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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the power sources and plurality of cells in different configurations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrase “switching the plurality of cells from the first configuration to a second configuration different from the first configuration, wherein the second configuration increases the monitored voltage potential of the power source” is supported in [0155-157] however it is not clear what the power source(s) are and how the cells are arranged. Support appears to be from figs. 3, 6, and fig. 11. Are figs. 6-7 the cell switching configuration? Is the switching automatic or does a user actuate the switching configuration with a switch/button? The specification recites “user can selectively place the battery cells in series and/or parallel based on the desired outcome” [0156] and also indicates the controller switches the cell configuration “control system may complete this transition using switching circuitry to place additional cells in series and/or parallel with the first number of cells depending on a desired need” [0157]. It is not clear how the user changes the cell configuration and the switching circuitry not clearly shown.
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 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.
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) 36-47 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shelton, IV et al. (US 20190183501 A1) in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 20220273299 A1) and further in view of Yates et al. (US 20210369273 A1).
Regarding claims 36-37, 39, and 41-45, Shelton, IV et al.’501 discloses a surgical system (100), comprising: an end effector (300), comprising: a first jaw (304); and a second jaw (306) rotatable relative to the first jaw from an open position toward a closed position to capture tissue therebetween [0088-0095]; a motor (2010); a power source (2008) configured to power the motor [0088-0090];
a timer [0095] configured to measure elapsed time; and a control circuit (circuit 2000 and motor control circuit 2028/microcontroller 2034/circuit board 142b, [0088-0095], figs. 4 and 17) in operable communication with the motor and the timer, wherein the control circuit is configured to: receive a first input; control the motor to drive a first motion at the end effector based on receiving the first firing stroke input; monitor an elapsed period based on the first motion concluding (“multiple thresholds (demarcated by the boundaries of the current zones i.sub.1, i.sub.2, i.sub.3) that the controller compares the sensed motor current against to determine 2222 whether to decrease 2224 the displacement member speed or pause the clamping member 550” [0095, 0104, 0114-0119); receive a second firing stroke input (pause, speed, and/or advance distance of clamping member 550);
compare the elapsed period to a recovery time period (re-energizing motor) based on receiving the second input; and perform an action based on the comparison (clamping member driven at lower speed/slowly increase speed [0108, 0114-0119]) wherein the action comprises abstaining from controlling the motor to drive a second motion at the end effector based on the elapsed period being less than the recovery time period and wherein the action comprises controlling the motor to drive a second motion at the end effector based on the elapsed period reaching or exceeding the recovery time period (current flow to the motor 2010 is interrupted, lockout, motor 2010 being de-energized/current zero, time delay can vary for different conditions [0088-0095, 0106-0108, 0114-0119]).
Shelton, IV et al.’501 fails to disclose the recovery time period is based on a recharge rate of the power source, the comparison determines whether the power source has sufficient amount of energy for the action/firing strokes and switch to another power source based on recovery time period, adjusting a configuration of the cells of the power source.
Shelton, IV et al.’299 taches a power management system having a charge accumulator (11800) determining a recovery time period based on a recharge rate (first, or maximum, charging rate – use rate vs. charge rate and discharge rate (D) and/or remaining-charge capacity (C) determined) of the power source (manage power being stored and reduce power when reaching maximum capacity, monitoring a charge status, charge rate) switch to another power source based on recovery time period (switch battery, [0551, 0608, 0655-0656], figs. 1-7).
Shelton, IV et al.’299 states: “power management circuit may adjust one or more operational parameters of the staple cartridge 1046 based on one or more of the comparisons to mitigate power consumption…determined value of the charge rate is less than or equal to the predetermined charge rate threshold, the power management circuit may adjust one or more operational parameters” [0656]
Yates et al. teaches having rechargeable power modules (battery cells 310/power source 340 [0013-0014, 0072, 0076-0086]), a control circuit (charge management circuit 344) to control the power supplied to a motor and receiving a first and second inputs (pulse loads, drive shaft 48 for firing/close/clamping, reverse drive shaft 48 to retract, speed and the power of the motor [0012, 0052-0062, 0068-0070, 0087]); compare the monitored voltage potential to a recovery threshold based on receiving a second firing stroke input (pulse movements, reverse/retract); and perform an action based on the comparison (pulse movements – more power at beginning, stop pulsing) wherein the action comprises abstaining from controlling the motor to drive a second motion at the end effector based on the monitored voltage potential being less than the recovery threshold (, stop pulsing until recovery) wherein the action comprises controlling the motor to drive a second motion at the end effector based on the monitored voltage potential reaching or exceeding the recovery threshold (pulse when cells recovered, draw lower current until battery recovered to pulse [0091].
Given the teachings of Shelton, IV et al.’501 to have surgical system with a control circuit that monitors current/voltage drawn by the motor and driving the motor based on a voltage input and to compare the elapsed period of a driven first motion to a recovery time period, it 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 to modify the control circuit configured to have recovery time period based on a recharge rate of the power source to have enough time to recharge for the next action/firing stroke, manage power to mitigate power consumption, provide sufficient voltage to cut through tissue and/or for feedback purposes as taught by Shelton, IV et al.’299 and Yates et al.
Regarding claims 38 and 40, Shelton, IV et al. discloses a display (146), wherein the action further comprises issuing a notification on the display based on the monitored voltage potential being less than the recovery threshold and wherein the control circuit is further configured to issue a notification on the display based on the elapsed period reaching the recovery time period (feedback/alert [0063, 0106, 0112, 0118, 0129], figs. 1-3).
Regarding claims 46-47 and 49, Shelton, IV et al. teaches monitoring firing stroke first and second inputs (positions/zones of clamping member 550 [0102-0107]) but fails to explicitly disclose the first input is a first firing stroke input and the second input is a second firing stroke input, wherein the comparison determines whether the power source has a sufficient amount of energy for the action, wherein the action is a firing stroke, wherein the action comprises switching the power source to another power source based on the recovery threshold.
Shelton, IV et al.’299 taches the power management system has a first input is a first firing stroke input and a second input is a second firing stroke input (I-beam 2764 translates distally and proximally [0469-0470, 0532, 0738-0739, 0744-0745]), wherein the comparison determines whether the power source has a sufficient amount of energy for the action, wherein the action is a firing stroke, wherein the action comprises switching the power source to another power source based on the recovery threshold [0486, 0494, 0644-0645, 0721-0723].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-35 and 51-52 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a surgical stapling device comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, a first and second jaws, the second jaw rotatable relative to the first jaw from an open position toward a closed position to capture tissue therebetween; a motor; a power source configured to power the motor, the power source comprising a plurality of cells in a first configuration; a voltage sensor configured to sense a voltage potential of the power source; and a control circuit in operable communication with the motor and the voltage sensor, wherein the control circuit is configured to: set a recovery threshold comprising a voltage threshold associated with the power source; receive a first input; control the motor to drive a first motion at the end effector based on receiving the first input; monitor the voltage potential of the power source based on the first motion concluding; receive a second input; compare the monitored voltage potential to the recovery threshold based on receiving the second input; and perform an action based on the comparison, wherein the action comprises switching the plurality of cells from the first configuration to a second configuration different from the first configuration, wherein the second configuration increases the monitored voltage potential of the power source. Though Shelton, IV et al. (US 20190183501 A1) teaches having a power source, monitoring voltage, setting voltage thresholds and comparing voltage to voltage potential, Shelton, IV et al. fails to teach comparing a second input with the monitored voltage to a recovery voltage threshold and then switching a plurality of cells of the power source on the fly from a first configuration to a second configuration different from the first configuration, wherein the second configuration increases the monitored voltage potential of the power source and one of ordinary skill would recognize that switching a plurality of cells for managing power to mitigate power consumption and provide sufficient voltage to cut through tissue improves the power consumption of the device and is not obvious since doing so would require substantial modification of the controller/circuits and the electrical motor battery relationship. Savage et al. (US 20160249919 A1) also teaches providing a boost to battery by changing the cell configuration but lacks comparing a second input with the monitored voltage to a recovery voltage threshold and then switching a plurality of cells on the fly. Having the efficiency of comparing an input with the monitored voltage to a recovery voltage threshold and then switching a plurality of cells for increasing powered when needed and managing power to mitigate power consumption and provide sufficient voltage to cut through tissue improves the power consumption of the device and provide more power when needed.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 36-47 and 49 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Since Shelton, IV et al.’299 teaches a recharge/charge rate and as claimed the recovery time period is based on a recharge rate. Moreover, the phrase “time period for recovery or recharging” is not claimed. Is there a recovery halting time period then the second function proceeds? Since recovery time is defined as recharge rate, then Shelton, IV et al.’299’s teaching of a recharge/charge rate then the recovery time period is disclosed. Also, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 31-47,49 and 51-52 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all references applied in the prior rejection of record and/or the specification/drawing objections for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20180132850 A1- compare the voltage potential to the reference value, “voltage potentials evaluated by the processor are consistently at or below the reference value, the electronic logic gate can maintain an output of ‘on’. When an evaluated voltage potential exceeds the reference value, the output of the logic gate can be switched to ‘off’” [0408] … “processor can be configured to compare the first signal from the first sensor to the second signal from the second sensor to determine what action, if any, to take. In addition to or in lieu of the above, the processor can be configured to compare the data from the first signal and/or the second signal to limits established by the algorithm and/or data stored within a memory device” [0393] and see references cited, form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights