DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 2/18/26, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-17 are pending with claims 1-17 amended. following is a complete response to the 2/18/26 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 § 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) 1-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2018/0280084) in further view of Hancock (US 2016/0331455), hereafter Hancock II, in further view of Kortenbach (US 6,193,718).
Regarding claim 1, Hancock teaches an electrosurgical resector tool comprising:
an energy conveying structure for carrying radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic (EM) energy and microwave EM energy (par. [0016]), the energy conveying structure comprising a coaxial transmission line having an inner conductor separated from an outer conductor by a dielectric material (par. [0019]);
an instrument tip mounted at a distal end of the energy conveying structure (200), wherein the instrument tip comprises a first jaw and a second jaw (first and second jaw 208 and 210);
wherein the second jaw is movable relative to the first jaw between a closed position in which the first jaw and the second jaw lie alongside each other (208 moves relative to 210 to open and close as in Fig. 5), and an open position in which the second jaw is spaced from the first jaw by a gap for receiving biological tissue (Fig. 2);
wherein the first jaw comprises a first pair of electrodes that are electrically isolated from one another (214 and 216), the first pair of electrodes comprising an inner electrode and an outer electrode (inner 214 and outer 216);
and
wherein the instrument tip is operable as a microwave field emitting structure for emitting microwave EM energy carried by the energy conveying structure (par. [0030]).
Hancock is silent regarding wherein the second jaw comprises a single electrode;
wherein the single electrode is coupled to the energy conveying structure for delivering RF EM energy carried by the energy conveying structure, such that the single electrode is operable as an active electrode when the inner electrode of the first jaw is operable as a return electrode, or is operable as a return electrode when the inner electrode of the first jaw is operable as an active electrode, wherein the first pair of electrodes is coupled to the energy conveying structure, such that the first pair of electrodes is operable as active and return electrodes for delivering RF EM energy carried by the energy conveying structure.
However, Hancock Il teaches jaws with electrodes on top and bottom jaws as in Fig. 4c, with electrodes operating at either active or return electrodes (par. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hancock with at least an electrode on the first jaw as in Hancock II, to allow for using the forceps in multiple electrosurgical treatment types.
Hancock is further silent regarding the first and second jaw are arranged to slide past one another when the first and second jaw are moved between the open position and closed position for providing a scissor-type cut performed on tissue grasped between the first jaw and the second jaw using a combination of RF EM energy and applied pressure.However, Kortenbach teaches an electrosurgical device with jaws for making a scissor-type cut with RF energy (Fig. 8, with jaws as in col. 9, line 39 and col. 10, line 2).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hancock with the jaws of Kortenback to cut tissue as an end effector that can be used to cauterize tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Hancock teaches wherein: the first jaw comprises a first planar dielectric element having an inner surface that faces towards the second jaw and an outer surface that faces away from the second jaw (215 with a face facing toward 208), the inner electrode being arranged on the inner surface of the first planar dielectric element and the outer electrode being arranged on the outer surface of the first planar dielectric element (214 on an inner surface of 215 and 230 on an outer surface of the dielectric).
Hancock is not explicit regarding the second jaw comprises a second planar dielectric element having an inner surface that faces towards the first jaw and an outer surface that faces away from the first jaw (), and the single electrode comprises either: an inner electrode arranged on the inner surface of the second planar dielectric element, or an outer electrode arranged on the outer surface of the second planar dielectric element.
Regarding claim 3, Hancock teaches wherein: the inner electrode of the first jaw comprises a first conductive layer formed on the inner surface of the first planar dielectric element (216 on 220); but does not teach the single electrode of the second jaw comprises a second conductive layer formed on the inner surface of the second planar dielectric element.
However, Hancock II teaches jaw bodies with dielectric bases, and electrodes supported on the dielectric bases (par. [0094]-[0095] and Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 4, Hancock teaches wherein: the first jaw comprises a third planar dielectric element having an inner surface that faces towards the second jaw (dielectric substrate 215 facing the second jaw as in par. [0069] and Fig. 2), the third planar dielectric element being arranged on an inner surface of the inner electrode of the first jaw (214 on 215 as in par. [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Hancock is not explicit wherein: the second jaw comprises a fourth planar dielectric element having an inner surface that faces towards the first jaw, the fourth planar dielectric element being arranged on an inner surface of the single electrode of the second jaw.
However, Hancock
Regarding claim 6, Hancock teaches wherein: the first jaw further comprises a first conductive shell that is attached to the outer surface of the first planar dielectric element (par. [0069] conductive layer fabricated on underside of dielectric substrate 220), and arranged to form at least part of the outer electrode of the first pair of electrodes (par. [0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Hancock is silent wherein: the second jaw further comprises a second conductive shell that is attached to the outer surface of the second planar dielectric element, and arranged to form at least part of the single electrode of the second jaw.
However, Hancock II teaches jaws with metal shells as electrode elements (par. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hancock with the metal shells of Hancock II, improving the mechanical strength of the jaw (par. [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Hancock teaches wherein the outer electrode of the first jaw and the single electrode of the second jaw are electrically coupled to one another (par. [0069]).
Regarding claim 9, Hancock is not explicit wherein the instrument tip further comprises a base structure that connects the outer electrode of the first jaw and the single electrode of the second jaw to the distal end of the energy conveying structure.
However, Hancock Il teaches jaws with electrodes on top and bottom jaws as in Fig. 4c, with electrodes operating at either active or return electrodes (par. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hancock with at least an electrode on the first jaw as in Hancock II, connected by 114 in pivot joint 106 to allow for using the forceps in multiple electrosurgical treatment types.
Regarding claim 10, Hancock is silent, but Hancock Il teaches wherein the base structure includes a first base part that rigidly connects the outer electrode of the first jaw to the distal end of the energy conveying structure (106 rigidly connects to the first jaw), and a second base part to which the second jaw is pivotably connected, such that the second jaw is pivotable relative to the second base part (second jaw pivots relative to pivot joint 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hancock with the base of Hancock Il to allow one jaw to pivot relative to the other jaw.
Regarding claim 11, Hancock is silent, but Hancock Il teaches wherein the base structure comprises an electrically conductive material that electrically connects the outer electrode of the first jaw and/or or the single electrode of the second jaw to a first one of the inner conductor and the outer conductor at a distal end of the coaxial transmission line (par. [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Hancock teaches wherein the base structure defines a cavity in which the inner electrode of the first jaw is electrically connected to a second one of the inner conductor and the outer conductor at the distal end of the coaxial transmission line (par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 13, Hancock teaches wherein the cavity contains a dielectric material (par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 15, Hancock is not explicit wherein the outer electrode of the first jaw and the single electrode of the second jaw are both electrically connected to a first one of the inner conductor and the outer conductor, and the inner electrode of the first jaw is electrically connected to a second one of the inner conductor and the outer conductor.
However, Hancock II teaches jaw electrodes electrically connected to the inner or outer conductor of the coaxial cable (par. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hancock with the electrodes connected via the conductors as in Hancock II, to allow for using the forceps in multiple electrosurgical treatment types.
Regarding claim 16, Hancock is not explicit wherein the first pair of electrodes and the single electrode are operable together as a microwave field emitting structure for emitting microwave EM energy carried by the energy conveying structure.
However, Hancock Il teaches the electrodes working together as a microwave field emitting structure to emit microwave energy (par. [0063] liens for electrodes or as microwave).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hancock with the electrodes acting as microwave emitters as in Hancock II, to allow for using the forceps in multiple electrosurgical treatment types.
Regarding claim 17, Hancock teaches an electrosurgical apparatus comprising:an electrosurgical generator for supplying radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic (EM) energy and microwave EM energy (par. [0013]);
a surgical scoping device having an instrument cord for insertion into a patient's body, the instrument cord having an instrument channel extending therethrough (par. [0059]).
Hancock, Hancock II, and Kortenbach teach the electrosurgical resector tool according to claim 1 inserted through the instrument channel of the surgical scoping device as above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock in further view of Hancock II, in view of Kortenbach, in further view of Medina (US 2019/0245310).
Regarding claim 14, Hancock is not explicit wherein the base structure comprises an opening formed in a sidewall of the base structure for injecting a dielectric material into the cavity.However, Medina teaches a dielectric material injected into a chamber from an opening as a known method of manufacture (par. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hancock with dielectric injected as in Medina, to allow for the construction of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed 2/18/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 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 Kortenbach as a secondary reference.
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.
/DANIEL W FOWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights