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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments filing on 01/27/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-15, 22-23, 26-27, 29, and 32 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 24-25, 28, 30, and 33-35 are withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected species. Claims 16-21 and 31 are pending and examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 4, the embodiment shown in Figures 25F-25G, in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-25, 28, 30, and 33-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
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 16-20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Overmyer et al. (11,219,495) in view of reference Hill et al. (2024/0271574).
Regarding claim 16, Overmyer et al. disclose a transection subsystem (400) for a surgical instrument (100), wherein the transection subsystem (400) comprises:
a rotatable shaft (402) having a lumen (708);
a firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17) extending at least partially through the lumen (708);
a firing rack (744) coupled to a proximal end of the firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17),
wherein the firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17) is rotationally independent of the firing rack (744);
a firing gear (740) engaged with the firing rack (744),
wherein rotation of the firing gear (740) moves the firing rack (744) and the firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17) axially;
a key receiver (746) in mechanical communication with the firing gear (740);
a key (416) configured to engage with the key receiver (746) and rotate the key receiver (746) in a unidirectional manner,
wherein the rotating the key (416) and key receiver (746) in a first rotational direction causes the key receiver (746) and the firing gear (740) to rotate, thereby moving the firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17) axially proximally, and
wherein the one of the key (416) or the key receiver (746) is configured to prevent rotation of the key (416) and the key receiver (746) in a second rotational direction to prevent rotation.
(Figure 4, 7A, 7B and Column 7 lines 16-34, Column 10 lines 2-5, Column 12 lines 12-18)
However, Overmyer et al. do not disclose key receiver comprises a spline.
Hill et al. disclose a system comprising:
a key receiver (122); and
a key (124) configured to rotationally engage with the key receiver in a unidirectional direction,
wherein the rotating the key (124) causes the key receiver (122) to rotate,
wherein the key receiver comprises a spine (130A, 130B), and
wherein the key comprises a cam surface (132A, 132B) configured to engage with the spine (130A, 130B) on the key receiver (122).
wherein the key (124) is configured to rotate the key receiver (122) in a unidirectional manner.
(Figure 2A and Page 2 paragraph 22, Page 5 paragraph 39)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the key and key receiver of Overmyer et al. by incorporating the cam and spline as taught by Hill et al., since page 2 paragraph 22 of Hill et al. states such a modification would allow increased surface area engagement which will reduce material stresses on the key and key receiver.
Regarding claim 17, Overmyer et al. modified by Hill et al. disclose a transection input puck (Overmyer et al. – 608f) engageable with a first transection robotic output (Overmyer et al. – 610f), wherein rotation of the firing gear (Overmyer et al. – 740) is dependent on rotation of the transection input puck (Overmyer et al. – 608f). (Overmyer et al. – Figure 6 and Column 8 lines 10-15, Column 12 lines 12-18)
Regarding claim 18, Overmyer et al. modified by Hill et al. disclose:
a transection drive shaft (Overmyer et al. – 702f) coupled to the transection input puck (Overmyer et al. – 608f);
a transection spur gear (Overmyer et al. – 730) coupled to the transection drive shaft (Overmyer et al. – 702f);
a transection ramp gear (Overmyer et al. – 732) engaged with the transection spur gear (Overmyer et al. – 730);
a ramp gear shaft (Overmyer et al. – 734) coupled to the transection ramp gear (Overmyer et al. – 732) and a ramp spur gear (Overmyer et al. – col 12 ln 29-30); and
a speed gear (Overmyer et al. – 736) engaged with the ramp spur gear (Overmyer et al. – col 12 ln 29-30).
(Overmyer et al. – Figure 7A, 7B and Column 12 lines 25-38)
Regarding claim 19, Overmyer et al. modified by Hill et al. disclose the speed gear (Overmyer et al. – 736) is coupled to the firing gear (Overmyer et al. – 740). (Overmyer et al. – Figure 7A and Column 12 lines 29-37)
Regarding claim 20, Overmyer et al. modified by Hill et al. disclose the diameter of the speed gear (Overmyer et al. – 736) is greater than the diameter of the firing gear (Overmyer et al. – 740). (Overmyer et al. – Figure 7A)
Regarding claim 31, Overmyer et al. disclose a transection subsystem (400) for a surgical instrument (100), wherein the transection subsystem (400) comprises:
a firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17);
a firing rack (744) coupled to a proximal end of the firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17),
wherein the firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17) is rotationally independent of the firing rack (744);
a firing gear (740) engaged with the firing rack (744),
a key receiver (746) in mechanical communication with the firing gear (740);
a key (416) configured to rotationally engage with the key receiver (746) in a unidirectional direction,
wherein the rotating the key (416) causes the key receiver (746) and the firing gear (740) to rotate, thereby moving the firing rod (col 12 ln 16-17) axially.
(Figure 4, 7A, 7B and Column 7 lines 16-34, Column 10 lines 2-5, Column 12 lines 12-18)
However, Overmyer et al. do not disclose key receiver comprises a spline.
Hill et al. disclose a system comprising:
a key receiver (122); and
a key (124) configured to rotationally engage with the key receiver in a unidirectional direction,
wherein the rotating the key (124) causes the key receiver (122) to rotate,
wherein the key receiver comprises a spine (130A, 130B), and
wherein the key comprises a cam surface (132A, 132B) configured to engage with the spine (130A, 130B) on the key receiver (122).
wherein the key (124) is configured to rotate the key receiver (122) in a unidirectional manner.
(Figure 2A and Page 2 paragraph 22, Page 5 paragraph 39)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the key and key receiver of Overmyer et al. by incorporating the cam and spline as taught by Hill et al., since page 2 paragraph 22 of Hill et al. states such a modification would allow increased surface area engagement which will reduce material stresses on the key and key receiver.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Overmyer et al. (11,219,495) in view of reference Hill et al. (2024/0271574) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of reference Messerly et al. (11,058,477).
Regarding claim 21, Overmyer et al. modified by Hill et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a slot and T-shaped tab.
Messerly et al. disclose assembly (500) for a surgical instrument (10), wherein the assembly (500) comprises:
a firing rack (540); and
a firing rod (1310),
wherein the firing rack (540) defines a slot (544),
wherein the firing rod (1310) comprises a T-shaped tab (1314), and
wherein the T-shaped tab is engaged with the slot to enable rotation of the firing rod (1310) with respect to the firing rack (540) while maintaining a longitudinal connection.
(Figure 3 and Column 9 lines 30-45)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the firing rod and firing rack of Overmyer et al. by incorporating the slot and tab as taught by Messerly et al., since column 8 lines 27-37 of Messerly et al. states such a modification would allow rotation of the surgical end effector about the shaft axis.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 01/27/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-15, 22-23, 26-27, 29, and 32 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 24-25, 28, 30, and 33-35 are withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected species. Claims 16-21 and 31 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the objections towards the drawings, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the drawing objections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Overmyer et al. (11,219,495), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 102 rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Overmyer et al. (11,219,495) in view of reference Hill et al. (2024/0271574), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
The splines described in Hill are inherently bidirectional torque-transmission features. See Hill at ¶[0022].
On page 2 paragraph 22 of Hill et al., the first member is disclosed to have “a plurality of helical spines disclosed spirally about the circumference of the first shaft” and a second member is disclosed to have “a plurality of helical grooves configured to receive the helical spines”. The first member is configured to further engage with the second member when the first member applies more torque than the second member. In other words, when first member rotates in a first direction, the first member transfers torque to the second member. The first member is configured to disengage from the second member when the torque direction reverses. In other words, when the first member rotates in a second direction, the first member does not transfer torque to the second member.
On page 5 paragraph 39, the first member is disclosed to axially move further into the second member as the first member applies more torque, i.e. rotates in the first direction. The first member is also disclosed to axially move away from the second member, where there is no contact between the first member and second member, when the torque is reversed, i.e. rotates in the second direction. Therefore, Hill et al. do not disclose a bidirectional arrangement, but rather an arrangement that transfers rotational motion between two members when said members are engaged, i.e. rotate in the first direction, and don’t transfer rotational motion between the two members when said members are disengaged, i.e. rotate in the second direction.
Furthermore, since Applicant does not provide any evidence to support the assertion that splines are inherently bidirectional torque-transmission features, the assertion is mere speculation. “An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”. [MPEP 2145 (I)] Therefore, in view of Applicant not providing support for the assertion, and in view of Hill et al. not disclosing the splines being inherently bidirectional, Applicant’s argument is rendered moot.
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 May 14, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights