DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13-15, 17-20, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brause (US 20200305914 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brause discloses an end effector 100 for a surgical tool (Fig. 1A), comprising: opposing first 110 and second jaws 120, and a knife slot 125 defined in one or both of the first and second jaws (para. [0035]); and a monolithic knife (Fig. 4B note: the broadest interpretation of monolithic is one integral structure such that 483 is integral with 484) comprising a drive rod 484 and a blade 486 distally extending from the drive rod (Fig. 4B) and extendable through the knife slot (para. [0035]), the drive rod and the blade being made from a same material (paras. [0043]-[0044]), wherein the drive rod includes a body (body of 484) and a projection 483 extending from a lateral side of body (Fig. 4B) such that the blade exhibits a thickness less than a thickness of the drive rod (i.e., at least since the blade is tapered such that at least a portion of the blade edge 486 exhibits a thickness less than a thickness of 483, 484).
Regarding claim 2, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 1. Brause also discloses further comprising a hinge interposing the blade and the drive rod (i.e., at the curve of blade as its connected to the drive rod), wherein the hinge is integrally formed with the blade and the drive rod such that the hinge is made from the same material (i.e., at least since they are monolithically formed together from a single material), wherein the projection terminates proximally to the hinge (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 3, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 2. Brause also discloses wherein the hinge and the drive rod exhibit an equal height that is less than a height of the blade (Fig. 4B), and wherein the hinge and the blade exhibit an equal thickness (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 8, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 1. Brause also discloses wherein a leading edge of the blade includes a cutting edge extending perpendicular to a sealing plane provided between the opposing first and second jaws when the opposing first and second jaws are closed (Fig. 4B shows the leading edge of the blade indicated at 486 which is perpendicular to a sealing plane between the jaws of Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 9. Brause also discloses wherein the drive rod exhibits a polygonal cross-sectional shape that is selected from the group consisting of an octagon, a hexagon, and a square (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 13, Brause discloses an end effector 100 for a surgical tool (Fig. 1A), comprising: opposing first 110 and second jaws 120, and a knife slot 125 defined in one or both of the first and second jaws (para. [0035]); and a monolithic knife (Fig. 4 note: the broadest interpretation of monolithic is one integral structure such that 483 is integral with 484) comprising: a drive rod 484 exhibiting a polygonal cross-sectional shape (Fig. 4B); a hinge (i.e., connection between 484 and 486) integrally extending from a distal end of the drive rod (Fig. 4B); and a blade 486 distally extending from the hinge (Fig. 4B) and being extendable through the knife slot (para. [0035]), wherein the drive rod, the hinge, and the blade are integrally formed and made from a same material (Fig. 4B i.e., at least since it is formed from a single sheet), and wherein the drive rod includes a body 484 and a projection 483 extending from a lateral side of body (Fig. 4B) such that the blade exhibits a thickness less than a thickness of the drive rod (i.e., at least at the distal tip).
Regarding claim 14, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 13. Brause also discloses wherein the hinge and the drive rod exhibit an equal height that is less than a height of the blade (Fig. 4B), and wherein the hinge and the blade exhibit an equal thickness (i.e., at least at the proximal side of the blade).
Regarding claim 15, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 13. Brause also discloses wherein the projection terminates proximally to the hinge such that a thickness of the hinge is less than the thickness of the drive rod (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 17, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 13. Brause also discloses wherein the drive rod exhibits a polygonal cross-sectional shape (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 18, Brause discloses a method of operating a surgical tool, comprising: positioning the surgical tool adjacent a patient for operation (para. [0028] the forceps are positioned adjacent a patient for surgery), the surgical tool including a drive housing 30, an elongate shaft 12 extending from the drive housing (Figs. 1A-1B), a drive rod 484 extending from the drive housing within the elongate shaft (i.e., at least since the drive rod extends from within the shaft), and an end effector 100 arranged at a distal end of the elongate shaft (Fig. 1B), the end effector including: opposing first 110 and second jaws 120; a knife slot 125 defined in one or both of the first and second jaws (para. [0035]); and a blade 486 integrally extending from a distal end of the drive rod and extendable through the knife slot (Fig. 4B; para. [0035]), the drive rod and the blade being made from a same material (i.e., at least since they are formed from a single unit), the drive rod including a body 484 and a projection 483 extending from a lateral side of body (Fig. 4B) such that the blade exhibits a thickness less than a thickness of the drive rod (i.e., at least at the tip of the blade), closing the opposing first and second jaws and thereby grasping onto tissue between the opposing first and second jaws (para. [0034]); and actuating the drive rod to advance the blade through the knife slot and cut the tissue (para. [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 19, Brause discloses the method of claim 18. Brause also discloses wherein a leading edge 486 of the blade includes a leading cutting edge extending perpendicular to a sealing plane provided between the opposing first and second jaws when the opposing first and second jaws are closed (Fig. 4B; para [0042]), the method further comprising: cutting tissue grasped between the opposing first and second jaws with the cutting edge as the blade advances through the knife slot (para. [0035]; [0042]).
Regarding claim 20, Brause discloses the method of claim 18. Brause also discloses wherein the drive rod exhibits a polygonal cross-sectional shape (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 24, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 1. Brause also discloses wherein the body exhibits a first height and the projection exhibits a second height less than the first height (Fig. 4B).
Claims 1, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by an alternate interpretation of Brause (US 20200305914 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brause discloses an end effector 100 for a surgical tool (Fig. 1A), comprising: opposing first 110 and second jaws 120, and a knife slot 125 defined in one or both of the first and second jaws (para. [0035]); and a monolithic knife (Fig. 4B note: the broadest interpretation of monolithic is one integral structure such that 483 and 480 are integral with 484) comprising a drive rod 480, 483 and a blade 484 distally extending from the drive rod (Fig. 4B) and extendable through the knife slot (para. [0035]), the drive rod and the blade being made from a same material (paras. [0043]-[0044] discloses that 484 and 483 (which is interpreted as part of the drive rod) are made from the same material to assure a good weld), wherein the drive rod includes a body (Fig. 4B) and a projection 483 extending from a lateral side of body (Fig. 4B; projection extends around the circumference and as such also extends from a lateral side of the body) such that the blade exhibits a thickness less than a thickness of the drive rod (i.e., at least since the blade is tapered such that at least a portion of the blade edge 486 exhibits a thickness less than a thickness of 483, 480).
Regarding claim 5, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 1. Brause also discloses further comprising a distal extension (i.e., 483 may be interpreted as two portions including a proximal portion and a distal portion, the distal portion may be interpreted as the distal extension since this claim is drawn to the embodiment of Fig. 8A of the Applicant’s figure such that the distal extension is not a separate part from the projection) that extends from a distal end of the projection and overlaps a portion of the blade (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 6, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 5. Brause also discloses wherein the drive rod and the distal extension exhibit an equal thickness that is larger than a thickness exhibited by a remaining portion of the blade not overlapped by the distal extension (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 7, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 5. Brause also discloses wherein the drive rod and the distal extension exhibit an equal height that is less than a height of the blade (Fig. 4B).
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 (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 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brause.
Regarding claim 16, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 13. Brause also discloses a distal extension (i.e., 483 may be interpreted as two portions including a proximal portion and a distal portion, the distal portion may be interpreted as the distal extension since this claim is drawn to the embodiment of Fig. 8A of the Applicant’s figure such that the distal extension is not a separate part from the projection) that extends from a distal end of the projection (Fig. 4B i.e., the proximal portion).
Brause doesn’t directly disclose that the distal extension overlaps a portion of the blade. However, Brause does disclose several distal extensions all with varying lengths (see Fig. 6B, 7B, 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brause by increasing the length of the distal extension such that the distal extension overlaps a portion of the blade, since such a modification would constitute a mere change in size or proportion of a known structural element to obtain a predictable result. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); and Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brause in view of Whitlock et al. (US 2025/0009413 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Brause discloses the end effector of claim 1. Brause does not directly disclose further comprising a first electrode mounted to the first jaw and a second electrode mounted to the second jaw, wherein, when the first and second jaws are closed, the first and second electrodes define a polygonal-shaped central clearance to receive the drive rod therethrough.
In the same field of endeavor, namely instrument end effector with jaw mechanism and moveable component and related devices, Whitlock discloses a similar device including an end effector 350 for a surgical tool (Fig. 2) that includes first 351 and second jaws 352 and a knife slot 359 defined in one or both of the first and second jaws (para. [0066]), a monolithic blade 380 comprising a drive rod 398 a blade 381 and a projection 371.
Whitlock also discloses a first electrode mounted to the first jaw and a second electrode mounted to the second jaw (para. [0067]), wherein, when the first and second jaws are closed, the first and second electrodes define a polygonal-shaped central clearance to receive the drive rod therethrough (Fig. 3B).
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 device of Brause to have the electrodes of Whitlock for purposes of supplying electrosurgical energy to seal a material (e.g., tissue) grasped between the jaw members (para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 22, Brause and Whitlock disclose the end effector of claim 21. Whitlock also discloses wherein the first and second electrodes each include a first chamfer and a second chamfer (i.e., as shown in Fig. 3B) positioned opposite the knife slot from the first chamfer (Fig. 3B), wherein the first and second chamfers cooperate to define the central clearance (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 23, Brause and Whitlock disclose the end effector of claim 22. Whitlock also discloses wherein the first chamfer of the first and second electrodes are oppositely positioned from each other along a sealing plane of the end effector (Fig. 3B), the first chamfer each providing an inner edge aligning with an outer edge of the projection (i.e., along the longitudinal axis; see Fig. 3B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 13-24, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 RACHAEL LYNN GEIGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 5712724695. 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.
/RACHAEL L GEIGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights