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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11 & 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wand et al. (US 10,555,770) in view of Zirps et al. (US 2008/0103528).
Claim 1.
Wand et al. teaches:
an instrument base/instrument grip 12
E.G. (col. 10, lines 60)-(col. 12, lines 67); Fig. 1
a receiving device/receptacle 52 arranged at an opening of the instrument base for receiving a mating shaft connection element
E.G. (col 13, line 63)-(col. 15, lines 31); Fig. 6
a shaft connection element 80 configured to connect shaft 14 to the instrument base 12
E.G. (col. 14, line 66)-(col. 16, line 25); Fig. 7
the shaft connection element comprising a hollow body through which a pulling and/or pushing force transmission element extends
E.G. (col. 11, lines 17-24); (col. 12, lines 19)
complementary mating structures including receptacle 52 and projection 88 configured to engage corresponding structures and prevent improper assembly when the structures do not properly correspond
E.G. (col. 14, lines 66)-(col. 15, line 31).
Wand et al. does not explicitly disclose the receiving device and shaft connection element each comprising a first shape-coding dimension and a second shape-coding dimension.
Zirps teaches:
shape coding as an identifying characteristics for surgical components
E.G. [0025]
shape-coded structures and associated dimensional characteristics for distinguishing compatible components
E.G. [0025]-[0031];
providing coded structures to facilitate identification and proper association of components
E.G. [0025]-[0031]
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited first and second shape-coding dimensions encompass dimensional characteristics used to distinguish compatible from incompatible mating components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the mating structures of Wand et al. with the shape-coding characteristics taught by Zirps et al. in order to facilitate identification of compatible components, reduce assembly errors, and prevent attachment of incompatible components. Applying a known coding technique to known mating surgical instrument components represents the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 2.
Wand et al., as modified by Zirps et al., teaches or renders obvious the first shape-coding dimensions being defined by corresponding mating dimensions of the receiving device and shaft connection element.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, selection of an inner diameter and corresponding outer diameter as the claimed coding dimension represents a predictable implementation of the shape-coding characteristics taught by Zirps et al.
Claim 3.
Wand et al., as modified Zirps et al., teaches or renders obvious preventing complete insertion when the first shape-coding dimension of the shaft connection element exceeds the corresponding first shape-coding dimension of the receiving device because incompatible dimensional relationship necessarily prevent mating engagement.
Claim 8.
Wand et al. teaches attachment of surgical instrument components through complementary mating structures.
Zirps et al. teach shape-coded structures used to distinguish compatible components from incompatible components, E.G. ([0025]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide distinct coding dimensions for different classes of accessories in order to prevent improper attachment of incompatible accessory types and improve operational safety and compatibility. KSR.
Claim 9.
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8. The coded dimensional relationships taught by Zirps et al. would have predictably prevented insertion of incompatible accessories into receiving device intended for different accessory types.
Claim 10.
Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 11.
Wand et al. teaches a transmission element extending through the shaft assembly.
Zirps et al. teaches shape-coded structures including openings and dimensional characteristics used to distinguish compatible components, E.G. [0025]-[0031]
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed third shape-coding dimension encompasses dimensional characteristics associated with an opening configured to receive a corresponding component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide corresponding coded dimensions to the opening and mating component to improve compatibility control and precent insertion of incompatible components.
Claim 15.
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 because Wand et al. teaches a surgical instrument including the claimed connection apparatus.
Claim 16.
Wand et al. teaches a pulling and/or pushing force transmission element extending through the shaft assembly, E.G. (col, 11, lines 17-24); (col. 12, lines 1-9), corresponding to the claimed pull rod.
Claim 17.
Claim 17 depends from claim 19 and further recites the first shape-coding dimensions are configured such that a bipolar accessory shaft connection element cannot be insert4ed into a receiving device for currentless or monopolar connection because the outer diameter of the shaft connection element is larger than the inner diameter of the receiving device.
Wand et al., as modified by Zirps et al., teaches or renders obvious this limitation for substantially the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 8 and 9.
Specifically, Zirps et al. teaches shape-coded and dimensionally coded structures used to distinguish compatible components and prevent assembly of incompatible components, E.G. [0025]-[0031].
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, configuring incompatible accessory classes to posses non-corresponding dimensional characteristics, including differing outer and inner diameters, represents a predictable implementation of the disclosed shape-coding arrangement. Such dimensional incompatibility would necessarily prevent insertion of incompatible accessory into an improperly coded receiving device.
Accordingly, claim 17 would have been obvious over Wand et al. in view of Zirps et al.
Claim Objections
The examiner notes that the prior art of record, including Wand et al. and Zirps et al., fails to teach or suggest the additional limitations recited in claims 4-7, 12-14 & 18-20. Accordingly, claims 4-7 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights