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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 25, 30, and 31 are objected to because of the following informality: “proximate” should read “proximate to” in all instances the limitation appears in the claims.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: “into densely” in line 2 should read “into a densely”.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informality: “rod, and” in line 3 should read “rod and”.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informality: “retainer, wherein” in line 2 should read “retainer, and wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19, 25, 28, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Corsetto et al. (US 2020/0375596), hereinafter Corsetto.
Regarding claim 16, Corsetto discloses a housing (316, 318, 320, and 326 collectively in Figures 6-9; or 316, 318, 320, 326, and 328 collectively in Figures 6-9) for a surgical instrument configured to engage with a robotic arm (12 or 56 or 32 in Figure 4), the housing (316, 318, 320, and 326 collectively; or 316, 318, 320, 326, and 328 collectively) comprising:
a first opening (the opening at the left end of 320 in Figure 6) positioned to be engaged with at least a portion of a robotic arm (12 or 56 or 32 in Figure 4) (clear when Figures 6 and 4 and Paragraph 0082 are considered together);
a second opening (the circular opening at the right end of 316 and 318 collectively after assembly in Figure 6) positioned proximate a rod (322 in Figure 6) extending from within the housing (apparent from Figure 6); and
a fluid management system (326, 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively in Figures 6-9) positioned within the housing proximate the second opening (the circular opening at the right end of 316 and 318 collectively after assembly in Figure 6) (apparent when Figures 6-8 are viewed in relation to each other), the fluid management system (326, 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively) being configured to hold or divert fluid (the “fluid” mentioned throughout the specification of Corsetto) within the housing (because part 326 of the fluid management system absorbs the “fluid” and prevents the “fluid” from entering or exiting nozzle 312, as is clear from Paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 17, Corsetto discloses that the fluid management system (326, 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively) comprises one or more walls (368, 370, 400, and 402 in Figures 7 and 8) forming a cavity (the cavity formed by 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively) within the housing to hold or divert the fluid (it is clear from Figures 7 and 8 and Paragraphs 0085 and 0087 that 368, 370, 400, and 402 form a cavity which holds 326 which in turn absorbs and holds the “fluid” as stated in Paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 18, Corsetto discloses an absorbent (326 in Figures 6-9) positioned within the cavity (the cavity formed by 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively) (apparent from Figure 8, Paragraphs 0085 and 0087).
Regarding claim 19, Corsetto discloses that the one or more walls (368, 370, 400, and 402) comprises a retention feature (374a-d and 404a-d collectively) configured to secure the absorbent (326) within the cavity (Paragraphs 0085 and 0087).
Regarding claim 25, Corsetto discloses that the fluid management system (326, 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively) comprises a fluid diverter (326 in Figures 6-9) positioned proximate the first opening (the opening at the left end of 320 in Figure 6) (apparent from Figure 6, because 326 absorbs the “fluid” and prevents the “fluid” from entering or exiting nozzle 312, as is clear from Paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 28, Corsetto discloses a delatching body (328 in Figure 6) positioned within a delatch opening (the space inside 320 which is occupied by 328) of the housing (316, 318, 320, 326, and 328 collectively) (clear when Figure 6 and Paragraph 0082 are considered together).
Regarding claim 31, Corsetto discloses a nose (the portion of 316 to the right of 374b and 374d in Figure 7 and the portion of 318 to the right of 404b and 404d in Figure 8, collectively) positioned proximate the rod (322) (apparent when Figures 6-8 are viewed in relation to one another), wherein the fluid management system (326, 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively) comprises a shaft bushing (326 in Figures 6-8) surrounding the rod (322) (apparent from Figure 6, Paragraphs 0081 and 0089), and engaging with the nose (apparent when Figures 6-8 are viewed in relation to one another).
Regarding claim 32, Corsetto discloses that the rod (322) comprises a slot (the hollow interior of 322 through which knife bar 96 passes) (Paragraph 0081).
Please note that the surgical instrument is not a positively recited claim element and not part of the claimed housing. Thus, the limitations “the surgical instrument further comprises a knife insert retainer” and “the knife insert retainer comprising an elastomeric seal extension extending into the slot”, which are drawn to the unclaimed surgical instrument, are not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 33, Corsetto discloses that the fluid management system (326, 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively) comprises a sleeve (326 in Figures 6-8) surrounding the rod (322) (apparent from Figure 6, Paragraphs 0081 and 0089), the sleeve (326) comprising an absorbent material (Paragraph 0089 lines 17-23).
Regarding claim 34, Corsetto discloses that the fluid management system (326, 368, 370, 400, and 402 collectively) comprises a collar (326 in Figures 6-8) surrounding the rod (322) (apparent from Figure 6, Paragraphs 0081 and 0089).
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 of this title, 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 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsetto in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 11,141,150), hereinafter Shelton.
Regarding claim 20, Corsetto discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the retention feature is a rounded undercut positioned such that the absorbent rests between the retention feature and an interior surface of the housing.
Shelton teaches that it was known to provide a retention feature (116 in Figure 5) that is an undercut positioned such that an absorbent (120 in Figure 5) rests between the retention feature (116) and an interior surface (inner surface of 112 which contacts the bottom of 120 in Figure 5) of a housing (102 in Figure 5) (Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 lines 26), in order to retain the absorbent (120) within a cavity (104 in Figure 5) (Col. 12 lines 23-26, Col. 13 lines 55-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have substituted the retention feature of Corsetto with a retention feature that is an undercut positioned such that the absorbent rests between the retention feature and an interior surface of the housing, as taught by Shelton, because doing so would achieve the predictable result of retaining the absorbent within the cavity. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Corsetto in view of Shelton teaches all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the undercut is rounded.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have changed the shape of the undercut so that the undercut is rounded, since it has been held that changing the shape of an object involves only routine skill in the art and since doing so would allow the undercut to retain the absorbent within the cavity equally well. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in Paragraphs 0105 and 0118 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 21, Corsetto discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the retention feature is a one-way-ramp undercut positioned such that the absorbent rests between the retention feature and an interior surface of the housing.
Shelton teaches that it was known to provide a retention feature (116 in Figure 5) that is a one-way-ramp undercut (apparent from Figure 5) positioned such that an absorbent (120 in Figure 5) rests between the retention feature (116) and an interior surface (inner surface of 112 which contacts the bottom of 120 in Figure 5) of a housing (102 in Figure 5) (Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 lines 26), in order to retain the absorbent (120) within a cavity (104 in Figure 5) (Col. 12 lines 23-26, Col. 13 lines 55-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have substituted the retention feature of Corsetto with a retention feature that is a one-way-ramp undercut positioned such that the absorbent rests between the retention feature and an interior surface of the housing, as taught by Shelton, because doing so would achieve the predictable result of retaining the absorbent within the cavity. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Regarding claim 23, Corsetto discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: the retention feature is a pin, and the absorbent comprises an aperture sized to accept the pin therethrough.
Shelton teaches that it was known to provide: a retention feature (one of the “pins” described in Col. 12 lines 30-32) that is a pin (Col. 12 lines 30-32), and an absorbent (120 in Figure 5) comprising an aperture (one of the “holes” described in Col. 12 lines 30-32) sized to accept the pin (the one of the “pins”) therethrough (Col. 12 lines 30-32), in order to secure the absorbent (120) in a housing (102 in Figure 5) (Col. 12 lines 30-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Corsetto to incorporate the teachings of Shelton by: substituting the retention feature of Corsetto with a retention feature that is a pin, and by modifying the absorbent of Corsetto so that it comprises an aperture sized to accept the pin therethrough, because doing so would achieve the predictable result of securing the absorbent in the housing. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the closest prior art reference, Corsetto (see 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 19 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious: the retention feature is a barb positioned on an interior surface of the housing.
Regarding claim 24, the closest prior art reference, Corsetto (see 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 19 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious: the retention feature is a rivet positioned to attach the absorbent to an interior surface of the housing.
Regarding claim 26, the closest prior art reference, Corsetto (see 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 25 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious: the fluid diverter comprises a channel configured to divert fluid into the cavity.
Regarding claim 27, it is indicated as being allowable solely because it depends from claim 26 which is allowable as stated above.
Regarding claim 29, the closest prior art reference, Corsetto (see 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 28 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious: a release button connected to the delatching body by a release hinge, wherein the delatching body is configured to be actuated by the release button.
Regarding claim 30, it is indicated as being allowable solely because it depends from claim 29 which is allowable as stated above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731