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 amendments filed on 12/03/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-18 and 20 remain pending in the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 1 and 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious rotating both the first and second end effector about the pivot axis of the pivot pin so that a distal tip of one of the first end effector and the second end effector crosses the central longitudinal axis of the clevis/medical device, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims. The prior art Golden and Timberlake both fail to teach a distal tip of one of the first end effector and the second end effector crosses the central longitudinal axis of the clevis/medical device. A device such as Coleman (US 2019/0247067) is the closest prior art which teach a distal tip of one of the first end effector and the second end effector crosses the central longitudinal axis of the medical device (FIGs 1-4) and does so by rotating about the pivot axis (48) of a pivot pin (44), but fails to teach the required steps of opening and closing the end effectors in a separate movement and fails to teach the limitations of the first and second links as claimed. Rockrohr (US 2019/0143535) teaches the links (Components of FIG 43) and rotation such that a distal tip of one of the first end effector and the second end effector crosses the central longitudinal axis of the medical device (FIG 46), but such rotation does not occur about the pivot axis of the pivot pin. Therefore, there is no prior art which teaches or suggests each and every limitation of the claim.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious while the first and second end effectors are disposed within the inner lumen, pivoting the first end effector toward the longitudinal axis of the first and second end effectors and, at the same time, pivoting the second end effector away from the longitudinal axis, with the first and the second end effectors in the closed configuration.
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, see page 9, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to 1 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states on page 9 “Applicant has also amended independent claim 12 and 19 to incorporate the allowable subject matter of claims 12 and 18, respectively”. However, the office action dated 10/30/2025 did not indicate claims 18 or 19 as containing allowable subject matter. The subject matter of claim 20 was indicated as allowable, however in the amendments, these limitations were not incorporated into the independent claim 18. Further, applicant has not provided any arguments as to why the rejection of claims 18 and 19 (which is not incorporated into independent claim 18) is improper. Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golden (US 2005/0043758).
Regarding claim 18, Golden discloses a method for performing an operation in a body ([0001]), the method comprising: inserting first and second end effectors (46, FIGs 1-3, 0054]) into the body when the first and the second end effectors are in a closed configuration ([0051] discloses “ During an operation on a patient to obtain a biopsy, distal end 24 travels through a lumen of an endoscope and the patient's body cavity” and references FIG 1, which shows a closed configuration. Therefore it is understood that the end effectors are inserted into the body in the closed configuration of FIG 1, [0065]); pivoting both of the first end effector and the second end effector about a pivot axis (Axis of pin 48) to transform the first and the second end effectors from the closed configuration to an open configuration ([0062], FIG 2); either one or both of: (1) further pivoting the first end effector about the pivot axis as the second end effector does not pivot about the pivot axis, and (2) pivoting the first end effector toward a longitudinal axis of the first and second end effectors and, at the same time, pivoting the second end effector away from the longitudinal axis, with the first and the second end effectors in the open configuration (FIG 3, [0064] discloses independent operation of each end effector, wherein one jaw has moved towards the longitudinal axis and the other has moved away); rotating the first end effector or the second end effector about the pivot axis after the other of the first end effector or the second end effector contacts tissue ([0065-0066] discloses opening the end effectors after reaching the target site, which would include contacting the tissue at this site, and then further rotating either of the end effectors to more appropriately align with the desired tissue to be clamped), and closing the first end effector relative to the second end effector, with tissue between the first end effector and the second end effector ([0066] discloses after achieving the position of FIG 3, “the spool 36 then is displaced proximally to close the end effector assembly to complete the procedure”).
Conclusion
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 BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771