CTFR 18/934,960 CTFR 92182 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 amendment filing on 03/16/2026. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 17 and 20 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are pending and examined below. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, the embodiment shown in Figures 6-11 , in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Fanelli et al. (2020/0237370) in view of reference Worrell (2018/0310982) . Regarding claim 1 , Fanelli et al. disclose a surgical stapling device (10) comprising: an elongate body (22) having a proximal portion and a distal portion; and a tool assembly (12) defining a longitudinal axis (LA), wherein the tool assembly (12) includes: a cartridge assembly (16, 37); an anvil (18) having a proximal portion and a distal portion, wherein the anvil (518) is coupled to the cartridge assembly (16, 37) such that the tool assembly (12) is moveable from an open position to a clamped position; a dissector tip (519) including a body having a proximal portion and a distal portion, wherein the body has a thickness that decreases towards the distal portion of the body of the dissector tip (519), and wherein the body is movably coupled to the anvil (518) for movement between a first position (Figure 14A) substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis (LA) and a second position (Figure 15) defining an acute angle with the longitudinal axis (LA); and a retaining member (502) supported on the distal portion of the anvil (518), wherein the retaining member (502) is configured to engage with the dissector tip (519) to releasably retain the dissector tip in one of the first or second positions. (Figures 1, 13-15 and Page 2 paragraph 48, Page 3 paragraph 52, Page 4 paragraph 57, Page 9 paragraph 91, 93) However, Fanelli et al. do not disclose a resilient cantilevered finger. Worrell disclose a device comprising: a first member (210); a second member (220) that is rotatable coupled to the first member (210); and a resilient cantilevered finger (212) supported on the first member (210), wherein the resilient cantilevered finger (212) is configured to engage the second member (220) to releasably retain the second member (220). (Figures 12-14C and Page 7 paragraph 73) 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 tool assembly of Fanelli et al. by incorporating the resilient cantilevered finger as taught by Worrell, since page 8 paragraph 80 of Worrell state such a modification would provide resistive/tactile/audible feedback to the user when the dissector tip is repositioned. Regarding claim 2 , Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell disclose the resilient cantilevered finger (Worrell – 212) supports a protrusion (Fanelli et al. – 510). (Fanelli et al. Figure 14B and Page 9 paragraph 91) Regarding claim 3 , Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell disclose the dissector tip (Fanelli et al. – 519) includes a proximal face (Fanelli et al. – see figure 14A below) in the proximal portion of the dissector tip (Fanelli et al. – 519), wherein the proximal face (Fanelli et al. – see figure 14A below) defines spaced recess (Fanelli et al. – 523), wherein the protrusion (Fanelli et al. – 510) is received within one of the spaced recesses (Fanelli et al. – 523) to retain the dissector tip (Fanelli et al. – 519) in one of the first or second positions. (Fanelli et al. – Figures 14A, 15 and Page 9 paragraph 91) [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (Proximal Face)] [AltContent: rect] [AltContent: textbox (Hinge Portion)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (Fanellli et al.)] PNG media_image1.png 225 510 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4 , Fanelli et al. disclose the distal portion of the anvil (18) includes a clevis (520), wherein the proximal portion of the dissector tip (519) includes a hinge portion (see figure 14A above) that is supported by a clevis pin (508). (Figure 14A, 14B and Page 9 paragraph 91) However, Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell do not disclose the hinge portion is within the clevis. It would have been to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the hinge portion within the clevis, since it has been held that rearranging of an invention involves routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)] On page 6 paragraph 39 of the Specification, the proximal portion of the dissector tip is disclosed to have a hinge portion the defines a through bore that receives the clevis pin. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Fanelli et al. and Worrell to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Regarding claim 5 , Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell disclose the proximal face (Fanelli et al. – see figure 14A above) of the dissector tip (Fanelli et al. – 519) is located on the hinge portion (Fanelli et al. – see figure 14A above) of the dissector tip (Fanelli et al. – 519). (Fanelli et al. – Figure 14A) Regarding claim 6 , Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the resilient cantilevered finger is positioned proximally from the clevis pin. It would have been to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the resilient cantilevered finger positioned proximally from the clevis pin, since it has been held that rearranging of an invention involves routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)] On page 6 paragraph 38 of the Specification, the distal portion of the anvil is disclosed to include a distal face that supports the retaining member. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Fanelli et al. and Worrell to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6 because such a modification would have been considered mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Regarding claim 7 , Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell disclose the dissector tip (Fanelli et al. – 519) is configured to be manually moved to allow the protrusion (Fanelli et al. – 510) to move between the spaced recesses (Fanelli et al. – 523). (Fanelli et al. – Page 9 paragraph 93) Regarding claim 8 , Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the protrusion extends distally from the resilient cantilevered finger. It would have been to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the protrusion extend distally from the resilient cantilevered finger, since it has been held that rearranging of an invention involves routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)] On page 6 paragraph 38 of the Specification, the retaining member is disclosed to include a resilient cantilevered finger that supports a protrusion. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Fanelli et al. and Worrell to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Regarding claim 10 , Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell disclose a width of the dissector tip decreases in a distal direction. (Fanelli et al. – Figure 13) Regarding claim 11 , Fanelli et al. modified by Worrell disclose a handle assembly (20), wherein the proximal portion of the elongate body (22) is coupled to the handle assembly (20). (Fanelli et al. – Figure 1 and Page 2 paragraph 48) Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 9 is 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. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 12-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s cancelation of claims 17 and 20 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are pending and examined below. In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Fanelli et al. (2020/0237370) in view of reference Worrell (2018/0310982) towards claims 1-8 and 10-11, Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive. Applicant states: That disclosure is structurally and spatially distinct from the claimed arrangement in which the resilient cantilevered finger is included in a retaining member that is supported on the distal portion of the anvil and is engaged with the dissector tip at the tool assembly. 07-37-13 AIA In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Worrell is not relied upon for the teaching of dissector tip situated on the distal portion of an anvil. Worrell is relied upon for the teaching of a resilient cantilever finger supported on a first member and configured to engage with a second member, wherein the resilient cantilevered finger releasably retains the second member. Fanelli et al. is relied upon for the teaching of dissector tip that is movably coupled to the distal portion of an anvil. When modifying Fanelli et al. in view of Worrell, the resilient cantilever finger is interpreted to be situated between the dissector tip and the anvil. 07-37-02 Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant states: The Office Action’s reliance on Worrell is also flawed because Worrell’s cantilever arm does not provide the claimed two-positioned retention functionality recited by claim 1. On page 8 paragraph 78 of Worrell, the first member is disclosed to be rotatable relative to the second member between a first configuration and a second configuration. Worrell also disclose that in order to switch from between the first configuration and the second configuration, the resilient cantilevered finger must deflect from a natural position a flexed position. Therefore, Worrell does disclose a two-positioned retention functionality. 07-37-13 AIA In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Worrell is not relied upon for the teaching of dissector tip that is movable between a first position and a second position. Worrell is relied upon for the teaching of a resilient cantilever finger supported on a first member and configured to engage with a second member, wherein the resilient cantilevered finger releasably retains the second member. Fanelli et al. is relied upon for the teaching of dissector tip that is movable between a first position substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis and a second position defining an acute angle with the longitudinal axis. When modifying Fanelli et al. in view of Worrell, the resilient cantilever finger is interpreted releasably retain the dissector tip in the first position and the second position. Applicant states: In addition, Fanelli would not have been combined with Worrell as asserted in the Office Action. A prima facie case of obviousness requires an analysis of “whether a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” 07-37-04 AIA In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine , 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones , 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Worrell discloses the use of a resilient cantilevered finger would provide the benefit of providing resistive/tactile/audible feedback when the first member rotates relative to the second member from the first position to the second position. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Fanelli et al. in view of Worrell . Applicant states: In addition, to establish a motivation to combine, the rejection cannot employ mere conclusory statements; rather there must be some “specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” 07-37-04 AIA In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine , 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones , 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, on page 8 paragraph 80 of Worrell, the use of a resilient cantilevered finger is disclosed to provide the benefit of providing audible feedback when the first member rotates relative to the second member from the first position to the second position. This implies that there is a need to have resistive/tactile/audible feedback to the user when parts of a surgical instrument are actuated. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Fanelli et al. in view of Worrell . Applicant states: First, Fanelli already discloses its own distal tip retention scheme. The Office Action does not explain, with evidence, how Worrell's handle features would, or even could, transplanted into Fanelli's distal end effector. For instance, in Fanelli, there does not appear to be any possible position for such a feature to be incorporated. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Fanelli et al. teaches a dissector tip that is movably coupled to the distal portion of an anvil. Worrell teaches of a resilient cantilever finger supported on a first member and configured to engage with a second member, wherein the resilient cantilevered finger releasably retains the second member. When modifying Fanelli et al. in view of Worrell, the resilient cantilever finger is interpreted to be situated between the dissector tip (i.e. the second member) and the anvil (i.e. the first member), wherein the resilient cantilevered finger releasably retains the dissector tip relative to the anvil. Applicant states: Second, the asserted benefit of providing "audible feedback" is also insufficient. In Worrel, the cited features are all internal to the handle. Those components therefore cannot be readily seen. As such, having an audible indicator may be helpful. The same is not true for Fanelli or the present technology. The dissector tip can be easily seen and may be manually manipulated to directly see or identify the position. No audible feedback is necessary or beneficial. In this case, on page 8 paragraph 80 of Worrell, the use of a resilient cantilevered finger is disclosed to provide the benefit of providing resistive/tactile/audible feedback when the first member rotates relative to the second member from the first position to the second position. Worrell does not disclose that the tool must be within visible sight of the user in order for the user to perceive the resistive/tactile/audible feedback. Worrell also does not teach away from incorporating the feature into tools that are not within visible sight of the user. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not be deterred from incorporating the teachings of Worrell into the invention of Fanelli et al.. Furthermore, since Applicant does not provide any evidence to support that assertion that feedback information would never be beneficial in the dissector tip, 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 Worrell not teaching away from incorporating the teaching into other devices, Applicant’s argument is rendered moot. Applicant states: The Office Action does not identify any teaching in Fanelli or Worrell that suggests relocating the hinge portion into the clevis, nor does it provide evidence that such a relocation is routine, predictable variation that would have been undertaken for a know reason in the cited art. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)] In other words, it would require only routine skill of the person of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts of an invention, and would not require explicit teachings to do so. Applicant states: At the outset, the Office Action does not identify any reason why such a feature would be a mere design consideration. Nevertheless, locating a hinge portion “with in the clevis” is not a cosmetic rearrangement. On page 6 paragraph 39 of the Specification, the proximal portion of the dissector tip is disclosed to have a hinge portion the defines a through bore that receives the clevis pin. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature, nor does the Specification disclose the feature providing a benefit that would render it more than a cosmetic rearrangement. Therefore, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, and since the Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Fanelli et al. and Worrell to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Fanelli et al. (2020/0237370) in view of reference Worrell (2018/0310982) towards claims 12-16 and 18-19, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 29, 2026 /SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 2 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 3 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 4 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 5 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 6 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 7 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 8 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 9 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 10 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 11 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 12 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 13 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 14 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/934,960 Page 15 Art Unit: 3731
Prosecution Insights