DETAILED ACTION
The following is a First Action, Non-Final Office Action on the merits.
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/413852 provides adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Accordingly, the claims are given the priority date of 10/6/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a proximal end whereby to form in use at least one suction lumen passageway” to -, and where at least one suction lumen passageway is formed- in ll. 7-8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: amend “A rotary” -The rotary- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “wherein in use respective rotation” to -wherein, in use, respective rotation- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: amend “rotary shaver according” to - rotary shaver surgical instrument according- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a same number of grooves” to -a same number of the one or more grooves- in ll. 1-2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: amend “rotary shaver arrangement” to -rotary shaver surgical instrument- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the grooves” to -the one or more grooves- in ll. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the instrument” to -the rotary shaver surgical instrument- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a proximal end whereby to form in use at least one suction lumen passageway” to -, and where at least one suction lumen passageway is formed- in ll. 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the RF arrangement” to -the RF surgical instrument arrangement- in ll. 1-2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “The direction” to -a direction- in ll. 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “an end effector” to -the end effector- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “an RF” to -a RF- in ll. 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “an electrosurgical instrument” to -the electrosurgical instrument- in ll. 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the electrode” to -the active electrode- in ll. 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “a proximal end whereby to form in use at least one suction lumen passageway” to -, and where at least one suction lumen passageway is formed- in ll. 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12 & 16 recite the limitation “where the inner and outer cutting windows are formed to a proximal end”; however, the originally filed disclosure depicts the cutting windows located at a distal end of the instrument (at least Fig. 2).
Claims 2-11 & 13-15 depend from claims 1 & 12 and are thus also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 12 & 16 recite the limitation “where the inner and outer cutting windows are formed to a proximal end”. It is unclear how a cutting window can be “formed to” a proximal end and thus claim 1 is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 2-11 & 13-15 depend from claims 1 & 12 and are thus also rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the arrangement" in ll. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “drive componentry” which is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification refers to “[a] powered handpiece” for rotating an inner tubular member within an outer tubular member, this is in the “Background and Related Art” and is not described with respect to the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “RF electrical connections” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bloom (2015/0265337).
Concerning claim 1, as illustrated in at least Figs. 1-6, Bloom discloses a rotary shaver surgical instrument (electrosurgical device 102; [0020]), comprising:
an outer tubular member having an outer cutting window formed therein (tubular, or hollow, outer shaft 130 that includes an opening/window 133; [0020], [0030]);
an inner tubular member having an inner cutting window formed therein (tubular, or hollow, inner shaft 140 coaxially maintained within outer shaft 130 and defines an inner shaft window/opening 145; [0020], [0036]), the inner tubular member being rotatably arranged within the outer tubular member (inner shaft and outer shaft cutters 134, 143, respectively, may move relative to one another in oscillation, rotation, or both, via the hub 177 to mechanically cut body matter; [0035]);
at least one of the outer tubular member or the inner tubular member having one or more grooves formed in a surface thereof running from a distal end of the surgical instrument where the inner and outer cutting windows are formed to a proximal end whereby to form in use at least one suction lumen passageway between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member (inner shaft 140 includes fluid distribution flutes 222a-n formed in the outer surface 184 and spaced-apart from each other around the circumference of the outer surface 184 in distal end region 120 and are capable of forming at least one suction lumen passageway between inner shaft 140 and outer shaft 130; [0054-0055]).
The Examiner notes the claim fails to recite the at least one groove extending at least directly from the outer shaft window.
The Examiner notes that the claim fails to positively recite a suction source connected to the at least one groove.
Concerning claim 2, Bloom discloses the one or more grooves (222a-n) are formed on an outer surface (184) of the inner tubular member (140) ([0054-0055]; Fig. 5).
Concerning claim 9, Bloom discloses the grooves (222a-n) extend longitudinally in at least a partial straight line from the distal end (120) of the instrument (102) to the proximal end (110) ([0020], [0054-0055]; Fig. 1 & 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (2015/0265337), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sussman et al. (6,398,759).
Concerning claim 3, Bloom fails to disclose the one or more grooves are formed on an inner surface of the outer tubular member. However, Sussman et al. disclose a surgical instrument comprising inner and outer tubes (967, 965), where either can have a series of grooves (971) formed on a respective surface for fluid transport (Abstract; Col. 2, ll. 52-56 & Col. 7-8, ll. 66-12; Fig. 25-27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Bloom such that the one or more grooves are formed on an inner surface of the outer tubular member, since Applicant has placed no criticality on the location of the grooves, Sussman et al. teach the equivalence of grooves on the inner and outer tubes, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (2015/0265337), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lee (2015/0141982).
Concerning claims 4-6, Bloom fails to disclose the one or more grooves are formed on both an outer surface of the inner tubular member, and on an inner surface of the outer tubular member, wherein in use respective rotation positions of the inner and outer tubular members are controlled such that the one or more grooves on the outer surface of the inner tubular member align with the one or more grooves formed on the inner surface of the outer tubular member, wherein there are a same number of grooves on both the inner and outer tubular members. However, Lee discloses a surgical instrument comprising fluid distribution grooves that can be formed on an inner surface of an outer member and/or an outer surface of an inner member ([0077]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Bloom the one or more grooves are formed on both an outer surface of the inner tubular member, and on an inner surface of the outer tubular member as taught by Lee et al., wherein there are a same number of grooves on both the inner and outer tubular members, since Applicant has placed no criticality on the location of the grooves and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The modified invention of Bloom in view of Lee et al. disclose a surgical instrument wherein, in use, respective rotation positions of the inner and outer tubular members are controlled such that the one or more grooves on the outer surface of the inner tubular member align with the one or more grooves formed on the inner surface of the outer tubular member.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (2015/0265337), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Cully et al. (2012/0065579).
Concerning claim 7, Bloom fails to disclose the grooves are semi-circular in cross-section. However, Cully et al. discloses a surgical instrument comprising fluid carrying grooves (204) having various cross-sections (square, round, or combinations thereof) ([0042]; Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Bloom such that the grooves are semi-circular in cross-section as taught by Cully et al. and thus are of whatever desired or expedient form or shape, since Applicant has placed no criticality on the shape of the grooves and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Concerning claim 8, while Bloom appears to illustrate the grooves (222a-n) having some sort of edges in Fig. 5, Bloom fails to specifically disclose the grooves are square edged in cross-section. However, Cully et al. discloses a surgical instrument comprising fluid carrying grooves (204) having various cross-sections (square, round, or combinations thereof) ([0042]; Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Bloom such that the grooves are square edged in cross-section a taught by Cully et al. and thus are of whatever desired or expedient form or shape, since Applicant has placed no criticality on the shape of the grooves and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (2015/0265337), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Pernot et al. (2013/0260334).
Concerning claims 10-11, Bloom fails to disclose the grooves follow a curved path from the distal end of the instrument to the proximal end, wherein the curved path is a spiral path from the distal end of the instrument to the proximal end. However, Pernot et al. disclose an end effector of a surgical instrument comprising a tubular member having grooves (21) that follow a curved path from the distal end of the instrument to the proximal end, wherein the curved path is a spiral path from the distal end of the instrument to the proximal end. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bloom such that the grooves follow a curved path from the distal end of the instrument to the proximal end, wherein the curved path is a spiral path from the distal end of the instrument to the proximal end in order to provide the benefit of actively conveying the fluid as a function of the orientation of the helix as taught by Pernot et al. ([0031], [0090]; Fig. 1-4)
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain et al. (2017/0224368) in view of Bloom (2015/0265337).
Concerning claim 12¸ as illustrated in at least Figs. 24A-B, Germain et al. disclose an end effector for an electrosurgical instrument (shaver working end 900 of a cutting device or probe; [0127]), the end effector comprising: a rotary shaver arrangement, comprising: an outer tubular member having an outer cutting window formed therein (outer sleeve 915 having a distal end 916 with a window/cut-out opening 920; [0127]); an inner tubular member having an inner cutting window formed therein (inner sleeve 910/ceramic body 905 having cutting member window 940; [0127-0128]]), the inner tubular member being rotatably arranged within the outer tubular member (inner sleeve 910/ceramic body 905 rotate within outer sleeve 915; [0128]); and
a radio frequency (RF) surgical instrument arrangement including an active electrode comprising a suction aperture in fluid communication with a central suction lumen (electrode 950 cooperates with return electrode and is energized to coagulate or ablate tissue and comprises micropores or microchannels 970 that communicate with central channel 960 in ceramic body 905 and bore 956 of inner sleeve 910 which is connected to negative pressure source 965 to draw fluid through the microchannels 970; [0130-0131]).
Germain et al. fail to specifically disclose at least one of the outer tubular member or the inner tubular member having one or more grooves formed in a surface thereof running from a distal end of the rotary shaver arrangement where the inner and outer cutting windows are formed to a proximal end whereby to form in use at least one suction lumen passageway between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member. However, Bloom discloses a rotary shaver surgical instrument (102) comprising an inner tubular member (140) having an inner cutting window (145) rotatable within an outer tubular member (130) having an outer cutting window (133) and at least one of the outer tubular member (130) or the inner tubular member (140) having one or more grooves (222a-n) formed in a surface (184) thereof running from a distal end of the surgical instrument where the inner and outer cutting windows (133, 145) are formed to a proximal end whereby to form in use at least one lumen passageway capable of suction between the inner tubular member (140) and the outer tubular member (130). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Germain et al. to further comprise at least one of the outer tubular member or the inner tubular member having one or more grooves formed in a surface thereof running from a distal end of the rotary shaver arrangement where the inner and outer cutting windows are formed to a proximal end whereby to form in use at least one suction lumen passageway between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member in order to provide the benefit of emitting fluid that flows axially along the outer shaft as taught by Bloom. ([0020], [0030-0031], [0054-0055]; Fig. 2-3 & 4-5)
The Examiner notes that the claim fails to positively recite a suction source connected to the at least one groove.
Concerning claim 13, the end effector (900) is arranged such that the RF arrangement is positioned on a first side (945B) of the end effector (900), and the rotary shaver arrangement is positioned such that the direction of tissue shaving of the rotary shaver arrangement is on a second side (945A) of the end effector, the second side being opposite to the first side (Fig. 24A-B).
Concerning claim 14¸Germain et al. disclose an electrosurgical instrument (cutting device or probe 100; [0084], [0127]) comprising:
an end effector (shaver working end 900; [0127]) according to claim 12; and
an operative shaft (shaft 110; [0084]) having RF electrical connections (RF source 440/ proximally-extending leg 976 that extends through a passageway 977 in the ceramic body and is coupled to the inner sleeve 910 which carries current to the electrode 950; [0102], [0133]) operably connected to the active electrode (electrode 950; [0128]), and drive componentry operably connected to the rotary shaver arrangement to drive the rotary shaver arrangement to operate in use (motor drive unit 105 rotates inner sleeve 910 within outer sleeve 915; [0083], [0128]).
Concerning claim 15, Germain et al. discloses an electrosurgical system (tissue resecting system; [0107]), comprising:
an RF electrosurgical generator (RF source 440; [0102]);
a suction pump (negative pressure source 160; [0107]); and
an electrosurgical instrument according to claim 14 (cutting device or probe 100; [0084], [0127]), the arrangement being such that in use the RF electrosurgical generator supplies an RF coagulation or ablation signal via the RF electrical connections to the active electrode (electrode 950 cooperates with return electrode and is energized to coagulate or ablate tissue with energy from source 440; [0125], [0130-0131]) and the suction pump supplies suction via the central suction lumen connecting the suction aperture located within the electrode to the suction pump (window 940 communicates with an interior or central channel 960 extending through ceramic body 905 to communicate with bore 956 of inner sleeve 910 which is connected to a negative pressure source 965; [0129]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (2015/0265337), Germain et al. (2017/0258519) and Ellis et al. (2007/0135735).
Concerning claim 16, as illustrated in at least Figs. 1-6, Bloom discloses a rotary shaver surgical instrument (electrosurgical device 102; [0020]), comprising:
an outer tubular member having an outer cutting window formed therein (tubular, or hollow, outer shaft 130 that includes an opening/window 133; [0020], [0030]);
an inner tubular member having an inner cutting window formed therein (tubular, or hollow, inner shaft 140 coaxially maintained within outer shaft 130 and defines an inner shaft window/opening 145; [0020], [0036]), the inner tubular member being rotatably arranged within the outer tubular member (inner shaft and outer shaft cutters 134, 143, respectively, may move relative to one another in oscillation, rotation, or both, via the hub 177 to mechanically cut body matter; [0035]);
at least one of the outer tubular member or the inner tubular member having one or more grooves formed in a surface thereof running from a distal end of the surgical instrument where the inner and outer cutting windows are formed to a proximal end whereby to form in use at least one suction lumen passageway between the inner tubular member and the outer tubular member (inner shaft 140 includes fluid distribution flutes 222a-n formed in the outer surface 184 and spaced-apart from each other around the circumference of the outer surface 184 in distal end region 120 and are capable of forming at least one suction lumen passageway between inner shaft 140 and outer shaft 130; [0054-0055]).
Bloom fails to disclose a method of reprocessing the rotary shaver arrangement, the method comprising: a) dissembling the rotary shaver arrangement; b) cleaning the rotary shaver arrangement; c) replacing worn parts in the rotary shaver arrangement; d) re-assembling the rotary shaver arrangement; e) sterilizing the re-assembled rotary shaver arrangement; and f) packing the sterilized rotary shaver arrangement in sterile packaging. However, Germain et al. disclose a method of reprocessing a rotary shaver arrangement, the method comprising: a) dissembling the rotary shaver arrangement and b) cleaning the rotary shaver arrangement ([0007]). Further, Ellis et al. disclose a method of reprocessing a surgical arrangement, the method comprising: c) replacing worn parts in a surgical arrangement; d) re-assembling the surgical arrangement; e) sterilizing the re-assembled rotary shaver arrangement; and f) packing the sterilized rotary shaver arrangement in sterile packaging ([0047]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bloom to further comprise a method of reprocessing the rotary shaver arrangement, the method comprising: a) dissembling the rotary shaver arrangement; b) cleaning the rotary shaver arrangement; c) replacing worn parts in the rotary shaver arrangement; d) re-assembling the rotary shaver arrangement; e) sterilizing the re-assembled rotary shaver arrangement; and f) packing the sterilized rotary shaver arrangement in sterile packaging as taught by Germain and Ellis et al. in order to provide the benefit of a “reposable device” as taught by Germain et al. ([0007])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ebnet (2022/0175416) disclose spiral grooves have the advantage that pressure loss of a fluid conveyed through the tubular hollow body is reduced and, at the same time, a swirling movement of the fluid can be achieved.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYMI E DELLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1429. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:00 am - 4:45 pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYMI E DELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
JAYMI E. DELLA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3794