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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 102 rejection of Zerkle have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes one primary argument - that the cited portion of Zerkle, the Beam Blocker as cited in Examiner Illustration 1,
“does not disclose or suggest the deflectable end of each spring arm comprising a beam blocker to block distal advancement of the beam through the firing stroke unless an unfired cartridge is positioned in the first jaw”.
The Examiner does not agree. Simply put, every element of this claim limitation is described in the citation found in the rejection. Specifically, [0081] describes these features.
Broken down, the citation must meet the following limitations–
Deflect end of spring arm – “distal portion (282) of resilient member (280) is biased downwardly”; - biasing equals deflection.
a beam blocker to block distal advancement of the beam through the firing stroke – “resilient member (280) pushes tab (256) of blade assembly (250) downward … to prevent blade assembly (250) from travelling any further distally to lock blade assembly (250) within end effector (212)”. The cited beam blocker does in fact block distal advancement of the beam (“prevent blade from travelling”), by forcing the tab of the blade assembly to engage the engagement feature.
Simply put, the cited art must merely meet the claim limitations as written. The fact that the Zerkle reference accomplishes the goal of blocking distal advancement of the beam in a different fashion than the current application is irrelevant, so long as the claim limitation is met in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “beam blockers” should read “beam blocker” as claimed in the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “beam blockers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as the singular beam blocker previously claimed.
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 1-9, 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zerkle, US 20140239041.
Regarding claim 1, Zerkle discloses: A surgical end effector (Fig. 12, end effector 212), comprising:
a first jaw (Fig. 12, lower jaw 216) extending along a longitudinal axis;
a second jaw (Fig. 12, anvil 218) opposing the first jaw;
a beam (Fig. 13, firing beam 223) movable distally through the first jaw and the second jaw during a firing stroke; and
a spring (Fig. 13, resilient member 280) comprising a pair of spring arms (see Examiner Illustration 1) positioned side-by-side on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis, each spring arm of the pair of spring arms comprising a first end (Fig. 20, proximal portion 285) and a deflectable end (Fig. 20, distal portion 282) longitudinally offset from the first end, the deflectable end comprising a beam blocker, the beam blocker (see Examiner Illustration 1) extending laterally inward toward the longitudinal axis to block distal advancement of the beam through the firing stroke unless an unfired cartridge is positioned in the first jaw ([0081] “However, in the present example, a staple cartridge (237) was not properly loaded in end effector (212). Accordingly, distal tip (254) and distal wall (251) are not engaged with a sled (290). When firing trigger (28) is actuated to drive firing beam (223) and blade assembly (250) distally without a properly loaded staple cartridge (237), blade assembly (250) falls downwardly within end effector (212) to engage engagement features (272, 274) of frame member (270) to prevent blade assembly (250) from travelling further distally within lower jaw (216), as shown in FIG. 23B. As blade assembly (250) is pushed distally without a properly loaded staple cartridge (237), tab (256) of lower extension (255) of blade assembly (250) translates distally from opening (283) of resilient member (280). Tab (256) then engages distal portion (282) of resilient member (280). Because distal portion (282) of resilient member (280) is biased downwardly, resilient member (280) pushes tab (256) of blade assembly (250) downward. This causes tab (268) of upper extension (255) of blade assembly (250) to fall downwardly between engagement features (272, 274). Accordingly, wall (264) of tab (268) engages wall (275) of first engagement feature (272) to prevent blade assembly (250) from travelling any further distally to lock blade assembly (250) within end effector (212). It should be understood that the foregoing lockout may also occur when an operator intends to advance firing beam (233) from a proximal position to a distal position when a spent staple cartridge (237) is loaded in end effector. The lockout features thus prevent advancement of firing beam (233) when no staple cartridge (237) is loaded in end effector (212); and when a cartridge (237) that is in end effector (212) has already been fired and firing beam (233) has been retracted back to a proximal position.”), and wherein each spring arm comprises a longest dimension oriented in a longitudinal direction (see Examiner Illustration 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Illustration 1
Regarding claim 2, Zerkle further discloses: spring comprising a fixed portion (Fig. 20, wall 287) held in place relative to the first jaw, wherein the beam blockers are positioned laterally inward with respect to the fixed portion (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 3, Zerkle further discloses: the unfired cartridge (Fig. 13, staple cartridge (237)) positioned in the first jaw, the unfired cartridge comprising a sled (Fig. 13, wedge sled 290) positioned to deflect the spring arms out of a blocking position([0081]).
Regarding claim 4, Zerkle further discloses: unfired cartridge further comprises a plurality of removable staples ([0069], “Although staples, similar to staples (47), have been omitted from FIG. 13 for clarity, it should be understood that staples (47) would be positioned directly above staple drivers (243)”).
Regarding claim 5, Zerkle further discloses: the spring is symmetrical about the longitudinal axis (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 6, Zerkle further discloses: the beam blockers are symmetrical about the longitudinal axis such that a firing force generated by the beam is restrained in a balanced and symmetrical manner axis (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 7, Zerkle further discloses: the spring comprises a U-shaped spring axis (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 8, Zerkle further discloses: the spring comprises a unitary body comprising the pair of spring arms (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 9, Zerkle further discloses: the beam blocker of each spring arm is positioned along a distal end of the spring arm axis (see Examiner Illustration 1) and wherein a portion of the beam is movable longitudinally between the beam blockers when the unfired cartridge is positioned in the first jaw ([0033] “FIG. 25A depicts a side cross sectional view of the end effector of FIG. 13 in the initial position with a loaded cartridge;” – as can be seen in the drawing, 256 is within the spring arms of the beam blockers .
Regarding claim 11, Zerkle further discloses: the second jaw is rotatable relative to the first jaw ([0079], “anvil (218) may be pivoted away from lower jaw (216) to the open end effector (212)”).
Regarding claim 12, Zerkle further discloses: the spring is fixed to the first jaw (see Figs. 23A-25F).
Regarding claim 13, Zerkle discloses: A surgical stapling device, comprising:
an end effector (Fig. 12, end effector 212) extending along a longitudinal axis;
a staple cartridge (Fig. 13, staple cartridge 237) positioned in the end effector, the staple cartridge comprising a staple firing sled (Fig. 13, wedge sled 290) movable between an unfired position and fired positions;
a beam (Fig. 13, firing beam 223) movable distally through the end effector during a staple firing stroke to move the staple firing sled from the unfired position; and
a spring (Fig. 13, resilient member 280) comprising a pair of deflectable spring arms (see Examiner Illustration 1) positioned side-by-side on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis, each deflectable spring arm of the pair of deflectable spring arms comprising a first end (see Examiner Illustration 1) a beam blocker (see Examiner Illustration 1) longitudinally offset from the first end, each beam blocker extending laterally inward toward the longitudinal axis to block distal advancement of the beam unless the staple firing sled is in the unfired position ([0081]), wherein each deflectable sprinq arm comprises a longest dimension oriented in a longitudinal direction (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 14, Zerkle further discloses: each beam blocker comprises an inward-most surface aligned with a portion of the beam unless the staple firing sled is in the unfired position (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 15, Zerkle further discloses: wherein the first end of each sprinq arm is fixed (Fig. 20, wall 287) held in place relative to the first jaw, wherein the beam blocker of each spring arm is deflectable with respect to the first end (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 16, Zerkle further discloses: the spring is symmetrical about the longitudinal axis (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 17, Zerkle further discloses: the beam blockers are symmetrical about the longitudinal axis such that a firing force generated by the beam is restrained in a balanced and symmetrical manner (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 18, Zerkle further discloses: the staple cartridge further comprising a plurality of removable staples ([0069]).
Regarding claim 19, Zerkle discloses: A surgical end effector (Fig. 12, end effector 212), comprising:
a first jaw (Fig. 12, lower jaw 216) extending along a longitudinal axis;
a second jaw (Fig. 12, anvil 218) opposing the first jaw;
a beam (Fig. 13, firing beam 223) movable distally through the first jaw and the second jaw during a firing stroke; and
a spring (Fig. 13, resilient member 280) comprising a pair of spring arms (see Examiner Illustration 1) positioned side-by-side on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis, each spring arm of the pair of spring arms comprising a first end (Fig. 20, proximal portion 285) and a deflectable end (Fig. 20, distal portion 282) longitudinally offset from the first end, comprising a lateral extension and a blocking surface (see Examiner Illustration 1), the blocking surface aligned with a portion of the beam unless an unfired staple cartridge is positioned in the first jaw ([0081]) . and wherein each spring arm comprises a longest dimension oriented in a longitudinal direction (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 20, Zerkle further discloses: the unfired staple cartridge positioned in the first jaw, the unfired staple cartridge comprising a plurality of removable staples ([0069]) and a sled (Fig. 13, wedge sled 290) positioned to deflect the blocking surfaces out alignment with the portion of the beam ([0081]).
Regarding claim 21-26, the subject matter of these newly added claims is previously claimed and rejected in claims 1-20. These citations are incorporated by reference.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zerkle in view of Bittner, 5,878,938.
Regarding claim 10, Zerkle discloses the device of claim 1.
Zerkle does not disclose a leaf spring.
Bittner teaches: a leaf spring (Abstract, “a leaf spring”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a leaf spring as taught by Bittner in the device of Zerkle, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The Examiner notes that while Ortiz does not state the type of spring used in the current application, it is noted that Ortiz does in fact discuss the use of a leaf spring in this application, ([0006], “A U.S. Pat. No. 5,878,938 to Bittner et al. discloses a locking mechanism, or lockout, that uses a leaf spring to automatically lift a knife of the cartridge after a firing operation, thus locking the instrument so that subsequent firing operations are prevented.”). A such, the Ortiz application anticipates the use of a leaf spring in the lockout mechanism.
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 DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731