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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 01/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 1-3, 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubanks (EP 3135235 B1), herein after “Eubanks” in view of Shelton (WO 2017123842), herein after “Shelton”.
Regarding claim 1, Eubanks teaches “A high frequency connection for a surgical instrument (Fig. 6-8B, 200) the high-frequency connection comprising a connection element (210) having a blocking section (220) and an orientation section (220, where p.[0020] and Fig. 6, 8A-B show ring part 220 serves as both to lock on the shaft connector 54 and for rotationally fixing the HF connector in two spatial directions), wherein the orientation section defines a connection axis of the high-frequency connection (Fig. 6) and the blocking section is configured for connecting to a rotary wheel assembly of the surgical instrument at a predetermined angle of a rotary wheel axis relative to the connection axis (90 degree angle in Fig. 6) and a high-frequency contact assembly (Fig. 6-7, contact tip of connector body 210 which penetrates ring part 220) connected to the connection element (Fig. 6-7, contact tip of connector body 210 connecting to ring part 220) and provided in the region of the blocking section and configured for contacting a high-frequency tool of the surgical instrument within an instrument base, and wherein the high-frequency connection is configured as a pre-assemable insert module for modular installation in and removal from the instrument base of the surgical instrument (p.[0020], the HF connector can be modularly installable and removeable, and therefore the instrument base has no further limiting effect on the claim language since the HF connector could be installed and removed from the instrument base of a different design)”.
Eubanks does not explicitly teach "configured for contacting a high-frequency tool of the surgical instrument within a surgical base and wherein the high-frequency connection is configured as a pre-assemblable insert module for a modular installation in and removal from the instrument base of the surgical instrument", however, Shelton does in an analogous electrosurgical device. Shelton teaches “configured for contacting a high-frequency tool of the surgical instrument within a surgical base and wherein the high-frequency connection is configured as a pre-assemblable insert module for a modular installation in and removal from the instrument base of the surgical instrument (Fig. 2-10B, p.[009-0011]”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Shelton in Eubanks. As taught in p.[0020] Eubanks contemplates the use of removable connection between the surgical instrument and the connection and produces predictable results of connecting the surgical device to the contact assembly as needed for surgical procedures.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Eubanks teaches “wherein the connection element has in the region of the blocking section a through-opening which is configured to guide a transmission element (Fig. 6-7)”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 2 are taught as described above. Eubanks teaches “wherein the high-frequency contact assembly has at least one high-frequency contact element arranged in the region of the through-opening (Fig. 6-7)”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Eubanks teaches “wherein the connection element has a plug section which can be connected in the direction of the connection axis and to which the contact assembly is conductively coupled (Figs. 6-7, 210)”.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 11 are taught as described above. Eubanks teaches “wherein the plug section has a solid steel core in the interior (p.[0016])”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 14 are taught as described above. Eubanks teaches "wherein the plug section has a solid steel core in the interior (p.[0016])" but does not teach "in the form of a turned part made of solid material". Note that MPEP 2113 states that "If a product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process".
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Eubanks and Shelton in view of JP 2006-506174A, herein after “Cited Document 1”.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 11 are taught as described above. Eubanks teaches "wherein the plug section has at least one plug pole (Fig. 6-7, with the pole being the cylinder extending to/around 210)", but neither Eubanks nor Shelton teach explicitly "a high-frequency contact element which is made from a bent sheet metal part". However, Cited Document 1 does in an analogous electrosurgical plug device. Cited Document 1 teaches the use of “a high frequency contact element which is made from bent sheet metal part (p.[0006, 0010, 0012, 0018, 0023, 0026, 0039-0040, 0046 ], Fig. 6, rolled sheet metal connector plug 18).” Cited Document 1 does not explicitly state that the sheet metal is bent and instead describes that the sheet metal is rolled.
Note that MPEP 2113 states that "If a product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bent sheet metal part as a high-frequency contact element as an obvious design choice to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plug section of Eubanks/Shelton with the plug section of Cited Document 1. The motivation to combine is to provide a suitable adapter for a power supply to an instrument that a surgeon intends to use (p.[0007]) of Cited Document 1).
Claims 4-8, 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubanks and Shelton in view of Hoeger (DE 202007000428), herein after “Hoeger”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the high-frequency contact assembly has at least one high-frequency contact element for contacting an accessory shaft of the high-frequency tool", but Hoeger does in an analogous connection device. Hoeger teaches in p.[0035] which teaches a bipolar use of a high-frequency tool with a high-frequency connector 40. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Hoeger in Eubanks. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the contact element of Eubanks with the contact element of Hoeger. The motivation being providing a suitable electrosurgical connecting member for an electrosurgical device to provide the system with power in a cost effective and simpler means (Hoeger p.[0003, 0004]). Also, the predictable results KSR is replacing one known element (contact element) of Eubanks with another known element (contact element) of Hoeger for the predictable results of connecting electrosurgical instruments.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 4 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the connection element has, in the region of the blocking section, a protective geometry for protecting the high-frequency contact assembly, which protective geometry is configured to protect the at least one high-frequency contact element from damage when inserting the high-frequency tool into the instrument base", but Hoeger does in an analogous device. Hoeger teaches "wherein the connection element has, in the region of the blocking section, a protective geometry for protecting the high-frequency contact assembly, which protective geometry is configured to protect the at least one high-frequency contact element from damage when inserting the high-frequency tool into the instrument base (Fig. 2-3, 56)".
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection element of Eubanks/Shelton with the connection element of Hoeger. The motivation being providing a suitable electrosurgical connecting member for an electrosurgical device to provide the system with power in a cost effective and simpler means (Hoeger p.[0003, 0004]). Also, the predictable results KSR is replacing one known element (connection elements) of Eubanks with another known element (connection element) of Hoeger for the predictable results of protecting the device during use.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the blocking section has a blocking geometry which is configured for rotationally secure engagement with a coupling section of the rotary wheel assembly" but Hoeger does in an analogous connecting device. Hoeger teaches "wherein the blocking section has a blocking geometry which is configured for rotationally secure engagement with a coupling section of the rotary wheel assembly (Fig. 4, 64)".
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blocking section of Eubanks with the blocking section of Hoeger. The motivation being providing a suitable electrosurgical blocking member for an electrosurgical device to provide the system with power in a cost effective and simpler means (Hoeger p.[0003, 0004]). Also, the predictable results KSR is replacing one known element (blocking section) of Eubanks with another known element (blocking section) of Hoeger for the predictable results of limiting movement of the rotation wheel.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 5 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the blocking section has a blocking geometry which is configured for rotationally secure engagement with a coupling section of the rotary wheel assembly and the protective geometry and the blocking geometry are integrally formed with one another", but Hoeger does in an analogous connection device. Hoeger teaches "wherein the blocking section has a blocking geometry which is configured for rotationally secure engagement with a coupling section of the rotary wheel assembly and the protective geometry and the blocking geometry are integrally formed with one another (p.[0055], "single piece")".
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blocking section of Eubanks with the blocking section of Hoeger. The motivation being providing a suitable electrosurgical blocking member for an electrosurgical device to provide the system with power in a cost effective and simpler means (Hoeger p.[0003, 0004]). Also, the predictable results KSR is replacing one known element (blocking section) of Eubanks with another known element (blocking section) of Hoeger for the predictable results of limiting movement of the rotation wheel.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 5 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the blocking section has a blocking geometry which is configured for rotationally secured engagement with a coupling section of the rotary wheel assembly and the blocking geometry and/or the protective geometry has at least one orientation projection wherein the at least one orientation projection and the high-frequency contact assembly are arranged adjacent to one another". Hoeger teaches "wherein the blocking section has a blocking geometry which is configured for rotationally secured engagement with a coupling section of the rotary wheel assembly and the blocking geometry and/or the protective geometry has at least one orientation projection wherein the at least one orientation projection and the high-frequency contact assembly are arranged adjacent to one another (Fig. 3, projections 56, 46)".
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blocking section of Eubanks with the blocking section of Hoeger. The motivation being providing a suitable electrosurgical blocking member for an electrosurgical device to provide the system with power in a cost effective and simpler means (Hoeger p.[0003, 0004]). Also, the predictable results KSR is replacing one known element (blocking section) of Eubanks with another known element (blocking section) of Hoeger for the predictable results of limiting movement of the rotation wheel.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the rotational orientation of the connection element and the rotary wheel assembly in the instrument base, at least one engagement element at a transition from the blocking section to the orientation section, is arranged to the connection element and is configured to be contacted with a corresponding coupling element of the rotary wheel assembly and/or of the instrument base", but Hoeger does in an analogous connection device. Hoeger teaches "wherein the rotational orientation of the connection element and the rotary wheel assembly in the instrument base, at least one engagement element at a transition from the blocking section to the orientation section, is arranged to the connection element and is configured to be contacted with a corresponding coupling element of the rotary wheel assembly and/or of the instrument base (Fig. 2-3, with u-shaped end of the connector body 48 engaging in rod 16)".
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection element of Eubanks/Shelton with the connection element of Hoeger. The motivation being providing a suitable electrosurgical connecting member for an electrosurgical device to provide the system with power in a cost effective and simpler means (Hoeger p.[0003, 0004]). Also, the predictable results KSR is replacing one known element (connection element) of Eubanks with another known element (connection element) of Hoeger for the predictable results of limiting movement of the rotation wheel.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 11 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the plug section has at least one plug pole and a high-frequency contact element and wherein the high-frequency contact assembly has at least one high-frequency contact element for contacting an accessory shaft of the high-frequency tool and the at least one high-frequency contact element of the contact assembly and the at least one high-frequency contact element of the plug section are made from a common continuous bent sheet metal part", but Hoeger does in an analogous connection device. Hoeger teaches in p.[0035] which teaches a bipolar use of a high-frequency tool with a high-frequency connector 40. Note further that Eubanks does not teach that the high-frequency contact element of the plug section is made from a common continuous bent sheet metal part.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the contact element of Eubanks/Shelton with the contact element of Hoeger. The motivation being to provide a suitable electrosurgical contact element for an electrosurgical device to provide the system with power in a cost effective and simpler means (Hoeger p.[0003, 0004]). Also, the predictable results KSR is replacing one known element (contact element) of Eubanks with another known element (contact element) of Hoeger for the predictable results of connecting a high-frequency device with a high-frequency connection device.
Note that MPEP 2113 states that "If a product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process".
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 5 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the protective geometry has at least one orientation projection arranged adjacent to the high-frequency contact assembly" but Hoeger does in an analogous device. Hoeger teaches "wherein the protective geometry has at least one orientation projection arranged adjacent to the high-frequency contact assembly (Fig. 3, projections 56, 46)". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Hoeger in Eubanks/Shelton. The use of the blocking section of Hoeger produces predictable results of limiting rotational movement.
Claims 9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubanks, Shelton, and Hoeger further in view of Munkelt (EP 2656805 B1), herein after “Munkelt”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 8 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the high-frequency contact assembly has two or more high-frequency contact elements pre-assembled on the blocking section, wherein the orientation projections and the high-frequency contact elements are arranged next to one another" but Munkelt does in an analogous electrosurgical socket assembly for a biomedical device. Munkelt teaches "wherein the high-frequency contact assembly has two or more high-frequency contact elements pre-assembled on the blocking section, wherein the orientation projections and the high-frequency contact elements are arranged next to one another (Fig. 3-4, contact assembly pin 19 of plug 20, orientation projection 24)". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Munkelt in Eubanks/Shelton/Hoeger. The use of the contact assembly and orientation projections allows for electrically connecting the device while keeping the device mechanically engaged and produces predictable results of locking the device together during use.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 17 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the protective geometry comprises a plurality of orientation projections and the high-frequency contact assembly comprises a plurality of high-frequency contact elements pre-assembled on the blocking section, wherein the orientation projections and the high-frequency contact elements are arranged alternately next to one another on the blocking section, such that the contact elements are each arranged in a gap between the orientation projections" but Munkelt does in an analogous electrosurgical socket assembly for a biomedical device. Munkelt teaches "wherein the protective geometry comprises a plurality of orientation projections and the high-frequency contact assembly comprises a plurality of high-frequency contact elements pre-assembled on the blocking section, wherein the orientation projections and the high-frequency contact elements are arranged alternately next to one another on the blocking section, such that the contact elements are each arranged in a gap between the orientation projections (Fig. 3-4, contact assembly pin 19 of plug 20, orientation projection 24)". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Munkelt in Eubanks/Shelton/Hoeger. The use of the contact assembly and orientation projections allows for electrically connecting the device while keeping the device mechanically engaged and produces predictable results of locking the device together during use.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 9 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the orientation projections and the high-frequency contact elements are arranged on the blocking section, such that the contact elements are each arranged in a gap between the orientation projections" but Munkelt does in an analogous electrosurgical socket assembly for a biomedical device. Munkelt teaches "wherein the orientation projections and the high-frequency contact elements are arranged on the blocking section, such that the contact elements are each arranged in a gap between the orientation projections (Fig. 3-4, contact assembly pin 19 of plug 20, orientation projection 24)". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Munkelt in Eubanks/Shelton/Hoeger. The use of the contact assembly and orientation projections allows for electrically connecting the device while keeping the device mechanically engaged and produces predictable results of locking the device together during use.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubanks and Shelton in view of Munkelt.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 12 are taught as described above. Eubanks teaches "wherein the steel core forms a second plug pole" with the top portion of 210 being the second plug pole in Fig. 6/7, but Eubanks/Shelton does not teach " a second high-frequency contact element configured as a bent sheet metal part is integrally bonded, or welded; to the steel core to form a low-resistance connection" however Munkelt does. Munkelt teaches in an analogous connection device that in Fig. 3-4, with multiple contact points 19, but does not teach that the contact elements are formed as a bent sheet metal part. However, note that MPEP 2113 states that "If a product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process". Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the contact element as a bent sheet metal part as one of an obvious design choice with finite predictable options.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubanks and Shelton in view of Bacher (US Patent No. 8,926,608), herein after “Bacher”.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 3 are taught as described above. Eubanks/Shelton does not teach "wherein the through-opening is configured to guide a pull rod as the transmission element, of a high-frequency tool, that can be passed through the rotary wheel assembly and the high-frequency contact assembly has at least one high-frequency contact element arranged in the region of the through-opening, on a side facing away from the blocking section, which contact element is configured to contact the pull rod", but Bacher does in an analogous electrosurgical device. Bacher teaches "wherein the through-opening is configured to guide a pull rod as the transmission element (transmission element 30, can move axially in tubular shaft 12), of a high-frequency tool (bipolar instrument), that can be passed through the rotary wheel assembly and the high-frequency contact assembly has at least one high-frequency contact element arranged in the region of the through-opening (contact element 68, Fig. 5) on a side facing away from the blocking section, which contact element is configured to contact the pull rod (Fig. 5)". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Bacher in Eubanks/Shelton. The use of the transmission element allows for the device to be locked and unlocked and produces predictable results of locking and unlocking the connection of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abigail M Bock whose telephone number is (571)272-8856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (617) 320-2637. 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.
/ABIGAIL BOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
