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 action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 06/04/2025. Claims 2-20 are pending. Claim 2, 6, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “jaw actuation mechanism” in claims 2 and 6. Based on the disclosure, the jaw actuation mechanism is an actuator (154, Fig. 15) connecting to the jaws to actuate the jaws.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassler et al. (US Pat. No. 5,330,502) in view of Yoon (US Pat. No.: 5,993,467)
Regarding claims 2-5, Hassler discloses [claim 1] a laparoscopic system (the system 1 is fully capable to serve as a laparoscopic suture system for suturing, such as grasping a needle with suture) and comprising: a laparoscopic device (1, Figs. 1-5, the device 1 is fully capable to serve as a laparoscopic suturing device by grasping a needle with suture in a laparoscopic surgical procedure), the comprising: an elongate shaft (combination of 10 and 130, Fig. 1) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig .1), and defining a central longitudinal axis extending between the proximal end and the distal end (Fig. 1); and a jaw assembly (combination of 60, 70 and both 80, Figs. 1 and 2) coupled to the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw assembly comprising: a first jaw (combination of 60 and part of 80 extending through 60, Figs. 1 and 2) having a proximal end and a distal end (Figs. 2 and 4, proximal end and distal end of 60), the first jaw comprising a first pivot (64, Fig. 2) between the proximal end and the distal end and a first actuation post (part of 80 extending through 60, Figs. 1, 2, and 4) proximal the first pivot; and a second jaw (combination of 70 and part of 80 extending through 70, Figs. 1, 2, and 4) having a proximal end and a distal end (proximal end and distal end of 70, Figs. 1, 2, and 4), the second jaw comprising a second pivot (74, Fig. 2) between the proximal end and the distal end and a second actuation post (part of 80 extending through 70, Figs. 1, 2, and 4) proximal the second pivot; and wherein the first pivot and the second pivot pivotably couple the first jaw and the second jaw to the elongate shaft such that the first jaw and the second jaw are pivotable between an open configuration and a closed configuration (Figs. 1, 2, and 4); a jaw actuation mechanism (101 which includes 102 and 103, Fig. 2) at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw actuation mechanism actuatable to pivot the first jaw and the second jaw between the open configuration and the closed configuration (Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 24); [claim 3] wherein the jaw actuation mechanism comprises an actuator (101 which includes 102 and 103, Fig. 2) advanceable proximally and distally relative to the elongate shaft (Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 24); [claim 4] wherein the actuator comprises actuation slots (the slots at 103, Fig. 2) formed therein and wherein the first actuation post and the second actuation post are each positioned in an actuation slot such that longitudinal translation of the actuator pivots the first jaw and the second jaw between the open configuration and the closed configuration (Fig. 2 and Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 44); [claim 5] a drive rod (30 or combination of 30 and 50, Fig. 2 and Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 44) slidable within the elongate shaft, the drive rod coupled to the actuator to advance the actuator proximally and distally relative to the elongate shaft (Fig. 2 and Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 24). However, Hassler does not disclose Page 48 of 505982-USP-US-D1a suturing needle positionable in the jaw assembly, the suturing needle comprising: a needle having a generally curved profile and extending from a first penetrating tip to a second penetrating tip; and a suture coupled to the needle.
Yoon teaches, in the same field of endeavor (surgical system), a surgical system comprising a suturing needle (180, Figs. 8-10) positionable in a jaw assembly (112 and 114, Fig. 8), the suturing needle comprising: a needle (180, Figs. 8-12) having a generally curved profile (Figs. 8-10) and extending from a first penetrating tip (182, Fig. 8) to a second penetrating tip (the tip on the opposite side of the needle is a second penetrating tip because it penetrates through the tissue as shown in Figs. 11-12); and a suture (184, Figs. 8-12) coupled to the needle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify system of Hassler to include a suturing needle positionable in the jaw assembly, the suturing needle comprising: a needle having a generally curved profile and extending from a first penetrating tip to a second penetrating tip; and a suture coupled to the needle as taught by Yoon in order to obtain the advantage of allowing the system to secure/suturing two pieces of tissue together (Yoon, Figs. 9-12 and Abstract).
Regarding claims 6-9, Hassler discloses a laparoscopic suturing device (the system 1 is fully capable to serve as a laparoscopic suture system for suturing, such as grasping a needle with suture) comprising: an elongate shaft (combination of 10 and 130, Fig. 1) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig .1), and defining a central longitudinal axis extending between the proximal end and the distal end (Fig .1), the elongate shaft comprising a drive rod longitudinally slidable therein (30 or combination of 30 and 50, Fig. 2 and Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 44); a jaw assembly (combination of 60, 70 and both 80, Figs. 1 and 2) coupled to the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw assembly comprising: a first jaw (combination of 60 and 80, Figs. 1 and 2) coupled to the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw assembly comprising: a first jaw (combination of 60 and part of 80 extending through 60, Figs. 1 and 2) having a proximal end and a distal end (Figs. 2 and 4, proximal end and distal end of 60), and a second jaw (combination of 70 and part of 80 extending through 70, Figs. 1, 2, and 4) having a proximal end and a distal end (proximal end and distal end of 70, Figs. 1, 2, and 4), and wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are pivotable between an open configuration and a closed configuration (Figs. 1, 2, and 4); and a jaw actuation mechanism (combination of 40 and 101 which includes 102 and 103, Fig. 2) at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw actuation mechanism actuatable to pivot the first jaw and the second jaw between the open configuration and the closed configuration (Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 24), wherein the jaw actuation mechanism comprises: a clevis (40, Fig. 4) positioned at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the first jaw and the second jaw being pivotably coupled to the clevis (Figs. 1 and 4); and an actuator (101 which includes 102 and 103, Fig. 2) coupled to the drive rod such that longitudinal sliding of the drive rod moves the actuator relative to the elongate shaft (Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 24), the actuator slidably coupled to the proximal end of the first jaw and the proximal end of the second jaw (Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 24); [claim 7] wherein the first jaw comprises a first pivot (64, Fig. 2) between the proximal end of the first jaw and the distal end of the first jaw and a first actuation post (part of 80 extending through 60) proximal the first pivot; [claim 8] wherein the second jaw comprises a second pivot (74, Fig. 2) between the proximal end of the second jaw and the distal end of the second jaw and a second actuation post (part of 80 extending through 70) proximal the second pivot; [claim 9] wherein the actuator (101 which includes 102 and 103, Fig. 2) comprises a first actuation slot (one of the slot 103, Fig. 2) and a second actuation slot (another slot 103, Fig. 2) formed therein, and wherein the first actuation post is slidably engaged in the first actuation slot and the second actuation post is slidably engaged in the second actuation slot (Fig. 2 and Col. 3, line 41 – Col. 4, line 44). However, Hassler does not disclose Page 48 of 505982-USP-US-D1a suturing needle positionable in the jaw assembly.
Yoon teaches, in the same field of endeavor (surgical system), a surgical system comprising a suturing needle (180, Figs. 8-10) positionable in a jaw assembly (112 and 114, Fig. 8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify system of Hassler to include a suturing needle positionable in the jaw assembly as taught by Yoon in order to obtain the advantage of allowing the system to secure/suturing two pieces of tissue together (Yoon, Figs. 9-12 and Abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 in view of Cabrera et al. (US Pub. No.: 2009/0312773).
Regarding claims 6, 10 and 11, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 recites substantially all the limitations of the claims, such as an elongate shaft, a jaw assembly having a first jaw and a second jaw, a suturing needle, a first flip jaw, and a second flip jaw. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 does not recite a jaw actuation mechanism having a clevis and an actuator.
Cabrera teaches, in the same field of endeavor (suturing device), a jaw actuation mechanism (combination of 222 and 236, Fig. 9) at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw actuation mechanism actuatable to pivot the first jaw and the second jaw (230 and 232) between the open configuration and the closed configuration (Figs. 9 and 15), wherein the jaw actuation mechanism comprises: a clevis (the clevis formed by arms 226 at 222, Fig. 9) positioned at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the first jaw and the second jaw being pivotably coupled to the clevis (Fig. 9); and an actuator (236, Fig. 9) coupled to the drive rod such that longitudinal sliding of the drive rod moves the actuator relative to the elongate shaft, the actuator slidably coupled to the proximal end of the first jaw and the proximal end of the second jaw (Paras. [0126]-[0136]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 to include a jaw actuation mechanism at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw actuation mechanism actuatable to pivot the first jaw and the second jaw between the open configuration and the closed configuration, wherein the jaw actuation mechanism comprises: a clevis positioned at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the first jaw and the second jaw being pivotably coupled to the clevis; and an actuator coupled to the drive rod such that longitudinal sliding of the drive rod moves the actuator relative to the elongate shaft, the actuator slidably coupled to the proximal end of the first jaw and the proximal end of the second jaw as taught by Cabrera in order to facilitate the manipulation of the jaw (Cabrera, Paras. [0126]-[0136]).
Claims 12 and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 recites all the limitations of claims 12 and 15-19 of the instant application and the claimed invention of claimed 1-3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 is fully capable to perform the functions recited in claims 12 and 15-19 of the instant application.
#18/917,098
12
15
16
17
18
19
#10,405,851
1
2
6
6
1
3
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 in view of Della Badia et al. (US Pat. No.: 5,397,325).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 recites all the limitation of claim 12 as taught above but fails to recite that the first flip jaw and the second flip jaw are each biased to the suturing configuration; wherein the jaw assembly comprises a first torsion spring biasing the first flip jaw to the suturing configuration and a second torsion spring biasing the second flip jaw to the suturing configuration.
Della Badia teaches, in the same field of endeavor (suturing device), a flip jaw (24, Figs. 3 and 4c) biased to the suturing configuration; wherein the jaw assembly comprises a torsion spring (28, Fig. 4C) biasing a flip jaw to the suturing configuration (Col. 8, lines 27-52).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the clamed invention of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 to include a flip jaw biased to the suturing configuration; wherein the jaw assembly comprises a torsion spring biasing a flip jaw to the suturing configuration as taught by Della Badia, such that the first flip jaw and the second flip jaw are each biased to the suturing configuration; wherein the jaw assembly comprises a first torsion spring biasing the first flip jaw to the suturing configuration and a second torsion spring biasing the second flip jaw to the suturing configuration in order obtain advantage of shielding the needle and automatically actuating the needle to the suturing position (Della Badia, Col. 8, lines 27-52).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 in view of Melzer et al. (US Pat. No.: 5,389,103).
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 recites all the limitation of claim 19 as taught above but fails to recite that the first needle channel has an eccentric cross-sectional profile.
Melzer teaches, in the same field of endeavor (suturing device), a first needle channel has an eccentric cross-sectional profile (Fig. 7 or Fig. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first needle channel of the clamed invention of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,851 to include an eccentric cross-sectional profile as taught by Melzer in order to capture the needle.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 in view of Cabrera et al. (US Pub. No.: 2009/0312773).
Regarding claims 6, 10 and 11, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 recites substantially all the limitations of the claims, such as an elongate shaft, a jaw assembly having a first jaw and a second jaw, a suturing needle, a first flip jaw, and a second flip jaw. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 does not recite a jaw actuation mechanism having a clevis and an actuator.
Cabrera teaches, in the same field of endeavor (suturing device), a jaw actuation mechanism (combination of 222 and 236, Fig. 9) at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw actuation mechanism actuatable to pivot the first jaw and the second jaw (230 and 232) between the open configuration and the closed configuration (Figs. 9 and 15), wherein the jaw actuation mechanism comprises: a clevis (the clevis formed by arms 226 at 222, Fig. 9) positioned at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the first jaw and the second jaw being pivotably coupled to the clevis (Fig. 9); and an actuator (236, Fig. 9) coupled to the drive rod such that longitudinal sliding of the drive rod moves the actuator relative to the elongate shaft, the actuator slidably coupled to the proximal end of the first jaw and the proximal end of the second jaw (Paras. [0126]-[0136]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 to include a jaw actuation mechanism at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the jaw actuation mechanism actuatable to pivot the first jaw and the second jaw between the open configuration and the closed configuration, wherein the jaw actuation mechanism comprises: a clevis positioned at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the first jaw and the second jaw being pivotably coupled to the clevis; and an actuator coupled to the drive rod such that longitudinal sliding of the drive rod moves the actuator relative to the elongate shaft, the actuator slidably coupled to the proximal end of the first jaw and the proximal end of the second jaw as taught by Cabrera in order to facilitate the manipulation of the jaw (Cabrera, Paras. [0126]-[0136]).
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 10, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 8, 10, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 recites all the limitations of claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 of the instant application and the claimed invention of claims 8, 10, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 is fully capable to perform the functions recited in claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 of the instant application.
#18/917,098
12
13
15
16
18
#11,406,373
8
10
12
13
8
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 in view of Della Badia et al. (US Pat. No.: 5,397,325).
Regarding claim 14, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 recites all the limitation of claim 13 as taught above but fails to recite that the jaw assembly comprises a first torsion spring biasing the first flip jaw to the suturing configuration and a second torsion spring biasing the second flip jaw to the suturing configuration.
Della Badia teaches, in the same field of endeavor (suturing device), a jaw assembly comprising a torsion spring (28, Fig. 4C) biasing a flip jaw to the suturing configuration (Col. 8, lines 27-52).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the jaw assembly of the clamed invention of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,373 to include a torsion spring biasing a flip jaw to the suturing configuration as taught by Della Badia, such that a first torsion spring biasing the first flip jaw to the suturing configuration and a second torsion spring biasing the second flip jaw to the suturing configuration in order obtain advantage of shielding the needle and automatically actuating the needle to the suturing position (Della Badia, Col. 8, lines 27-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20030109900 A1 Martinek, Jonathan discloses a suturing device.
US 20060036232 A1 Primavera; Michael et al. discloses a suturing device.
US 20090259233 A1 Bogart; Michael et al. discloses a suturing device.
US 20100010512 A1 Taylor; Eric J. et al. discloses a suturing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING RUI OU whose telephone number is (571)270-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am -5:00pm.
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) 272-4696. 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.
/JING RUI OU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights