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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed 27 January 2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 16-35 are pending.
Claims 16, 31, and 35 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are canceled.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification and drawings have not been submitted in the amendment filed 27 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 is ambiguous as it is not clear whether “an upper tab and a lower tab” (lines 1-2), “the upper tab” (line 2), and “the lower tab” (line 4) are the same as “a first tab and a second tab” as set forth in claim 31, on which claim 32 depends.
Claim 33 is ambiguous as it is not clear whether “the upper tab” and “the lower tab” are the same as “a first tab and a second tab” as set forth in claim 31.
Claim 35 is ambiguous as lacking proper antecedent basis for “the curved cutout” (lines 20 and 21-22). It appears that “arched” in line 13 should be changed to --curved--, since “angled” was changed to --curved-- in lines 20 and 21-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection is hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claims 16-30 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the claim amendments and applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claims 16-35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Shelton et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2019/0000458) in view of Moubarak et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2022/0031351), the claim amendments and applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-31 and 34 are allowed.
Claims 32 and 33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 16: the subject matter of claim 16 is allowable over the prior art because of the combination of structural limitations and their functional relationship to one another. Claim 16 includes the following limitations which in combination with the other limitations of the claim are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
“(iii) a knife configured to actuate relative to the first jaw and the second jaw from a pre-fired position along a firing stroke while the staple cartridge is housed within the first jaw to thereby cut and staple tissue clamped by the first and second jaws, wherein the knife comprises a column and a tab, wherein the tab is slidably housed within the knife channel along at least a portion of the firing stroke;
(b) a flexible coil operatively attached to the knife, wherein the flexible coil is configured to drive the knife distally from the pre-fired position along the firing stroke; and
(c) a pivoting lock configured to pivot about a pivot axis relative to the knife between an unlocked configuration and a locked-out configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to transfer a lockout force between the knife and the first jaw via engagement of the pivoting lock with the tab of the knife to thereby inhibit distal actuation of the knife in the locked-out configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to permit distal translation of the knife in the unlocked configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to assume the locked- out configuration in the absence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw and the unlocked configuration in the presence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw, wherein the knife is configured to actuate the pivoting lock relative to the first jaw and the second jaw along the firing stroke, wherein the pivot axis is vertically offset relative to the flexible coil”.
Shelton et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2019/0000458) is considered to be the closest prior art. Shelton et al. disclose an apparatus comprising an end effector comprising a first jaw defining a channel and a knife channel, a second jaw, a knife including a column and a tab that is slidably housed within the knife channel, and a pivoting lock. Shelton et al. disclose a lockout surface, but fail to disclose or teach a tab that is slidably housed within the knife channel and which tab engages the pivoting lock.
Moubarak et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2022/0031351) disclose a similar device including a flexible coil.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Shelton et al., or a combination of Shelton et al. and Moubarak et al., is that Shelton et al., or a combination of Shelton et al. and Moubarak et al., do not disclose or teach “(iii) a knife configured to actuate relative to the first jaw and the second jaw from a pre-fired position along a firing stroke while the staple cartridge is housed within the first jaw to thereby cut and staple tissue clamped by the first and second jaws, wherein the knife comprises a column and a tab, wherein the tab is slidably housed within the knife channel along at least a portion of the firing stroke; (b) a flexible coil operatively attached to the knife, wherein the flexible coil is configured to drive the knife distally from the pre-fired position along the firing stroke; and (c) a pivoting lock configured to pivot about a pivot axis relative to the knife between an unlocked configuration and a locked-out configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to transfer a lockout force between the knife and the first jaw via engagement of the pivoting lock with the tab of the knife to thereby inhibit distal actuation of the knife in the locked-out configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to permit distal translation of the knife in the unlocked configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to assume the locked- out configuration in the absence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw and the unlocked configuration in the presence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw, wherein the knife is configured to actuate the pivoting lock relative to the first jaw and the second jaw along the firing stroke, wherein the pivot axis is vertically offset relative to the flexible coil”.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Shelton et al., or a combination of Shelton et al. and Moubarak et al., would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since such modifications to the Shelton et al. structure would have gone beyond mere substitution or incorporation of a known structure capable of achieving predictable results. Any modification to the Shelton et al. structure to arrive at the claimed subject matter would have required a reworking of the structure and the principle of operation in a manner which would not have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, and would have required the improper benefit of the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding independent claim 31: the subject matter of claim 31 is allowable over the prior art because of the combination of structural limitations and their functional relationship to one another. Claim 31 includes the following limitations which in combination with the other limitations of the claim are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
“(iii) a knife configured to actuate relative to the first jaw and the second jaw from a pre-fired position along a firing stroke while the staple cartridge is housed within the first jaw to thereby cut and staple tissue clamped by the first and second jaws, wherein the knife comprises a first tab and a second tab, wherein the first tab is slidably housed within the first knife channel of the first jaw along at least a portion of the firing stroke, wherein the second tab is slidably housed within the second knife channel of the second jaw along at least the portion of the firing stroke;
(b) a flexible coil operatively attached to an upper portion of the knife, wherein the flexible coil is configured to drive the knife distally from the pre-fired position along the firing stroke;
(c) a pivoting lock comprising a body slidably housed within the first knife channel, wherein the pivoting lock is pivotally coupled to the knife about a pivot axis, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to inhibit distal actuation of the knife in a locked-out configuration and permit distal translation of the knife in an unlocked configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to assume the locked-out configuration in the absence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw and the unlocked configuration in the presence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw, wherein the knife is configured to actuate the pivoting lock relative to the first jaw and the second jaw along the firing stroke,
wherein the first tab and the second tab are configured to rotate into contact with the first jaw and the second jaw, respectively, in response to the pivoting lock inhibiting distal actuation of the knife in the locked-out configuration,
wherein the body of the pivoting lock is configured to transfer a lockout force to the first tab in the locked-out configuration to thereby rotate the first tab and the second tab into contact with the first jaw and the second jaw, respectively”.
Shelton et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2019/0000458) is considered to be the closest prior art. Shelton et al. disclose an apparatus comprising an end effector comprising a first jaw defining a channel and a knife channel, a second jaw, a knife including first and second tabs, the second tab is slidably housed within the knife channel, and a pivoting lock. Shelton et al. disclose a lockout surface, but fail to disclose or teach a body of the pivoting lock that is slidably housed within the knife channel and which body is configured to transfer a lockout force to the first tab in the locked-out configuration to thereby rotate the first tab and the second tab into contact with the first jaw and the second jaw, respectively.
Moubarak et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2022/0031351) disclose a similar device including a flexible coil.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Shelton et al., or a combination of Shelton et al. and Moubarak et al., is that Shelton et al., or a combination of Shelton et al. and Moubarak et al., do not disclose or teach ““(iii) a knife configured to actuate relative to the first jaw and the second jaw from a pre-fired position along a firing stroke while the staple cartridge is housed within the first jaw to thereby cut and staple tissue clamped by the first and second jaws, wherein the knife comprises a first tab and a second tab, wherein the first tab is slidably housed within the first knife channel of the first jaw along at least a portion of the firing stroke, wherein the second tab is slidably housed within the second knife channel of the second jaw along at least the portion of the firing stroke;
(b) a flexible coil operatively attached to an upper portion of the knife, wherein the flexible coil is configured to drive the knife distally from the pre-fired position along the firing stroke; (c) a pivoting lock comprising a body slidably housed within the first knife channel, wherein the pivoting lock is pivotally coupled to the knife about a pivot axis, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to inhibit distal actuation of the knife in a locked-out configuration and permit distal translation of the knife in an unlocked configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to assume the locked-out configuration in the absence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw and the unlocked configuration in the presence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw, wherein the knife is configured to actuate the pivoting lock relative to the first jaw and the second jaw along the firing stroke, wherein the first tab and the second tab are configured to rotate into contact with the first jaw and the second jaw, respectively, in response to the pivoting lock inhibiting distal actuation of the knife in the locked-out configuration, wherein the body of the pivoting lock is configured to transfer a lockout force to the first tab in the locked-out configuration to thereby rotate the first tab and the second tab into contact with the first jaw and the second jaw, respectively”.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Shelton et al., or a combination of Shelton et al. and Moubarak et al., would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since such modifications to the Shelton et al. structure would have gone beyond mere substitution or incorporation of a known structure capable of achieving predictable results. Any modification to the Shelton et al. structure to arrive at the claimed subject matter would have required a reworking of the structure and the principle of operation in a manner which would not have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, and would have required the improper benefit of the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding independent claim 35: Claim 35 includes the following limitations which in combination with the other limitations of the claim are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
“a pivoting lock comprising a proximal projection slidably contained within the curved cutout of the knife, wherein the pivoting lock is pivotally coupled to the knife about a pivot axis via the proximal projection and the curved cutout between an unlocked configuration and a locked-out configuration, wherein a surface defining the curved cutout is configured to constrain pivotal movement of the proximal projection as the pivoting lock pivots toward the locked-out configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to inhibit distal actuation of the knife in the locked-out configuration and permit distal translation of the knife in the unlocked configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to assume the locked- out configuration in the absence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw and the unlocked configuration in the presence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw, wherein the knife is configured to actuate the pivoting lock relative to the first jaw and the second jaw along the firing stroke”.
Shelton et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2019/0000458) is considered to be the closest prior art. Shelton et al. disclose an apparatus comprising an end effector comprising a first jaw defining a channel and a knife channel, a second jaw, a knife including a column having a side, the side defining a cutout, and a pivoting lock comprising a proximal projection slidably contained within the cutout. Shelton et al. fail to disclose or teach a curved cutout, wherein a surface defining the curved cutout is configured to constrain pivotal movement of the proximal projection as the pivoting lock pivots toward the locked-out configuration.
Moubarak et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2022/0031351) disclose a similar device including a flexible coil.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Shelton et al., or a combination of Shelton et al. and Moubarak et al., is that Shelton et al., or a combination of Shelton et al. and Moubarak et al., do not disclose or teach a pivoting lock comprising a proximal projection slidably contained within the curved cutout of the knife, wherein the pivoting lock is pivotally coupled to the knife about a pivot axis via the proximal projection and the curved cutout between an unlocked configuration and a locked-out configuration, wherein a surface defining the curved cutout is configured to constrain pivotal movement of the proximal projection as the pivoting lock pivots toward the locked-out configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to inhibit distal actuation of the knife in the locked-out configuration and permit distal translation of the knife in the unlocked configuration, wherein the pivoting lock is configured to assume the locked- out configuration in the absence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw and the unlocked configuration in the presence of an unspent staple cartridge in the first jaw, wherein the knife is configured to actuate the pivoting lock relative to the first jaw and the second jaw along the firing stroke”.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linda J. Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-0571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/LINDA J. HODGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731