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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 23, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 8, 11, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050256524; hereinafter “Long”).
Regarding claim 1, Long discloses a surgical method, comprising:
providing resection device (20) comprising:
a first part (36), and
a second part (38) that is spaced apart from the first part to define an opening therebetween (Fig. 1);
positioning a material within the opening (Fig. 7);
translating the second part relative to the first part to compress the material (Fig. 7; translated toward tissue; para. [0034]);
continuously applying electrical energy to the first part and the second part (para. [0036]); and
rotating the second part relative to the first part while applying electrical energy to the first part and the second part to cauterize the material (Fig. 8; para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Long discloses wherein the material includes biological tissue (para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Long discloses wherein the material includes an organ of a living organism (para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Long discloses wherein the material includes a first piece of material and a second piece of material (para. [0034]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Long discloses wherein cauterizing the material seals the first piece of material with the second piece of material (para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Long discloses wherein the first part is a first pair of rollers (70, 36) and the second part is a second pair of rollers (72, 38; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Long discloses wherein the electrical energy that is continuously applied is produced by an electrical conditioning and supply unit (para.. [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Long discloses a resection device, comprising:
a first part (36);
a second part (38) that is rotatable relative to the first part, the second part being spaced apart from the first part to define an opening therebetween (Fig. 1),
wherein the second part is configured to translate relative to the first part to compress a material positioned within the opening (Fig. 7; para. [0034]), and
wherein the first part and the second part are configured to continuously receive electrical energy to cauterize the material as the second part rotates relative to the first part (Fig. 8; para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 16, Long discloses wherein the first part is a first pair of rollers (70, 36) and the second part is a second pair of rollers (72, 38; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Long discloses wherein the second part is configured to translate relative to the first part to compress the material with a force of about 100 N to about 300 N (roller (38) is capable of translating to compress material with the claimed force such as by a user pressing the roller against tissue with sufficient force).
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.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Maroney et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060271037; hereinafter “Maroney”).
Regarding claim 9, the method of Long discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for the resection device including first and second treads.
Maroney, a reference in the tissue cauterizing field of endeavor, teaches configuring a pair of rollers to include a tread to facilitate bringing tissue between electrodes to cauterize tissue (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first part as a first pair of rollers with a first tread extending about the first pair of rollers and configure the second part as a second pair of rollers with a second tread extending about the second pair of rollers, in view of Maroney, in order to facilitate positioning tissue between the first and second part for cauterization.
Regarding claim 17, the device of Long discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for the resection device including first and second treads.
Maroney, a reference in the tissue cauterizing field of endeavor, teaches configuring a pair of rollers to include a tread to facilitate bringing tissue between electrodes to cauterize tissue (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first part as a first pair of rollers with a first tread extending about the first pair of rollers and configure the second part as a second pair of rollers with a second tread extending about the second pair of rollers, in view of Maroney, in order to facilitate positioning tissue between the first and second part for cauterization.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long.
Regarding claim 10, the method of Long discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for compressing the material with a force of about 100 N t about 300 N. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to compress the material with a force in the claimed range, since applicant has not disclosed that such specific amount force solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the method of Long.
Regarding claims 12-13, the method of Long discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for directing laser energy to the material. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that coupling a laser source to a resection device and directing laser energy to tissue was old and well known in the art to cauterize tissue. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method include coupling a source of laser energy to the resection device and direct laser energy to the material in order to enhance tissue cauterization.
Regarding claim 14, the method of Long discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for staples delivered into the material. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that stapling material was old and well known in the art for coupling tissue together. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have the method include staples delivered into the material to facilitate holding the cauterized tissue in place after treatment.
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Maroney, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Zikorus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060085054; hereinafter “Zikorus”).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for the treads including conductive metal tape.
Zikorus, a reference int eh tissue cauterizing field of endeavor, teaches using metal tape for an electrode (para. [0145]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the treads to include conductive metal tape to allow electrical energy to flow through the tread to cauterize tissue between the treads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are 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.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest a surgical method including “translating the second part relative to the first part to compress the material; continuously applying electrical energy to the first part and the second part; and rotating the second part relative to the first part while applying electrical energy to the first part and the second part to cauterize the material, wherein the material includes a first section of a bowel and a second section of the bowel, and wherein cauterizing the material seals the first section of the bowel with the second section of the bowel,
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan A Hollm whose telephone number is (703)756-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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 (571) 272-7134. 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.
/JONATHAN A HOLLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771