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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election WITHOUT traverse of GROUP I in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration and claims 1-12 and 19-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunki-Jacobs (US PGPub 2024/0081891).
Regarding Claim 1, Dunki-Jacobs teaches a surgical instrument (Figures 42-43; Paragraph 0165), comprising:
a shaft assembly (8018; Figure 42);
an end effector (8016; Figure 42) distally extending from the shaft assembly (8018; Figure 42; Paragraph 0165), including:
a first jaw (8022; Figure 42; Paragraph 0165),
a second jaw (8020; Figure 42; Paragraph 0165) configured to selectively move relative to the first jaw (8022) from an open configuration (Figure 42) configured to receive a tissue (Figure 42) toward a closed configuration (Figure 43) to compress the tissue therebetween (as disclosed in Paragraph 0167),
a first track (8064; Figure 43) distally extending along the first jaw (8022; Figure 43; Paragraph 0168-0169), and
an extendable sensing probe (8077) comprising a sensor configured to detect a presence of the tissue (Figure 44; Paragraph 0171), wherein the extendable sensing probe (8077) is configured to selectively move through the first track (8064) for detecting a presence of the tissue along the first jaw (8022) (Paragraph 0171 states that 8060 can translate and 8060 carries sensing probe 8077 in Figure 44); and
a controller (8062; Figure 44; Paragraph 0171) electrically connected to the extendable sensing probe (8077) and configured to determine a position of the tissue received between the first (8022) and second jaws (8020) in the closed configuration via the extendable sensing probe (8077) (Paragraph 0005-0007 states that the sensors can determine impedance and thus can determined if tissue is positioned within the jaws or not positioned within the jaws, furthermore the controller can determine whether the type of tissue with a specific impedance has been placed within the jaws; furthermore Paragraph 0098 states that the tissue sensors can signal one or more tissue parameters such has tissue impedance and tissue temperature and thus can determine a position of the tissue received within the jaws, the positions being either within the jaws or not within the jaws).
Regarding Claim 2, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein the end effector (8018; Figure 42) further comprises a knife member (8080; Figures 42-44) configured to be selectively deployed for cutting the tissue (Paragraph 0170-0171).
Regarding Claim 3, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 2, wherein the knife member (8080) is configured to be selectively deployed through the first track (8064; Figure 43; Paragraph 0168).
Regarding Claim 4, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 2, wherein the end effector (8016; Figures 42-43) further comprises a second track (8058; Figure 43) and the knife member (8080) is configured to selectively move through the second track (8058; Paragraph 0168).
Regarding Claim 7, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein the controller (8062) is configured to: apply a current to the extendable sensing probe (tissue sensor, 8077; Paragraph 0005) and sense a closed circuit when the one or more sensors are in contact with the tissue (Paragraph 0005); and detect a position of the extendable sensing probe (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claim 10, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein the extendable sensing probe (8077) is configured to be an electro-cutter (0153), and wherein the controller is further configured to selectively operate the extendable sensing probe to cut the tissue (Paragraph 0153-0155).
Regarding Claim 11, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein the second jaw (8020) comprises at least a portion of the first track (in this embodiment the first track is both 8064 and 8058 which together make a single track, see Figure 30 in which the tracks are formed as elements 2041 and 2043, for illustrative purposes only).
Regarding Claim 12, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein the shaft assembly (8018; Figure 42) is configured to couple the end effector (8016) to a handle (8012; Figure 42) and configured to house at least a portion of the extendable sensing probe (8080 which includes sensor 8077), wherein the extendable sensing probe (8080) comprises a longitudinal opening (see annotated Figure 44 below), the shaft assembly (8018) comprising one or more extensions (8036) configured to pass through the longitudinal opening (see annotated Figure 44 below) and configured to restrain at least some movement of the extendable sensing probe (8080) within the shaft assembly (8018) (see Paragraphs 0167-0168).
PNG
media_image1.png
852
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller electrically connected to the extendable sensing probe and configured to determine one or more characteristics of the tissue received between the one or more jaws in the closed configuration via the extendable sensing probe.
Regarding Claim 19, Dunki-Jacobs teaches a surgical instrument (Figures 42-43; Paragraph 0165), comprising:
a shaft assembly (8018; Figure 42);
an end effector (8016; Figure 42) extending from the shaft assembly (8018; Figure 42; Paragraph 0165), including:
one or more jaws (8022 and 8020; Figure 42; Paragraph 0165) configured to selectively move relative to each other (8022 and 8020) from an open configuration (Figure 42) configured to receive a tissue (Figure 42) toward a closed configuration (Figure 43) to compress the tissue therebetween (as disclosed in Paragraph 0167),
a track (8064; Figure 43) distally extending along one of the one or more jaws (8022; Figure 43; Paragraph 0168-0169), and
an extendable sensing probe (8077) configured to detect a presence of the tissue (Figure 44; Paragraph 0171), wherein the extendable sensing probe (8077) is configured to selectively move through the track (8064) while the tissue is compressed between the one or more jaws (Paragraph 0171 states that 8060 can translate and 8060 carries sensing probe 8077 in Figure 44); and
a controller (8062; Figure 44; Paragraph 0171) electrically connected to the extendable sensing probe (8077) and configured to determine one or more characteristics of the tissue received between the one or more jaws (8022 and 8020) in the closed configuration via the extendable sensing probe (8077) (Paragraph 0005-0007 states that the sensors can determine impedance; furthermore Paragraph 0098 states that the tissue sensors can signal one or more tissue parameters such has tissue impedance and tissue temperature).
Regarding Claim 20, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 19, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least one of: a length; a width; a type; an impedance (Paragraph 0005-0007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunki-Jacobs (US PGPub 2024/0081891) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shelton (US PGPub 2021/0393288).
Regarding Claim 9, Dunki-Jacobs teaches the surgical instrument of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the extendable sensing probe is coated to be electrically isolated except at the sensor.
Shelton teaches a surgical instrument comprising a shaft assembly (144; Figure 1), an end effector (112; Figure 1) having a first and second jaw (114 and 116; Figure 1), wherein the end effector (112) comprises a sensor (Paragraph 0217) and a flex circuit (728; Figure 33; Paragraph 0217) to providing energy to the sensor, wherein the flex circuit (728) comprises a coating (716; electrically insulative tube) which electrically isolates the flex circuit but not the sensor (Paragraph 0217).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circuitry of the sensing probe of Dunki-Jacobs, to include a insulating coating over the circuitry, as taught by Shelton, for the advantage of preventing/minimizing energy from the controller to the sensing probe from dissipating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 8 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose:
The limitations of Claim 5: the surgical instrument of claim 2, wherein the shaft assembly is configured to couple the end effector to a handle and configured to house at least a portion of the knife member and at least a portion of the extendable sensing probe, wherein the knife member comprises a first indentation and the extendable sensing probe comprises a second indentation, the shaft assembly comprising:
a deployer rod positioned between the knife member and the extendable sensing probe and comprising an extension configured to engage the first and second indentations, wherein the deployer is configured to be rotatably manipulated to selectively engage the first or second indentations, wherein once engaged, the deployer rod is operable to selectively extend the knife member or extendable sensing probe.
The limitations of Claim 6: the surgical instrument of claim 2, wherein the shaft assembly is configured to couple the end effector to a handle and configured to house at least a portion of the knife member and at least a portion of the extendable sensing probe, wherein the knife member comprises a first longitudinal opening and the extendable sensing probe comprises a second longitudinal opening, the shaft assembly comprising one or more extensions configured to pass through the first and second longitudinal openings and configured to restrain at least some movement of the knife member and the extendable sensing probe within the shaft assembly.
The limitations of Claim 8: the surgical instrument of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to, based at least in part on the position of the extendable sensing probe, and when a closed circuit is formed, calculate a dimension of the tissue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED GAMIL GABR whose telephone number is (571)272-0569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 270-5953. 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.
/MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights