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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 22 July 2025.
Claims 21-41 are currently pending and being examined.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 26 and 37 recites “a biasing member for biasing”, which will be interpreted as a spring as shown as element 336 in figures 57-61.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21, 24-32, and 35-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swayze (US 2014/0166717) in view of Edwards (US 2014/0155923).
Swayze teaches:
Claims 21, 31, and 32: A powered surgical device (10-fig.1) comprising:
an end effector (20,40-fig.1) including an annular reload (20-fig.1) and an anvil (40-fig.1) movable relative to the annular reload (¶[0037]-[0038]);
a motor (280-fig.10) for providing rotational input (¶[0080]-[0082]);
an adapter (at least 60-fig.1) having a distal end portion (fig.1; ¶[0037]) for coupling to the anvil (40-fig.1) and the annular reload (20-fig.1) and a proximal end portion (fig.1; ¶[0037]) for coupling to the motor (280-fig.10; 70-fig.1), the adapter including:
an inner housing (64-fig.2A);
an outer housing (72-fig.4A) disposed over the inner housing (see fig.4A; ¶[0054]);
an outer tube (62-fig.2A) extending from the outer housing (¶[0054]);
a transmission assembly (at least 392,364,372,370-fig.19) disposed inside the inner housing and the outer tube (¶[0100]-[0102]), the transmission assembly configured to receive the rotational input from the motor and to convert the rotational input into axial translation output for actuating at least one of the anvil or the annular reload (“Such a control logic may be operable to selectively reverse the direction of rotation by motor (280), to thereby provide selective advancement or retraction of trocar (238) and anvil (240) to adjust the gap distance d, depending on the direction in which firing ring (252) is rotated.” ¶[0082]; ¶[0100]-[0102]).
Swayze does not expressly teach a rotation assembly coupled to the outer housing and movable from a locked configuration to an unlocked configuration, wherein in the locked configuration the rotation assembly engages the inner housing thereby preventing rotation of the outer housing and the outer tube relative to the inner housing and in the unlocked configuration the rotation assembly is disengaged from the inner housing allowing for rotation of the outer housing and the outer tube relative to the inner housing.
However, Edwards teaches a rotation assembly (at least 8,30,52; ¶[0059]) coupled to the outer housing (72,74-fig.3B) and movable from a locked configuration (fig.2A; ¶[0057]) to an unlocked configuration (fig.2B; ¶[0057]), wherein in the locked configuration the rotation assembly engages the inner housing (34-fig.4) thereby preventing rotation of the outer housing and the outer tube relative to the inner housing (¶[0057]) and in the unlocked configuration the rotation assembly is disengaged from the inner housing allowing for rotation of the outer housing and the outer tube relative to the inner housing (¶[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Swayze, by having a rotation assembly and curved shaft, as taught by Edwards, so when the shaft is curved the end effector can be angled in relation to the handle assembly, therefore making it easier to operate because the user does not have to hold the handle at an awkward angle when the end has to be at a different angle. (Edwards ¶[0029])
Swayze as modified by Edwards teaches:
Claim 24 and 35: The powered surgical device according to claim 21, wherein the rotation assembly includes a lock button (Edwards: 52-fig.2A) operably supported on the outer housing (Edwards: ¶[0057]).
Claims 25 and 36: The powered surgical device according to claim 24, wherein the lock button (Edwards: 52-fig.2A) is movable between a first button position (Edwards: fig.2A; ¶[0057]) and a second button position (Edwards: fig.2B; ¶[0057]), wherein while the lock button is in the first button position the rotation assembly is in the locked configuration (Edwards: fig.2A; ¶[0057]) and while the lock button is in the second button position the rotation assembly is in the unlocked configuration (Edwards: fig.2B; ¶[0057]).
Claims 26 and 37: The powered surgical device according to claim 25, wherein the lock button includes a biasing member for biasing the lock button to the first button position (Edwards: ¶[0052]-[0053]).
Claims 27 and 38: The powered surgical device according to claim 25, wherein the inner housing (Edwards: 34-fig.4) includes a plurality of cutouts (Edwards: see fig.4 showing cutouts between locking splines 36; ¶[0057]).
Claims 28 and 39: The powered surgical device according to claim 27, wherein the rotation assembly further includes a lock shoe (Edwards: 44-fig.4; ¶[0057]) disposed between the inner housing (Edwards: 34-fig.4) and the outer housing (Edwards: 30-fig.4).
Claims 29 and 40: The powered surgical device according to claim 28, wherein the lock shoe is movable (Edwards: 44-fig.4; ¶[0057]) between a first lock position (Edwards: fig.2A; ¶[0057]) and a second lock position (Edwards: fig.2B; ¶[0057]) in response to movement of the lock button between the first button position and the second button position (Edwards: ¶[0057]), wherein in the first lock position the lock shoe is disposed inside one cutout of the plurality of cutouts (Edwards: fig.2A; ¶[0057]) and in the second lock position the lock shoe is disposed outside of the plurality of cutouts (Edwards: fig.2B; ¶[0057]).
Claims 30 and 41: The powered surgical device according to claim 29, wherein the lock shoe (Edwards: 44-fig.4; ¶[0057]) is axially slidable relative to the lock button (¶[0057]-[0059]).
Claim(s) 22-23 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swayze (US 2014/0166717) in view of Edwards (US 2014/0155923), further in view of Bear (US 2016/0374672).
Claims 22 and 33: The powered surgical device according to claim 21.
Swayze as modified by Edwards does not expressly teach an outer tube has a curved shape defining a curved path.
However, Bear teaches an outer tube (210-fig.1) has a curved shape defining a curved path (see fig.1 showing a curved shaft; ¶[0285]-[0287]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Swayze as modified by Edwards, by having a curved shaft, as taught by Bear, so the stapler can navigate tight and confined anatomical spaces and to easily follow the contour of the bowel.
Swayze as modified by Edwards and Bear teaches:
Claims 23 and 34: The powered surgical device according to claim 22, wherein the transmission assembly is configured to move along the curved path (Bear: ¶[0285]-[0287]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7-9, filed 22 July 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swayze (US 2014/0166717) in view of Edwards (US 2014/0155923).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights