CTNF 18/529,439 CTNF 87708 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 11-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al (US 2014/0012130 A1, hereinafter “Jacobsen”) in view of Johnson et al (US 2005/0060885 A1, hereinafter “Johnson) . Regarding claim 1, Jacobsen discloses a flexible circuit of a surgical instrument (see figures 21-26), the flexible circuit comprising: a rigid section (par 0050); a flexible section (par 0057-0058); and a conductive trace extending from the rigid section to the flexible section (pars 0072, 0076), where the conductive trace includes a cross section (par 0072, see figure 13A-B). Jacobsen discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose a portion of the conductive trace has a cross-sectional shape that is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section that portion is located. Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen, the features of Johnson would provide variable cross-sections such that a portion of the conductive trace has a cross-sectional shape that is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section that portion is located as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 11, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional area of the conductive trace is constant across each of the rigid section and the flexible section. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide the cross-sectional area of the conductive trace is constant across each of the rigid section and the flexible section as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 12, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose a height of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a height of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 13, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 12 above), but does not explicitly disclose a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has a height that is greater than a height of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has a height that is greater than a height of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 14, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose a width of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a width of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 15, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 14 above), but does not explicitly disclose a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has a width that is less than a width of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has a width that is less than a width of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 16, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose a height and a width of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a height and a width of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 17, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 16 above), but does not explicitly disclose a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has (i) a height that is greater than a height of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section and (ii) a width that is less than a width of the second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has (i) a height that is greater than a height of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section and (ii) a width that is less than a width of the second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 18, Jacobsen discloses a plurality of conductive traces (as shown in figure 22), and wherein the flexible section includes an opening that separates a first subset of the plurality of conductive traces from a second subset of the plurality of conductive traces (see figure 22, par 0100). Regarding claim 19, Jacobsen discloses the rigid section includes an interlock feature configured to be received in a recess of channel retainer of a surgical instrument (pars 0050, 0058). Regarding claim 20, Jacobsen discloses the flexible section includes a strain relief section (pars 066,0101). Regarding claim 21, Jacobsen discloses surgical instrument comprising: a shaft assembly including an articulation joint (par 0057-0058); an end effector connected to a distal end of the shaft assembly (par 0050, 0057-0058); and a flexible circuit (see figures 21-26) including a rigid section (par 0050), a flexible section (pars 0057-0058), and a conductive trace that extends across each of the rigid section and the flexible section (pars 0072, 0076), wherein the flexible section is positioned across the articulation joint of the shaft assembly (pars 0057-0058). Jacobsen discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose a portion of the conductive trace has a cross-sectional shape that is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section that portion is located. Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen, the features of Johnson would provide variable cross-sections such that a portion of the conductive trace has a cross-sectional shape that is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section that portion is located as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 22, Jacobsen discloses the shaft assembly includes a channel retainer (see figures 3 and 7 [shown coupled] and figure 4 [which includes the rigid assembly 130]) and the channel retainer includes a recess (pars 0049-0050), and wherein the rigid section includes an interlock feature configured to be received in the recess of the channel retainer to secure the rigid section (pars 0049-0050, 0058). Regarding claim 23, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 21 above), but does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional area of the conductive trace is constant across each of the rigid section and the flexible section. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide the cross-sectional area of the conductive trace is constant across each of the rigid section and the flexible section as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 24, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 21 above), but does not explicitly disclose a height of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a height of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 25, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 24 above), but does not explicitly disclose a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has a height that is greater than a height of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has a height that is greater than a height of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 26, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 21 above), but does not explicitly disclose a width of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a width of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 27, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 26 above), but does not explicitly disclose a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has a width that is less than a width of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has a width that is less than a width of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 28, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 21 above), but does not explicitly disclose a height and a width of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a height and a width of the portion of the conductive trace is dependent upon which section of the rigid section and the flexible section the portion of the conductive trace is located as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Regarding claim 29, Jacobsen in view of Johnson discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 28 above), but does not explicitly disclose a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has (i) a height that is greater than a height of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section and (ii) a width that is less than a width of the second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section. As explained above, Johnson is analogous art in regard to known structures for surgical devices (pars 0002-0007). Johnson discloses it was known in the art to provide different cross-sectional shapes for a conductive trace as needed in a surgical device, further that it is known to vary the rigidity or flexibility of a device dependent on application (pars 0009, 0048, 0105). Applied to the invention of Jacobsen above, the features of Johnson would further provide a first portion of the conductive trace located on the rigid section has (i) a height that is greater than a height of a second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section and (ii) a width that is less than a width of the second portion of the conductive trace located on the flexible section as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Johnson in the invention of Jacobsen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide an improved means for conducting energy via conductive traces, rather than relying on apparatus leads which are prone to being easily damaged or complicated to use. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lindsey G Wehrheim whose telephone number is (571)270-5181. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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. Lindsey G Wehrheim Primary Examiner Art Unit 3799 /LINDSEY G WEHRHEIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 5/29/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/529,439 Page 2 Art Unit: 3799
Prosecution Insights