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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 13 and 20 under Sharpe (US 5222973 A)(previously of record) pertaining to the limitations of “a majority of deflection along the first and second arms is concentrated in the first and second grasping platforms as the first and second grasping platforms move towards the closed position” have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of Applicant’s arguments that a majority of deflection of the jaw arms of Sharpe occurs in the arm portions (i.e., 28/29) rather than in the jaw members (24/25), previously identified as the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” respectively. This is on the basis that, once the jaw members (24/25) come into contact and form pivot point 32, further closing force causes the radially-outward surfaces (36/40) of the jaw arms to be placed in compression while the radially-inward surfaces (37/39) of said jaw arms are placed in tension, resulting in a deflection of the arms – rather than the jaws themselves which merely rotate with the deflection of the arms to assume a closed configuration. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sharpe (US 5222973 A)(previously of record) and an updated “non-final rejection” is issued herewith.
In the updated rejection of claims 1, 13 and 20 below, the designation of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” have been updated to include the distal, arcuate portions of the jaw structures, including the more proximal “arm” portions, as designated in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below. Such an interpretation appears to be in-line with the claim language which permits the updated interpretation of the respective grasping platforms. In said updated interpretation, in light of Applicant’s own admission in the included arguments (dated 3/10/2026), after the jaw members (24/25) come into contact with one-another and form the pivot point (32), further closing force causes pivoting/rotational movement of the first and second arms about the pivot point causing the distal “grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms to deflect such that outer surfaces (36/40) of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms are in compression while the inner surfaces (37/39) thereof are in tension. This places most of the deflection along portions of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” proximal to the jaw portions (24/25).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharpe (US 5222973 A)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 13, Sharpe discloses:
A forceps (instrument 10, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a handle (handle 14, see Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1) and comprising an actuator (grip structures 15 and 16, see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 35-45);
a forceps tip (portions of the instrument extending distally from the handle 14, see Fig. 1) operatively coupled to the actuator (see Col. 2, Lines 35-45), the forceps tip comprising:
a first arm (arm 28, see Fig. 8) extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Fig. 8), the first arm comprising a first grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below which designates boundaries of a “first grasping platform” at the distal end of the first arm) positioned at the distal end of first arm (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) and extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below), the first grasping platform comprising a first inner engagement surface (radially-inward surface of the “first grasping platform” as denoted in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) that extends arcuately from the proximal end of the first grasping platform to the distal end of the first grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below showing wherein the “first grasping platform” comprises an arcuate shape extending between a proximal and distal end thereof); and
a second arm (arm 29, see Fig. 8) extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Fig. 8), the second arm comprising a second grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below which designates boundaries of a “second grasping platform” at the distal end of the second arm) positioned at the distal end of second arm (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) and extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below), the second grasping platform comprising a second inner engagement surface (radially-inward surface of the “second grasping platform” as denoted in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) that extends arcuately from the proximal end of the second grasping platform to the distal end of the second grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below showing wherein the “second grasping platform” comprises an arcuate shape extending between a proximal and distal end thereof);
wherein actuation of the actuator causes the first and second grasping platforms to move from an initial, open position towards a closed position (see Col. 2, Lines 35-45); and
wherein each of the first and second grasping platforms is configured to deflect (see Figs. 8-10 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-10 mentioning wherein, in closing of the jaw sets 12, the distal jaw portions 24/25 of the first and second arms contact and form a pivot point 32 (see Fig. 9); further closing force causes pivoting/rotational movement of the first and second arms about the pivot point causing the distal “grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms to deflect such that outer surfaces (36/40) of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms are in compression while the inner surfaces (37/39) thereof are in tension) such that a contact area between the first and second engagement surfaces continuously increases between their respective distal ends and their respective proximal ends as the first and second grasping platforms move towards the closed position (see Figs. 8-10 showing a contact area between the radially-inward faces of the first arm and second arm (i.e., particularly at the jaw members 24/25) increases as closing progresses);
wherein, after the first and second grasping platforms initially contact one another, a majority of deflection along the first and second arms is concentrated in the first and second grasping platforms as the first and second grasping platforms move towards the closed position (see Figs. 9-10 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-10 mentioning wherein, in closing of the jaw sets 12, the distal jaw portions 24/25 of the first and second arms contact and form a pivot point 32 (see Fig. 9); further closing force causes pivoting/rotational movement of the first and second arms about the pivot point causing the distal “grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms to deflect such that outer surfaces (36/40) of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms are in compression while the inner surfaces (37/39) thereof are in tension. This places most of the deflection along portions of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” proximal to the jaw portions 24/25).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8
Regarding claim 14, Sharpe discloses the invention of claim 13, Sharpe further discloses wherein each of the first and second engagement surfaces is shaped as a curved section of a cylinder (see Fig. 8 showing wherein the arcuate shape of the inner engagement surfaces are curved portions having a cylindrical shape).
Regarding claim 15, Sharpe and discloses the invention of claim 13, Sharpe further discloses wherein the first and second grasping platforms are configured to initially contact one another only at their respective distal ends along the first and second engagement surfaces when actuated from the open position to the closed position (see Figs. 8-10 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-11 and Col. 4, Lines 24-34).
Regarding claim 17, Sharpe discloses the invention of claim 13, Sharpe further discloses wherein the first grasping platform has a thickness extending from the first inner engagement surface to a first outer surface (see Fig. 8), wherein the second grasping platform has a thickness extending from the second inner engagement surface to a second outer surface (see Fig. 8), and wherein the thickness of each of the first and second grasping platforms increases from the distal end of the respective first or second grasping platform to the proximal end of the respective first or second grasping platform (see Fig. 10 showing wherein the diameter of the jaw members (24/25) of the first and second grasping platform portions increases from a distal to a proximal end, wherein the distal portion of the jaw members are thinner than the proximal portions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe (US 5222973 A)(previously of record) in view of Ward (US 2017/0196648 A1)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sharpe discloses:A forceps (instrument 10, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a handle (handle 14, see Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1) and comprising an actuator (grip structures 15 and 16, see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 35-45);
an actuation tube (sheath 23, see Fig. 1) operatively coupled to the actuator (see Figs. 8-10 and Col. 3, Lines 48-55 and Col. 4, Lines 13-17 mentioning wherein the sheath applies closing pressure to the jaws when said jaws are drawn proximally into the sheath); and
a forceps tip (portions of the instrument extending distally from the handle 14, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a first arm (arm 28, see Fig. 8) extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Fig. 8), the first arm comprising a first grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below which designates boundaries of a “first grasping platform” at the distal end of the first arm) positioned at the distal end of first arm (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) and extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below), the first grasping platform comprising a first inner engagement surface (radially-inward surface of the “first grasping platform” as denoted in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) that extends arcuately from the proximal end of the first grasping platform to the distal end of the first grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below showing wherein the “first grasping platform” comprises an arcuate shape extending between a proximal and distal end thereof); and
a second arm (arm 29, see Fig. 8) extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Fig. 8), the second arm comprising a second grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below which designates boundaries of a “second grasping platform” at the distal end of the second arm) positioned at the distal end of second arm (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) and extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below), the second grasping platform comprising a second inner engagement surface (radially-inward surface of the “second grasping platform” as denoted in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) that extends arcuately from the proximal end of the second grasping platform to the distal end of the second grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below showing wherein the “second grasping platform” comprises an arcuate shape extending between a proximal and distal end thereof);
wherein each of the first and second engagement surfaces is arcuate about a transverse axis extending between the first and second engagement surfaces and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the handle (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below showing wherein the arcuate shape of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” is arcuate about a transverse axis extending between the first and second engagement surfaces perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the handle);
wherein the first and second grasping platforms are configured to initially contact one another only at their respective distal ends along the first and second engagement surfaces when actuated from the open position to the closed position (see Fig. 9 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-10); and
wherein each of the first and second grasping platforms is configured to deflect (see Figs. 8-10 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-10 mentioning wherein, in closing of the jaw sets 12, the distal jaw portions 24/25 of the first and second arms contact and form a pivot point 32 (see Fig. 9); further closing force causes pivoting/rotational movement of the first and second arms about the pivot point causing the distal “grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms to deflect such that outer surfaces (36/40) of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms are in compression while the inner surfaces (37/39) thereof are in tension) such that a contact area between the first and second engagement surfaces increases from their respective distal ends to their respective proximal ends as the first and second grasping platforms move towards the closed position (see Figs. 8-10 showing a contact area between the radially-inward faces of the first arm and second arm (i.e., particularly at the jaw members 24/25) increases as closing progresses); and
wherein, after the first and second grasping platforms initially contact one another, a majority of deflection along the first and second arms is concentrated in the first and second grasping platforms as the first and second grasping platforms move towards the closed position (see Figs. 9-10 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-10 mentioning wherein, in closing of the jaw sets 12, the distal jaw portions 24/25 of the first and second arms contact and form a pivot point 32 (see Fig. 9); further closing force causes pivoting/rotational movement of the first and second arms about the pivot point causing the distal “grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms to deflect such that outer surfaces (36/40) of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms are in compression while the inner surfaces (37/39) thereof are in tension. This places most of the deflection along portions of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” proximal to the jaw portions 24/25).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8
However, Sharpe does not expressly disclose:
wherein actuation of the actuator causes the actuation tube to move distally from the handle and into engagement with the first and second arms to cause the first and second grasping platforms to move from an initial, open position towards a closed position.
In the same field of endeavor, namely endoscopic surgical forceps, Ward teaches a surgical forceps (see Fig. 1) comprising a handle assembly (hand piece 16, see Fig. 1), an elongate tubular sheath (tubular member 12, see Fig. 1) and a pair of jaws (jaws 18 and 20, see Fig. 1) disposed at the distal end thereof (see Fig. 1), wherein actuation of the jaws between an open and closed configuration may comprise either movement of the tubular member proximally and distally relative to the jaw assembly which remains stationary or, alternatively, movement of the jaw assembly proximally and distally relative to the tubular member which remains stationary (see Para. [0025]-[0026]); in the case wherein the tubular member is the moving component, the tubular member is slid proximally and distally over arcuate portions of the jaws to cause opening and closing of said jaws due to abutting contact with the tubular member, providing an opening/closing force thereto.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the actuation mechanism within the handle of Sharpe cause actuation of the actuation sheath (23) to slide proximally/distally relative to the end effector jaws to open and close the end effector jaws as a known alternative arrangement to the current actuation system of Sharpe which actuates the jaws themselves proximally and distally relative to the actuation sheath. This is because Ward discloses wherein the two arrangement are known interchangeable alternative actuation arrangements within the endoscopic forceps field. Since Sharpe does not disclose any specific alternative function to the currently jaw actuation arrangement aside from merely opening and closing the jaws, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Sharpe to function equally well should the jaw actuation mechanism involve sliding of the actuation sheath relative to the jaws or actuation of the jaws relative to the actuation sheath.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose the invention of claim 1, Sharpe further discloses wherein each of the first and second engagement surfaces is shaped as a curved section of a cylinder (see Fig. 8 showing wherein the arcuate shape of the inner engagement surfaces are curved portions having a cylindrical shape).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, while Sharpe discloses wherein the arcuate portions of the inner engagement surfaces comprise arcuate shape (see Figs. 8-10), Sharpe does not expressly disclose wherein a radius of curvature of each of the first and second engagement surfaces decreases from the distal end of the respective first or second grasping platform to the proximal end of the respective first or second grasping platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to cause the radius of curvature of the arcuate portions of the first and second engagement surfaces of Sharpe to comprise a radius of curvature that decreases from the distal end to the proximal ends thereof since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Sharpe would not operate differently with the claimed radius curvature and the device of Sharpe would function appropriately having the claimed radial curvature. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range of curvature claimed, indicating simply that the curvature “may” be tapered between 0.200 inches and 0.400 inches (see Spec. Para. [0062]) or may vary along the length of each platform (see Spec. [0067]). The disclosed benefit to this configuration appears to be in having the engagement surface appear as a curve from the top view, and for the inner engagement surface of each grasping platform to be non-planar (see Spec. Para. [0062]). However, this benefit is understood to be present in any arcuate shape and the tapering nature does not appear to be the direct cause of causing the non-planar nature as any curve would render a surface non-planar. Therefore, no criticality specific to the tapering curvature is found to be present in the disclosed specification.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 3.
However, none of either Sharpe or Ward Yoon expressly disclose wherein the radius of curvature of each of the first and second engagement surfaces is between 0.200 inches and 0.400 inches at the distal end of the respective first or second grasping platform, and between 0.100 inches and 0.300 inches at the proximal end of the respective first or second grasping platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to cause the radius of curvature of the arcuate portions of the first and second inner engagement surfaces of Sharpe to comprise a radius of curvature of at each of the first and second inner engagement surfaces to be between 0.200 inches and 0.400 inches at the distal end of the respective arcuate portions of the first and second grasping platform, and be between 0.100 inches and 0.300 inches at the proximal end of the respective arcuate portions of the first and second grasping platform since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Sharpe would not operate differently with the claimed tapered radial curvature of the proximal and distal portions of the arcuate portions of the inner engagement surfaces and the device of Sharpe would function appropriately having the claimed tapered radial curvature of the actuate portions of the inner engagement surfaces. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range of curvature claimed, indicating simply that the curvature “may” be tapered between 0.200 inches and 0.400 inches (see Spec. Para. [0062]) or may vary along the length of each platform (see Spec. [0067]). The disclosed benefit to this configuration appears to be in having the engagement surface appear as a curve from the top view, and for the inner engagement surface of each grasping platform to be non-planar (see Spec. Para. [0062]). However, this benefit is understood to be present in any arcuate shape and the tapering nature does not appear to be the direct cause of causing the non-planar nature as any curve would render a surface non-planar. Therefore, no criticality specific to the tapering curvature is found to be present in the disclosed specification.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose the invention of claim 1, Sharpe further discloses wherein the first grasping platform has a thickness extending from the first inner engagement surface to a first outer surface (see Fig. 8), wherein the second grasping platform has a thickness extending from the second inner engagement surface to a second outer surface (see Fig. 8), and wherein the thickness of each of the first and second grasping platforms increases from the distal end of the respective first or second grasping platform to the proximal end of the respective first or second grasping platform (see Fig. 10 showing wherein the diameter of the jaw members (24/25) of the first and second grasping platform portions increases from a distal to a proximal end, wherein the distal portion of the jaw members are thinner than the proximal portions).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 5.
However, none of either Sharpe or Ward expressly disclose wherein the thickness of each of the first and second grasping platforms is less than 0.005 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the thickness of the grasping platforms of the forceps of Sharpe et al. to have a thickness of less than 0.005 inches since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Sharpe et al. would not operate differently with the claimed grasping platform thickness and the device would function appropriately having the claimed thickness. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness “may” be less than 0.005 inches or between a range of 0.0005 inches to 0.005 inches (see Spec. Para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose the invention of claim 5, Sharpe further discloses wherein each of the first and second outer surfaces are concavely arcuate (see Figs. 8-10 showing wherein the first and second outer surfaces of the respective “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” are concavely arcuate relative to the longitudinal axis bisecting the two jaws).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, the combination is silent as to the method of manufacturing of the forceps tip. The claimed phrase “wherein the forceps tip is formed by one of electric discharge machining and laser cutting” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the forceps tip is formed from either electric discharge machining or laser cutting. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limitation to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejecting may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though the combination of Sharpe and Ward are silent in regards to the process used to form the forceps tip, it appears that the forceps tip of Sharpe would be the same or similar as that claimed since the forceps of Sharpe disclose all of the structural limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose the invention of claim 1, Sharpe further discloses wherein the forceps tip further comprises an anchor wire extending through the actuation tube and fixed to the handle (connector rod 35, see Figs. 2-3), wherein each of the first and second arms is coupled to the anchor wire (see Col. 2, Lines 62-68 through Col. 3, Lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 9, Sharpe further discloses wherein the anchor wire and the first and second arms are integrally formed from a single piece of material (see Figs. 2-3 and Col. 3, Lines 1-10 mentioning wherein the jaw set is coupled to and integrally attached to the connector rod until removed therefrom; when attached forming the integral structure, the connector rod and jaw set are an integral component formed from a single piece of material until later detached).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose the invention of claim 1, Sharpe further discloses wherein the first and second arms are mirror images of each other (see Figs. 8-10; unless otherwise stated, the jaws are understood to be identical as in common practice in the art).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose the invention of claim 1, Sharpe further discloses wherein the first grasping platform and the second grasping platform are mirror images of each other (the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” of Sharpe are understood to be identical to one-another unless otherwise stated as is common practice in the art).
Regarding claim 20, Sharpe discloses:
A method of operating forceps, the method comprising:
providing a forceps (instrument 10, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a handle (handle 14, see Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1) and comprising an actuator (grips 15 and 16, see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 35-45);
an actuation tube (sheath 23, see Fig. 1) operatively coupled to the actuator (see Figs. 8-10 and Col. 3, Lines 48-55 and Col. 4, Lines 13-17 mentioning wherein the sheath applies closing pressure to the jaws when said jaws are drawn proximally into the sheath); and
a forceps tip portions of the instrument extending distally from the handle 14, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a first arm (arm 28, see Fig. 8) extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Fig. 8), the first arm comprising a first grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below which designates boundaries of a “first grasping platform” at the distal end of the first arm) positioned at the distal end of first arm (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) and extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below), the first grasping platform comprising a first inner engagement surface (radially-inward surface of the “first grasping platform” as denoted in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) that extends arcuately from the proximal end of the first grasping platform to the distal end of the first grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below showing wherein the “first grasping platform” comprises an arcuate shape extending between a proximal and distal end thereof); and
a second arm (arm 29, see Fig. 8) extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Fig. 8), the second arm comprising a second grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below which designates boundaries of a “second grasping platform” at the distal end of the second arm) positioned at the distal end of second arm (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) and extending from a proximal end to a distal end (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below), the second grasping platform comprising a second inner engagement surface (radially-inward surface of the “second grasping platform” as denoted in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below) that extends arcuately from the proximal end of the second grasping platform to the distal end of the second grasping platform (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below showing wherein the “second grasping platform” comprises an arcuate shape extending between a proximal and distal end thereof);
wherein each of the first and second engagement surfaces is arcuate about a transverse axis extending between the first and second engagement surfaces and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the handle (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 8 below showing wherein the arcuate shape of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” is arcuate about a transverse axis extending between the first and second engagement surfaces perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the handle);
wherein the first and second grasping platforms are configured to initially contact one another only at their respective distal ends along the first and second engagement surfaces when actuated from the open position to the closed position (see Fig. 9 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-10); and
wherein each of the first and second grasping platforms is configured to deflect (see Figs. 8-10 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-10 mentioning wherein, in closing of the jaw sets 12, the distal jaw portions 24/25 of the first and second arms contact and form a pivot point 32 (see Fig. 9); further closing force causes pivoting/rotational movement of the first and second arms about the pivot point causing the distal “grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms to deflect such that outer surfaces (36/40) of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms are in compression while the inner surfaces (37/39) thereof are in tension) such that a contact area between the first and second engagement surfaces increases from their respective distal ends to their respective proximal ends as the first and second grasping platforms move towards the closed position (see Figs. 8-10 showing a contact area between the radially-inward faces of the first arm and second arm (i.e., particularly at the jaw members 24/25) increases as closing progresses); and
wherein, after the first and second grasping platforms initially contact one another, a majority of deflection along the first and second arms is concentrated in the first and second grasping platforms as the first and second grasping platforms move towards the closed position (see Figs. 9-10 and Col. 3, Lines 60-68 through Col. 4, Lines 1-10 mentioning wherein, in closing of the jaw sets 12, the distal jaw portions 24/25 of the first and second arms contact and form a pivot point 32 (see Fig. 9); further closing force causes pivoting/rotational movement of the first and second arms about the pivot point causing the distal “grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms to deflect such that outer surfaces (36/40) of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” portions of the first and second arms are in compression while the inner surfaces (37/39) thereof are in tension. This places most of the deflection along portions of the “first grasping platform” and “second grasping platform” proximal to the jaw portions 24/25).
However, Sharpe does not expressly disclose:
wherein actuation of the actuator causes the actuation tube to move distally from the handle and into engagement with the first and second arms to cause the first and second grasping platforms to move from an initial, open position towards a closed position.
In the same field of endeavor, namely endoscopic surgical forceps, Ward teaches a surgical forceps (see Fig. 1) comprising a handle assembly (hand piece 16, see Fig. 1), an elongate tubular sheath (tubular member 12, see Fig. 1) and a pair of jaws (jaws 18 and 20, see Fig. 1) disposed at the distal end thereof (see Fig. 1), wherein actuation of the jaws between an open and closed configuration may comprise either movement of the tubular member proximally and distally relative to the jaw assembly which remains stationary or, alternatively, movement of the jaw assembly proximally and distally relative to the tubular member which remains stationary (see Para. [0025]-[0026]); in the case wherein the tubular member is the moving component, the tubular member is slid proximally and distally over arcuate portions of the jaws to cause opening and closing of said jaws due to abutting contact with the tubular member, providing an opening/closing force thereto.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the actuation mechanism within the handle of Sharpe cause actuation of the actuation sheath (23) to slide proximally/distally relative to the end effector jaws to open and close the end effector jaws as a known alternative arrangement to the current actuation system of Sharpe which actuates the jaws themselves proximally and distally relative to the actuation sheath. This is because Ward discloses wherein the two arrangement are known interchangeable alternative actuation arrangements within the endoscopic forceps field. Since Sharpe does not disclose any specific alternative function to the currently jaw actuation arrangement aside from merely opening and closing the jaws, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Sharpe to function equally well should the jaw actuation mechanism involve sliding of the actuation sheath relative to the jaws or actuation of the jaws relative to the actuation sheath.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe (US 5222973 A)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 16, Sharpe discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 13.
However, while Sharpe discloses wherein the arcuate portions of the inner engagement surfaces comprise arcuate shape (see Figs. 8-10), Sharpe does not expressly disclose wherein a radius of curvature of each of the first and second engagement surfaces decreases from the distal end of the respective first or second grasping platform to the proximal end of the respective first or second grasping platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to cause the radius of curvature of the arcuate portions of the first and second engagement surfaces of Sharpe to comprise a radius of curvature that decreases from the distal end to the proximal ends thereof since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Sharpe would not operate differently with the claimed radius curvature and the device of Sharpe would function appropriately having the claimed radial curvature. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range of curvature claimed, indicating simply that the curvature “may” be tapered between 0.200 inches and 0.400 inches (see Spec. Para. [0062]) or may vary along the length of each platform (see Spec. [0067]). The disclosed benefit to this configuration appears to be in having the engagement surface appear as a curve from the top view, and for the inner engagement surface of each grasping platform to be non-planar (see Spec. Para. [0062]). However, this benefit is understood to be present in any arcuate shape and the tapering nature does not appear to be the direct cause of causing the non-planar nature as any curve would render a surface non-planar. Therefore, no criticality specific to the tapering curvature is found to be present in the disclosed specification.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe (US 5222973 A)(previously of record) in view of Ward (US 2017/0196648 A1)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 18, Sharpe discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 13, Sharpe further discloses an actuation tube (sheath 23, see Fig. 1), wherein the forceps tip further comprises an anchor wire (connector rod 35, see Figs. 2-3) extending through the actuation tube and fixed to the handle (see Figs. 2-3 and see Col. 2, Lines 62-68 through Col. 3, Lines 1-10), wherein each of the first and second arms is coupled to the anchor wire (see Figs. 2-3 and see Col. 2, Lines 62-68 through Col. 3, Lines 1-10).
However, Sharpe does not expressly disclose wherein the actuation tube is operatively coupled to the actuator, wherein the forceps tip is operatively coupled to the actuator through the actuation tube.
In the same field of endeavor, namely endoscopic surgical forceps, Ward teaches a surgical forceps (see Fig. 1) comprising a handle assembly (hand piece 16, see Fig. 1), an elongate tubular sheath (tubular member 12, see Fig. 1) and a pair of jaws (jaws 18 and 20, see Fig. 1) disposed at the distal end thereof (see Fig. 1), wherein actuation of the jaws between an open and closed configuration may comprise either movement of the tubular member proximally and distally relative to the jaw assembly which remains stationary or, alternatively, movement of the jaw assembly proximally and distally relative to the tubular member which remains stationary (see Para. [0025]-[0026]); in the case wherein the tubular member is the moving component, the tubular member is slid proximally and distally over arcuate portions of the jaws to cause opening and closing of said jaws due to abutting contact with the tubular member, providing an opening/closing force thereto.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the actuation mechanism within the handle of Sharpe cause actuation of the actuation sheath (23) to slide proximally/distally relative to the end effector jaws to open and close the end effector jaws as a known alternative arrangement to the current actuation system of Sharpe which actuates the jaws themselves proximally and distally relative to the actuation sheath. This is because Ward discloses wherein the two arrangement are known interchangeable alternative actuation arrangements within the endoscopic forceps field. Since Sharpe does not disclose any specific alternative function to the currently jaw actuation arrangement aside from merely opening and closing the jaws, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Sharpe to function equally well should the jaw actuation mechanism involve sliding of the actuation sheath relative to the jaws or actuation of the jaws relative to the actuation sheath.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sharpe and Ward disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 18, Sharpe further discloses wherein the anchor wire and the first and second arms are integrally formed from a single piece of material (see Figs. 2-3 and Col. 3, Lines 1-10 mentioning wherein the jaw set is coupled to and integrally attached to the connector rod until removed therefrom; when attached forming the integral structure, the connector rod and jaw set are an integral component formed from a single piece of material until later detached).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, US 11298146 B2 to Linsi, US 11490915 B2 to Alexander and US 10695043 B2 to Scheller all disclose surgical forceps devices with integrally-formed jaws and/or deflectable jaws that sequentially contact one-another starting at the distal-most tip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITCHELL B HOAG whose telephone number is (571)272-0983. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 5712724695. 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.
/M.B.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights