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 on May 4th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 21-27 remain pending in the application. Claims 5-13 are withdrawn and claims 14-20 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claim 4 have overcome the rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 25th 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but do not overcome the rejection because the scope of the claims have been changed.
Regarding amended claim 1, applicant argues that Johnson and Clauda do not teach, disclose, or suggest the feature of “the first blade holder includes a first aperture receiving the first pulley pin and the second blade holder includes a second aperture receiving the second pulley pin.” However, Johnson does teach these limitations. While the figures 19A and 20B may not explicitly detail this structure, Figure 20A clearly illustrates the pulleys 1806a and 1806b having pins 2004a and 2004b that are received in apertures 2006a and 2006b. Additionally, applicant’s argument that Clauda fails to overcome the alleged deficiencies of Johnson have been considered but were found unpersuasive as Clauda does teach manually removable and replaceable first and second blades (Clauda [0010]) and thus overcomes the deficiencies of Johnson.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 line 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein each flexible arm” should read “wherein each of the flexible arms.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al (US20220338891) herein referred to as “Johnson”.
Regarding claim 23, Johnson teaches: A surgical tool, comprising: ([0091] the medical instrument is referred to as a surgical tool) a drive housing; ([0127] the surgical tool includes a drive housing) an elongate shaft extending distally from the drive housing; ([0091] the surgical tool comprises an elongate shaft which extends distally from the instrument base) a wrist arranged at a distal end of the shaft; ([0092] the wrist is at the distal end of the shaft) and an end effector operatively coupled to the wrist ([0092] the distal end of the shaft is connected to an end effector which is coupled to the wrist) and including: first and second blade pulleys rotatably mounted to the wrist by a first axle extending through both the first and second blade pulleys, (See FIG 25 where 2506 is seen as the axle extending through both blade pulleys) wherein the first and second pulleys are rotatable about a pivot axis extending through the first axle; ([0181] piece 2506 which is seen as the axle allows the pulleys to be rotatable) first and second blade holders mounted to the first and second blade pulleys, respectively, and cooperatively defining an interior; ([0150] blade pulleys with recesses (defining an interior) and an aperture which constitute the blade holders) first and second blades mountable to the first and second blade holders, respectively, such that rotational movement of the first and second blade pulleys correspondingly moves the first and second blades between closed and open positions; ([0154] jaws, here interpreted to be blades, are rotatably coupled such that movement of their respective pulleys cause them to move, [0155] between open and closed positions) and a blade retention system that releasably secures the first and second blades to the first and second blade holders, respectively, and allows a user to manually remove and replace the first and second blades (See FIG 23; Element 2204 which is seen as the blade releasably attaches to element 2202 which is seen as the blade holder).
Regarding claim 24, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 23, wherein the blade retention system includes: a boss extending laterally outward from a side surface of each blade; ([See FIG 20A piece 1918a which is seen as the boss extending from the blade]) and upper and lower retention mechanisms provided on each blade holder and arranged within the interior, the upper and lower retention mechanisms are engageable with the boss of a corresponding one of the first and second blades to removably secure the corresponding one of the first and second blades within the interior ([0156] recesses within the interior which are used to engage the alignment arm (seen as the boss) of the jaws (seen as the blades), thereby allowing them to be secured and forming a “retention mechanism”).
Regarding claim 25, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 24, wherein a longitudinal channel is defined by the first and second blade holders within the interior and is sized to receive the boss of each blade, ([0156] the recesses which constitute the longitudinal channel, which can be sized and configured to receive the jaw pins) and wherein the upper and lower retention mechanisms comprise flexible arms provided on upper and lower walls of the longitudinal channel ([0195] there is a flex joint for the upper and lower jaws which allows it to be adjustable, thereby making it flexible)
Regarding claim 26, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 25, wherein each flexible arm defines an inner profile extending into the longitudinal channel to receive and engage the boss of each blade when the corresponding one of the first and second blades traverses the longitudinal channel, and wherein each flexible arm flexes outward upon engaging the boss ([0208] the flex joint contains hollow cavities which defines a knife track to engage the blades).
Regarding claim 27, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 23, wherein the first and second blades are removed by moving the first and second blades in a distal direction and replaced by moving replacement first and second blades in a proximal direction (See FIG 23 element 2204 needs to be moved in a distal direction to be removed and in a proximal direction to be reattached).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US20220338891) herein referred to as “Johnson” in view of Clauda et al (US20160206366A1) herein referred to as “Clauda”
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches: A surgical tool, comprising: ([0091] the medical instrument is referred to as a surgical tool) a drive housing; ([0127] the surgical tool includes a drive housing) an elongate shaft extending distally from the drive housing; ([0091] the surgical tool comprises an elongate shaft which extends distally from the instrument base) a wrist arranged at a distal end of the shaft; ([0092] the wrist is at the distal end of the shaft) and an end effector operatively coupled to the wrist ([0092] the distal end of the shaft is connected to an end effector which is coupled to the wrist) and including: first and second blade pulleys rotatably mounted to the wrist, ([0139] first and second pulleys rotatably mounted to the wrist) the first pulley including a first pulley pin and the second pulley including a second pulley pin; (See FIG 20A pins 2004a and 2004b respectively which is seen as the first and second pulley pins) first and second blade holders mounted to the first and second blade pulleys, respectively, and cooperatively defining an interior, ([0150] blade pulleys with recesses (defining an interior) and an aperture which constitute the blade holders) the first blade holder includes a first aperture receiving the first pulley pin and the second blade holder includes a second aperture receiving the second pulley pin; (See FIG 20A and [0155] where 2006a and 2006b are seen as the apertures where the pins attach for the respective pulley pins) first and second blades mountable to the first and second blade holders, respectively, such that rotational movement of the first and second blade pulleys correspondingly moves the first and second blades between closed and open positions; ([0154] jaws, here interpreted to be blades, are rotatably coupled such that movement of their respective pulleys cause them to move, [0155] between open and closed positions) and However, Johnson does not explicitly disclose: a blade retention system that releasably secures the first and second blades to the first and second blade holders, respectively, and allows a user to manually remove and replace the first and second blades
Clauda discloses: a blade retention system that releasably secures the first and second blades to the first and second blade holders, respectively, and allows a user to manually remove and replace the first and second blades ([0010] the jaws can be removably and replaceably coupled; Additionally, the cutting blade can be removable and replaceable)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blades as disclosed in Johnson to incorporate the removability as disclosed in Clauda. The motivation being that this allows for the blades to be cleaned and sterilized (Clauda [0010]). Additionally, there are only 2 ways blades can be replaced, either automatically or manually.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 1, wherein the blade retention system includes: a boss extending laterally outward from a side surface of each blade; ([See annotated FIG 19 below]) and upper and lower retention mechanisms provided on each blade holder and arranged within the interior, the upper and lower retention mechanisms being engageable with the boss of a corresponding one of the first and second blades to removably secure the corresponding one of the first and second blades within the interior ([0156] recesses within the interior which are used to engage the alignment arm (seen as the boss) of the jaws (seen as the blades), thereby allowing them to be secured and forming a “retention mechanism”).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 2, wherein a longitudinal channel is defined by the first and second blade holders within the interior and is sized to receive the boss of each blade, ([0156] the recesses which constitute the longitudinal channel, which can be sized and configured to receive the jaw pins) and wherein the upper and lower retention mechanisms comprise flexible arms provided on upper and lower walls of the longitudinal channel ([0195] there is a flex joint for the upper and lower jaws which allows it to be adjustable, thereby making it flexible).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 3, wherein each of the flexible arms defines an inner profile extending into the longitudinal channel to receive and engage the boss of each blade when the corresponding one of the first and second blades traverses the longitudinal channel, and wherein each flexible arm flexes outward upon engaging the boss ([0208] the flex joint contains hollow cavities which defines a knife track to engage the blades).
Regarding claim 21, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 1, further comprising a first axle extending through both the first and second blade pulleys, (See FIG 25 where 2506 is seen as the axle extending through both blade pulleys) wherein the first and second pulleys are rotatable about a pivot axis extending through the first axle ([0181] piece 2506 which is seen as the axle allows the pulleys to be rotatable).
Regarding claim 22, Johnson teaches: The surgical tool of claim 1, wherein the first and second blades are removed by moving the first and second blades in a distal direction and replaced by moving replacement first and second blades in a proximal direction (See FIG 23 element 2204 needs to be moved in a distal direction to be removed and in a proximal direction to be reattached).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA M GANAN-SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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 M Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/C.G.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights