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 Amendment
The amendment filed 07/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 31-44, 46-47, 49, and 51-52 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 36-44 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.
The term “adjusting” in claim 36 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “based on the comparison…adjusting a configuration of cells” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant specification indicates that “based on the comparison” the “firing algorithm maintains the first duty cycle” when voltage potential is above the power source lower threshold and “the control system adjusts the firing algorithm” voltage potential has reached or dropped below the power source lower threshold” [0103] and the specification recites “based on the elapsed period reaching the recovery time period. Accordingly, a user is notified that the power source has recovered a sufficient amount and that a second firing stroke can now be completed” [0153].
As claimed the control system/circuit compares the elapsed period to a recovery time period with no limit (threshold, value, above or below the power source voltage, reached recharge rate, and etc.) which is unclear what the comparison result is limited to or what is required and the specification does not disclose “adjusting a configuration of cells” based on the comparison of the elapsed period to a recovery time period. It appears the control circuit/system does not always adjust voltage or cells unless a certain value is reached. As claimed, an adjustment is made no matter what the comparison is? If the recharge rate is reached, do the cells configuration still need to be adjusted? It appears adjustment is only needed when voltage is too low or too high? Since there are values that an adjustment is not made, it is not clear what “based on the comparison…adjusting a configuration of cells” is limited to.
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) 36-44 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 44, 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 and compare the elapsed period to a recovery time period and adjusting a configuration of the cells of the power source based on the comparison.
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 [0012-0014, 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] and compare the elapsed period to a recovery time period and adjusting a configuration of the cells of the power source based on the comparison (adjust number of cells used – “based on the voltage required by the motor 65” [0072-0073, 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 41-43, Shelton, IV et al. teaches monitoring firing stroke first and second inputs (positions/zones of clamping member 550 [0102-0107]) and the first input is a first firing stroke input and the second input is a second firing stroke input (firing strokes 2304, 2306), wherein the comparison determines whether the power source has a sufficient amount of energy for the action (avoid over strain on the motor, pause if exceed threshold, adjusting the electrical energy supplied to the motor 2010), wherein the action is a firing stroke [0106-0115].
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, 46-47, 49, 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) 36-44 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Since Yates et al. teaches having rechargeable power modules (battery cells 310/power source 340 [0012-0014, 0072, 0076-0086]) and to compare the elapsed period to a recovery time period and adjusting a configuration of the cells of the power source based on the comparison (adjust number of cells used – “based on the voltage required by the motor 65” [0072-0073, 0091]. Also, the amended phrase “adjusting a configuration of cells” based on the comparison of the elapsed period to a recovery time period is unclear since adjustment appears to be based on power/voltage reaching certain amount/recovered rather than a recharge time period and no limit (threshold, value, above or below the power source voltage and etc.) is recited. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph issues above.
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]
US 20090256502 A1 controller 6 “shifts the battery cell 9 arrangement between the series and parallel arrangement based on whether the instantaneous sensed torque exceeds the predetermined shift torque” [0050] and time periods for shifting the cells [0051-0057] and see references cited, form 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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