, as a known dimension that works as a non-stick coating.Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a center-to-center distance within a range of about 70 microns to about 400 microns.
Birmingham teaches micropillars arranged 150 microns center-to-center (par. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher with the dimensions of Birmingham, as a known dimension for non-stick surfaces.
Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a center-to-center distance within a range of about 120 microns to about 500 microns.
Birmingham teaches micropillars arranged 150 microns center-to-center (par. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher with the dimensions of Birmingham, as a known dimension for non-stick surfaces.
Regarding claim 2, Boucher is silent regarding the micro-topography includes micro-pillars.
However, DeVries teaches micropillars (par. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher such that the coating has a microtopography as in DeVries, allowing for slipperiness to reduce material sticking to the device (par. [0165]).
Regarding claim 3, Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a height within a range of about 10 microns to about 250 microns.
However, Luong-Van teaches pillars of a coating with heights of 20 microns (abst.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of Boucher to have the heights of Luong-Van, as a known dimension that works as a non-stick coating.
Regarding claim 4, Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a center-to-center distance within a range of about 70 microns to about 400 microns.
Birmingham teaches micropillars arranged 150 microns center-to-center (par. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher with the dimensions of Birmingham, as a known dimension for non-stick surfaces.
Regarding claim 5, Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a center-to-center distance within a range of about 120 microns to about 500 microns.
Birmingham teaches micropillars arranged 150 microns center-to-center (par. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher with the dimensions of Birmingham, as a known dimension for non-stick surfaces.
Regarding claim 6, Boucher is silent, but DeVries teaches a nano-topography superimposed onto the micro-topography (par. [0035] nano pillars on micropillars).
Regarding claim 9, Boucher is silent wherein the nano-pillars have a width within a range of about 50 to about 300 nm.However, DeVries teaches the nano-pillar dimensions (par. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher with the coating structure of DeVries, allowing for slipperiness to reduce material sticking to the device (par. [0165]).
Regarding claim 13, Boucher teaches an electrosurgical device comprising:
at least one jaw member having a jaw body and an electrically conductive tissue sealing plate configured to operably couple to a source of electrosurgical energy for treating tissue (sealing plate 312 of jaw 310 coupled to source via electrical lead 325 as in par. [0043]);
a first non-stick coating disposed on at least a portion of the electrically conductive tissue sealing plate (400 on 312 as in par. [0042]); and a second non-stick coating disposed on at least a portion of an external surface of the jaw body (par. [0053] addition coating), the second non-stick coating different from the first non-stick coating (par. [0053] different other coating such as HMDSO). Boucher teaches wherein the second non-stick coating is selected from one of polydimethylsiloxane, hexadimethylsiloxane, and tetramethyldistioxane (par. [0030]).Boucher is silent regarding a micro-topography of micropillars integrally formed in the tissue sealing plate by laser etching, chemical etching, or micromachining.
However, DeVries teaches hydrophobic coatings with a micro-topography on electrodes (par. [0165]), the micropillars integrally formed in the tissue sealing plate by laser etching (par. [0028] micropillars, applied via laser etching as in par [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher such that the coating has a microtopography as in DeVries, allowing for slipperiness to reduce material sticking to the device (par. [0165]).Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a height within a range of about 10 microns to about 250 microns.
However, Luong-Van teaches pillars of a coating with heights of 20 microns (abst.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of Boucher to have the heights of Luong-Van, as a known dimension that works as a non-stick coating.Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a center-to-center distance within a range of about 70 microns to about 400 microns.
Birmingham teaches micropillars arranged 150 microns center-to-center (par. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher with the dimensions of Birmingham, as a known dimension for non-stick surfaces.
Boucher is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a center-to-center distance within a range of about 120 microns to about 500 microns.
Birmingham teaches micropillars arranged 150 microns center-to-center (par. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher with the dimensions of Birmingham, as a known dimension for non-stick surfaces.
Regarding claim 14, Boucher teaches wherein the first non-stick coating has a surface adherence to tissue that is less than a surface adherence of the electrically conductive tissue sealing plate that does not include the non-stick coating (coating to reduce sticking of tissue to the sealing plate as in at least par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Boucher teaches wherein the second non-stick coating comprises a material having a surface adherence to tissue that is less than a surface adherence to tissue of the material of the jaw body (coating to reduce sticking of tissue to the sealing plate as in at least par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 20, Boucher teaches wherein the first non-stick coating is at least 50 percent of a total surface area of the electrically conductive tissue sealing plate (coating 400 covers plate 312).
Claim(s) 27, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeVries in view of Luong-Van, in further view of Birmingham.
Regarding claim 27, DeVries teaches a surgical probe comprising:
a shaft having a distal portion and a proximal portion (shaft D);
a probe tip extending distally from the distal portion of the shaft (probe tip as distal end of a device including B as in par. [0165] and Fig. 54), the probe tip comprising at least one electrically conductive electrode configured to coagulate tissue (electrodes E); and
a coating at least partially covering the at least one electrode (par. [0165] micropattern coating), wherein the coating comprises a coating material having a surface adherence to tissue that is less than a surface adherence to tissue of the material of the at least one electrode (par. [0022]).DeVries further teaches hydrophobic coatings with a micro-topography on electrodes (par. [0165]), the micropillars integrally formed in the tissue sealing plate by laser etching (par. [0028] micropillars, applied via laser etching as in par [0065]).DeVries is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a height within a range of about 10 microns to about 250 microns.
However, Luong-Van teaches pillars of a coating with heights of 20 microns (abst.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of DeVries to have the heights of Luong-Van, as a known dimension that works as a non-stick coating.DeVries is silent wherein the micro-pillars have a center-to-center distance within a range of about 70 microns to about 400 microns, and wherein the micro-pillars have a center-to-center distance within a range of about 120 microns to about 500 microns.
Birmingham teaches micropillars arranged 150 microns center-to-center (par. [0093]). Birmingham further teaches micropillars arranged 150 microns center-to-center (par. [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boucher with the dimensions of Birmingham, as a known dimension for non-stick surfaces.
Regarding claim 35, DeVries teaches wherein the coating comprises one or more polysiloxanes, fluorosilanes, or combinations thereof (par. [0016]).
Regarding claim 36, DeVries teaches the coating comprises a superhydrophobic material (par. [0038]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries in view of Luong-Van, in view of Birmingham, in further view of Shadduck (US 2004/0199226).
Regarding claim 28, DeVries is not explicit wherein the at least one electrically conductive electrode comprises a first electrode and a second electrode having a polarity opposite the first electrode, wherein the first and second electrodes alternatively spiral distally along the probe tip.
However, Shadduck teaches a multipolar spiral electrode probe device (par. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify DeVries with the spiraling electrodes of Shadduck, to allow for treatment in a desired pattern.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries in view of Luong-Van, in view of Birmingham, in further view of Cheng (US 2013/0138103).
Regarding claim 29, DeVries is not explicit wherein the at least one electrode comprises an electrode formed as a surgical needle.
However, Cheng teaches needle electrodes with surface structures to prevent sticking (par. [0010]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the electrode is a surgical needle, as a known electrode shape that would benefit from non-stick structure.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVries in view of Luong-Van, in view of Birmingham, in further view of Boucher.
Regarding claim 34, DeVries is not explicit, but Boucher teaches thickness of the coating impacting impedance (par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the impedance caused by the coating to be as little as possible, as in Boucher, to improve tissue sensing effectiveness (par. [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not each the claims as amended, especially the micro-pillars integrally formed in the electrode, pointing to Boucher. However, the micropillars are taught by DeVries rather than Boucher, and are formed in the electrode/tissue sealing plate as a solid, static structure, and would be considered integrally formed in the electrode/tissue sealing plate. DeVries further teaches laser etching to bond the film to the part, which would be integrally formed via the bonding.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are based on arguments addressed above and are not persuasive for the same reasoning.
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 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794