DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's preliminary amendments and remarks, filed 5/20/24, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 21-40 are pending with claims 1-20 canceled, and claims 21-40 added. The following is a complete response to the 5/20/24 communication.
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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 29-34 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter (US 2015/0173756) in view of Hahnen (WO 9,503,741).
Regarding claim 21, Baxter teaches an electrosurgical instrument, comprising:
an end effector configured to grasp tissue (1013 and 1015 as in par. [0279]);
a tube having a lumen (tube 1800 with lumen as in par. [0291]);
a knife blade having a pair of opposing lateral sides (1180), one of the lateral sides of the knife blade being attached to an outer surface of the tube via a second coupling (par. [0291] 1790 pinned to the knife bar) such that longitudinal movement of the elongated shaft moves the knife blade through the end effector for cutting tissue (movement of the shaft moves the knife blade as one body).
Baxter further teaches an elongated shaft with a distal end portion within a tube for a knife assembly, the distal end portion attached to an inner surface of the tube via a first coupling (2080 with proximal portion coupled to 1822 and a distal portion through the tube 1800 as in Fig. 19 and par. [0287]).
Baxter is not explicit regarding wherein the tube is configured to mechanically fail prior to the first and second couplings in response to an applied stress.However, Hahnen teaches frangible links for an end effector with lower strength, such that it fails before a first or second coupling (claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a section that is designed to fail before other couplings, to have a reliable failure mechanism to anticipate how a failure occurs.
Regarding claim 22, Baxter is not explicit wherein the tube includes a reduced profile portion that is mechanically weaker than the first and second couplings such that the reduced profile portion of the tube is configured to mechanically fail prior to the first and second couplings in response to the applied stress.However, Hahnen teaches strength reducing side cuts to allow for a portion to easily break before other elements break (claim 18).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the strength reducing side cuts, reducing the profile and allowing the portion to break first. Whether the tube or the shaft would allow for controlling where the breakage occurs.
Regarding claim 23, Baxter is not explicit wherein the elongated shaft includes a reduced profile portion that is mechanically weaker than the first and second couplings such that the reduced profile portion of the tube is configured to mechanically fail prior to the first and second couplings in response to the applied stress.However, Hahnen teaches strength reducing side cuts to allow for a portion to easily break before other elements break (claim 18).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the strength reducing side cuts, reducing the profile and allowing the portion to break first. Whether the tube or the shaft would allow for controlling where the breakage occurs.
Regarding claim 24, Baxter teaches wherein the knife blade and the tube are formed from stainless steel (such as par. [0300]).
Regarding claim 29, Baxter teaches wherein the electrosurgical instrument is operably coupled to a robotic surgical system (par. [0253]).
Regarding claim 30, Baxter teaches wherein the end effector includes a pair of jaw members configured to grasp the tissue (1013 and 1015), at least one jaw member of the pair of jaw members including a knife channel configured to receive the knife blade (channel 1014 as in par. [0295]).
Regarding claim 31, Baxter teaches an electrosurgical instrument, comprising:
a pair of jaw members configured to grasp tissue (1013 and 1015 as in par. [0279]), at least one jaw member of the pair of jaw members including a knife channel (channel 1014 as in par. [0295]);
a tube having a lumen (tube 1800 with lumen as in par. [0291]); and
a knife blade having a pair of opposing lateral sides (1180), one of the lateral sides of the knife blade being attached to an outer surface of the tube via a second coupling such that longitudinal movement of the elongated shaft moves the knife blade through the knife channel for cutting tissue (par. [0291] 1790 pinned to the knife bar).Baxter further teaches an elongated shaft with a distal end portion within a tube for a knife assembly, the distal end portion attached to an inner surface of the tube via a first coupling (2080 with proximal portion coupled to 1822 and a distal portion through the tube 1800 as in Fig. 19 and par. [0287]).
Baxter is not explicit regarding wherein the tube is configured to mechanically fail prior to the first and second couplings in response to an applied stress.Baxter is silent wherein the tube is configured to mechanically fail prior to the first and second couplings in response to an applied stress.However, Hahnen teaches frangible links for an end effector with lower strength, such that it fails before a first or second coupling (claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a section that is designed to fail before other couplings, to have a reliable failure mechanism to anticipate how a failure occurs.
Regarding claim 32, Baxter is not explicit wherein the tube includes a reduced profile portion that is mechanically weaker than the first and second couplings such that the reduced profile portion of the tube is configured to mechanically fail prior to the first and second couplings in response to the applied stress.However, Hahnen teaches strength reducing side cuts to allow for a portion to easily break before other elements break (claim 18).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the strength reducing side cuts, reducing the profile and allowing the portion to break first. Whether the tube or the shaft would allow for controlling where the breakage occurs.
Regarding claim 33, Baxter is not explicit wherein the elongated shaft includes a reduced profile portion that is mechanically weaker than the first and second couplings such that the reduced profile portion of the tube is configured to mechanically fail prior to the first and second couplings in response to the applied stress.However, Hahnen teaches strength reducing side cuts to allow for a portion to easily break before other elements break (claim 18).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the strength reducing side cuts, reducing the profile and allowing the portion to break first. Whether the tube or the shaft would allow for controlling where the breakage occurs.
Regarding claim 34, Baxter teaches wherein the knife blade and the tube are formed from stainless steel (such as par. [0300]).
Regarding claim 39, Baxter teaches wherein the electrosurgical instrument is operably coupled to a robotic surgical system (par. [0253]).
Regarding claim 40, Baxter teaches an electrosurgical instrument, comprising:
a pair of jaw members configured to grasp tissue (1013 and 1015 as in par. [0279]), at least one jaw member of the pair of jaw members including a knife channel (channel 1014 as in par. [0295]);
a knife blade configured to move within the knife channel to cut the tissue (1180);
an elongated shaft configured to move the knife blade within the knife channel (); and
a tube having an inner surface attached to a distal end portion of the elongated shaft via a first coupling (2080 with proximal portion coupled to 1822 and a distal portion through the tube 1800 as in Fig. 19 and par. [0287]) and an outer surface attached to the knife blade via a second coupling (par. [0291] 1790 pinned to the knife bar), but is not explicit wherein the tube is configured to mechanically fail prior to the first and second couplings in response to movement of the knife blade within the knife channel such that the knife blade remains within the knife channel upon mechanical failure of the tube.However, Hahnen teaches frangible links for an end effector with lower strength, such that it fails before a first or second coupling (claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a section that is designed to fail before other couplings, to have a reliable failure mechanism to anticipate how a failure occurs.
Claim(s) 25 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter in view of Hahnen, in further view of Weadock (US 2015/0141810).
Regarding claim 25, Baxter is silent wherein the elongated shaft is formed from nitinol.However, Weadock teaches a shaft of a forceps device made of nitinol (par. [0056]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the shaft made of nitinol, as in Weadock, as a known material for treatment.
Regarding claim 35, Baxter is silent wherein the elongated shaft is formed from nitinol.However, Weadock teaches a shaft of a forceps device made of nitinol (par. [0056]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the shaft made of nitinol, as in Weadock, as a known material for treatment.
Claim(s) 26 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter in view of Hahnen, in further view of Nobis (US 2015/0272606).
Regarding claim 26, Baxter is not explicit wherein the knife blade is formed from a material that is different than at least one of a material from which the elongated shaft is formed or a material from which the tube is formed.However, Nobis teaches Nitinol forming cutting blades of a forceps device (par. [0080]), and stainless steel for a shaft portion (par. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dycus with the material of Nobis, as a known conductive material for use in forceps blades.
Regarding claim 36, Baxter is not explicit wherein the knife blade is formed from a material that is different than at least one of a material from which the elongated shaft is formed or a material from which the tube is formed.However, Nobis teaches Nitinol forming cutting blades of a forceps device (par. [0080]), and stainless steel for a shaft portion (par. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dycus with the material of Nobis, as a known conductive material for use in forceps blades.
Claim(s) 27-28 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter in view of Hahnen, in further view of Dycus (US 2004/0254573).
Regarding claim 27, Baxter is not explicit wherein the distal end portion of the elongated shaft is welded to the inner surface of the tube at the first coupling.However, Dycus teaches an elongated tube welded to a knife blade (at least Fig. 22 with 185 attached to 184 at 188 on one side via welding as in par. [0124]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the welding of Dycus, as a known way to connect elements structurally. While Dycus does not weld the tube with the shaft, Dycus teaches welding of elements in a knife structure is well known and functions to connect the elements for actuating the knife.
Regarding claim 28, Baxter is not explicit wherein the outer surface of the tube is welded to the one lateral side of the knife blade at the second coupling.However, Dycus teaches an elongated tube welded to a knife blade (at least Fig. 22 with 185 attached to 184 at 188 on one side via welding as in par. [0124]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the welding of Dycus, as a known way to connect elements structurally.
Regarding claim 37, Baxter is not explicit wherein the distal end portion of the elongated shaft is welded to the inner surface of the tube at the first coupling.However, Dycus teaches an elongated tube welded to a knife blade (at least Fig. 22 with 185 attached to 184 at 188 on one side via welding as in par. [0124]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the welding of Dycus, as a known way to connect elements structurally. While Dycus does not weld the tube with the shaft, Dycus teaches welding of elements in a knife structure is well known and functions to connect the elements for actuating the knife.
Regarding claim 38, Baxter is not explicit wherein the outer surface of the tube is welded to the one lateral side of the knife blade at the second coupling.However, Dycus teaches an elongated tube welded to a knife blade (at least Fig. 22 with 185 attached to 184 at 188 on one side via welding as in par. [0124]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baxter with the welding of Dycus, as a known way to connect elements structurally.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights