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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The wrong Terminal Disclaimer form was used for the TD filed 03/18/2026. Applicant must use PTO/AIA /26.
Forms PTO/AIA /25 and PTO/AIA /26 may be used when filing a terminal disclaimer in an application where the application in which the terminal disclaimer is submitted was filed on or after September 16, 2012. Forms PTO/SB/25 and PTO/SB/26 may be used when filing a terminal disclaimer in an application where the application in which the terminal disclaimer is submitted was filed before September 16, 2012. Forms PTO/SB/25a and PTO/SB/26a may be used when filing a terminal disclaimer in a patent.
Also, parts of form are unclear and not legible. Please resubmit TD, and no fee is due.
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.
Claims 6-8 and 17-20 are 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 6, “the second engagement member” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 is rejected because it depends from rejected claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, “the engagement member” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, “the engagement member” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 18-20, claims 18-20 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contini et al (US 2016/0310134), hereinafter Contini, in view of Heinrich et al (US 2005/0131390), hereinafter Heinrich.
Regarding claim 1, Contini discloses a surgical fastener applier (Fig. 1, item 100) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, item 10) containing a compartment (Fig. 3, item 10C)therein;
an elongated member (Fig. 1, item 200) extending distally from the housing;
a jaw assembly (Fig. 1, item 400) including a first jaw (Fig. 53, item 408) and a second jaw (Fig. 53, item 406) at a distal portion of the elongated member (Fig. 53), at least the first jaw movable with respect to the second jaw (Para. 0371) to clamp tissue (Para. 0371) between the first and second jaws (Para. 0371);
a firing mechanism (Fig. 25, item 248) (Fig. 19, item 64A) positioned within the housing (Fig. 19, Fig. 25), the firing mechanism having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 25, firing mechanism 248 has a longitudinal axis) and movable between a first position (Para. 0317) and a second position (Para. 0317), wherein in the second position, the firing mechanism effects firing of fasteners (Para. 0317) into the tissue (Para. 0317) clamped between the first and second jaws (Para. 0317);
a cover (Fig. 6, item 10A) on the housing openable to access the compartment (Para. 0280) within the housing (Para. 0280); and
a power pack (Fig. 3, item 101) removably loadable into the compartment (Para. 0327), the power pack having a motor (Fig. 13, item 152, 154, 156) and a transversely extending engagement member (Fig. 16, items 152a, 154a, 156a, engagement member 152a, 154a, 156a extends in a transverse direction) removably engageable with the firing mechanism (Para. 0327) within the compartment (Para. 0327) when the power pack is loaded into the compartment (Para. 0327) to effect movement of the firing mechanism (Para. 0317) from the first position to the second position (Para. 0317).
Contini does not expressly disclose wherein motor actuation is performed via remote robotic control.
However, Heinrich teaches a surgical fastener applier (Heinrich, Fig. 7, item 600, 620, 614) wherein motor actuation is performed via remote robotic control (Heinrich, Fig. 7, item 600, 612) (Heinrich, Para. 0132).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Contini and Heinrich to modify the surgical fastener applier of Contini to include the remote robotic control of Heinrich. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to provide a system which can deliver and control energy for improved user interfaces and better system integration (Heinrich, Para. 0135).
Regarding claim 2, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, wherein the housing or the cover includes a first seal Para. 0280, housing 10 and cover 10a receive power pack to form a sterile barrier around power pack) to seal about the cover in a closed position of the cover (Para. 0280) to protect the power pack positioned within the housing (Para. 0280).
Regarding claim 3, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, further comprising a second seal (Fig. 3, item 60) to block passage of body fluids (Para. 0301) from the elongated member into the compartment (Para. 0301).
Regarding claim 4, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, wherein the cover is hingedly (Para. 0280) connected to the housing (Para. 0280).
Regarding claim 5, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, wherein the power pack has a housing (Fig. 5, item 101) and one of the housing of the power pack or the compartment has at least one external rib (Fig. 5, handle of 101 is a rib) and the other of the housing of the power pack or the compartment has at least one groove (Fig. 5, compartment 10c is a groove to guide power pack into housing) to receive the rib to guide the power pack within the compartment (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, wherein the power pack includes a second transversely extending engagement member (Fig. 16, items 152a, 154a, 156a, engagement member 152a, 154a, 156a extends in a transverse direction), the second engagement member removably engageable (Para. 0343) with an articulating mechanism (Fig. 26, item 258) in the housing of the surgical fastener applier to effect articulation (Para. 0343) of the first and second jaws from a linear position (Para. 0343) to a position angled with respect to a longitudinal axis (Para. 0343) of the elongated member (Para. 0343).
Regarding claim 7, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 6, wherein the power pack includes a second motor (Fig. 12, items 152, 154, 156) and the second motor effects linear movement (Para. 0343) of the articulation mechanism (Para. 0343).
Contini does not expressly disclose wherein motor actuation is performed via remote robotic control.
However, as combined above, Heinrich teaches a surgical fastener applier (Heinrich, Fig. 7, item 600, 620, 614) wherein motor actuation is performed via remote robotic control (Heinrich, Fig. 7, item 600, 612) (Heinrich, Para. 0132).
Regarding claim 8, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, wherein the firing mechanism includes a firing rod (Fig. 16, item 428), and the engagement member includes a yoke (Fig. 16, item 148) engageable with the firing rod (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 12, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, wherein the firing mechanism fires a plurality of rows (Para. 0374, 0389) of staples into contact with an anvil (Para. 0374, 0389) carried by one of the jaws (Para. 0374, 0389).
Regarding claim 13, Contini discloses a surgical fastener applier (Fig. 1, item 100) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, item 10) containing a compartment (Fig. 3, item 10C)therein;
an elongated member (Fig. 1, item 200) extending distally from the housing;
a jaw assembly (Fig. 1, item 400) including a first jaw (Fig. 53, item 408) and a second jaw (Fig. 53, item 406) at a distal portion of the elongated member (Fig. 53), at least the first jaw movable with respect to the second jaw (Para. 0371);
a jaw clamping mechanism (Fig. 25, item 248) (Fig. 19, item 64A) movable between a first position and second position (Para. 0340) to move at least the first jaw toward the second jaw to clamp tissue between the first and second jaws (Para. 0340);
a firing mechanism (Fig. 25, item 248) (Fig. 19, item 64A) having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 25, firing mechanism 248 has a longitudinal axis) and movable between a first position and a second position (Para. 0317) to fire fasteners into the tissue clamped between the first and second jaws (Para. 0317);
an articulation mechanism (Fig. 25, item 258) (Fig. 19, item 64B) movable between a first position and a second position (Para. 0336) to articulate the jaw assembly from a linear position to a second position angled with respect to a longitudinal axis of the elongated member (Para. 0336) (Para. 0317);
a cover (Fig. 6, item 10A) on the housing movable from a closed position to an open position to access the compartment (Para. 0280); and
a power pack (Fig. 3, item 101) loadable into the compartment, the power pack having a motor (Fig. 13, item 152, 154, 156) and a transversely extending engagement member (Fig. 19, item 154A) (Fig. 16, items 152a, 154a, 156a, engagement member 152a, 154a, 156a extends in a transverse direction) engageable with the articulation mechanism within the housing to effect movement of the articulation mechanism from the first position to the second position (Para. 0327).
Contini does not expressly disclose wherein motor actuation and jaw clamping are performed via remote robotic control.
However, Heinrich teaches a surgical fastener applier (Heinrich, Fig. 7, item 600, 620, 614) wherein actuation is performed via remote robotic control (Heinrich, Fig. 7, item 600, 612) (Heinrich, Para. 0132).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Contini and Heinrich to modify the surgical fastener applier of Contini to include the remote robotic control of Heinrich. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to provide a system which can deliver and control energy for improved user interfaces and better system integration (Heinrich, Para. 0135).
Regarding claim 14, Contini discloses the surgical fastener applier of claim 13, further comprising a handle (Fig. 2, item 14a, 14b) (Fig. 2, item 30) manually movable to move the jaw clamping mechanism to clamp tissue between the first and second jaws (Para. 0320, manually moving switch 30 on handle 14a causes jaw clamping mechanism to close first and second jaws).
Regarding claim 17, Contini discloses a method for powering a surgical stapler, the method comprising:
providing a surgical stapler (Fig. 1, item 100) having a housing (Fig. 1, item 10) containing a compartment (Fig. 3, item 10C) and a cover (Fig. 6, item 10A) movable between a closed position (Para. 0280) and an open position (Para. 0280);
loading a power pack (Fig. 3, item 101) having a transversely extending engagement member (Fig. 16, items 152a, 154a, 156a, engagement member 152a, 154a, 156a extends in a transverse direction) (Fig. 19, item 154A) into the compartment (Para. 0336) when the cover is in the open position (Para. 0336), wherein the step of loading the power pack (Para. 0317) releasably engages the engagement member (Para. 0317) with a firing mechanism (Fig. 25, item 248) (Fig. 19, item 64A) (Para. 0317) in the housing (Para. 0327);
closing the cover (Fig. 6, item 10A) (Para. 0336) to seal the compartment from an external environment (Para. 0280) (Para. 0336);
actuating the motor (Fig. 13, item 152, 154, 156) to move a drive mechanism (Para. 0336) linearly to thereby move the firing mechanism (Para. 0336) linearly to advance a plurality of staples (Para. 0336) into body tissue (Para. 0336-0339); and
after advancing the staples, opening the cover (Fig. 6, item 10A) and removing the power pack (Para. 0297) from the compartment (Para. 0297) to release the engagement of the engagement member (Para. 0297) from the firing mechanism (Para. 0297).
Contini does not expressly disclose actuating a motor via remote robotic control.
However, Heinrich teaches a surgical fastener applier (Heinrich, Fig. 7, item 600, 620, 614) actuating a motor via remote robotic control (Heinrich, Fig. 7, item 600, 612) (Heinrich, Para. 0132).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Contini and Heinrich to modify the method of Contini to include the remote robotic control of Heinrich. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to provide a system which can deliver and control energy for improved user interfaces and better system integration (Heinrich, Para. 0135).
Regarding claim 18, Contini discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the surgical stapler has first and second jaws (Fig. 1, item 400) (Fig. 53, item 408) (Fig. 53, item 406) movable from an open position (Para. 0371) to a closed by position (Para. 0371) by manual movement of a handle (Para. 0320, manually moving switch 30 on handle 14a causes jaw clamping mechanism to close first and second jaws).
Regarding claim 19, Contini discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the step of loading the power pack into the compartment releasably engages a second drive mechanism (Fig. 16, items 152a, 154a, 156a) of the power pack with an articulation mechanism (Fig. 26, item 258) in the housing (Para. 0343).
Regarding claim 20, Contini discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the firing mechanism advances through tissue (Para. 0374, 0389) and into contact with an anvil (Para. 0374, 0389) a plurality of rows of staples (Para. 0374, 0389) in a direction transverse to the direction of movement (Para. 0374, 0389) of the firing mechanism (Para. 0374, 0389) into contact with an anvil.
Claims 9-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contini in view of Heinrich further in view of Morgan et al (US 2012/0292367), hereinafter Morgan.
Regarding claim 9, Contini in view of Heinrich is silent about the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, wherein the power pack includes a gear mechanism powered by the motor, wherein rotation of a motor shaft of the motor effects rotation of the gear mechanism which effects linear movement of the firing mechanism of the surgical fastener applier.
However, Morgan teaches a power pack including a gear mechanism (Morgan, Fig. 95, items 3334, 3335, 3337, 3338) powered by the motor (Morgan Fig. 95), wherein rotation of a motor shaft (Morgan, Para. 0361) of the motor effects rotation of the gear mechanism (Morgan, Para. 0361) which effects linear movement (Morgan, Para. 0361) of the firing mechanism of the surgical fastener applier (Morgan, Para. 0361).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Contini, Heinrich, and Morgan to modify the power pack of Contini to include the gear mechanism of Morgan in view of Heinrich. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to increase the efficiency of the power pack.
Regarding claim 10, Contini in view of Heinrich is silent about the surgical fastener applier of claim 1, wherein the power pack includes a drive belt powered by the motor, wherein rotation of a motor shaft of the motor effects rotation of a first disc which moves the drive belt to effect linear movement of the firing mechanism of the surgical fastener applier.
However, Morgan teaches a power pack including a drive belt (Morgan, Fig. 124, item 3934) powered by the motor (Morgan, Para. 0397), wherein rotation of a motor shaft (Morgan, Para. 0397) of the motor (Morgan, Para. 0397) effects rotation of a first disc (Morgan, Fig. 124, item 3960) which moves the drive belt (Morgan, Para. 0397) to effect linear movement of the firing mechanism (Morgan, Para. 0397) of the surgical fastener applier (Morgan, Para. 0397).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Contini, Heinrich, and Morgan to modify the power pack of Contini in view of Heinrich to include the drive belt of Morgan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to increase the efficiency of the power pack.
Regarding claim 11, Contini in view of Heinrich is silent about the surgical fastener of claim 10, wherein the power pack includes a second disk, the second disk having a first diameter greater than a second diameter of the first disk the second disk movable by the drive belt.
However, as combined above, Morgan teaches a power pack including a second disk (Morgan, Fig. 124, item 3962), the second disk having a first diameter (Morgan, Fig. 124) greater than a second diameter (Morgan, Fig. 124) of the first disk (Morgan, Fig. 124, diameter of second disk 3962 is greater than diameter of first disk 3960) the second disk movable by the drive belt.
Regarding claim 15, Contini in view of Heinrich is silent about the surgical fastener of claim 13, wherein the power pack includes a gear mechanism for moving a drive mechanism linearly to move the articulation mechanism linearly to articulate the jaw assembly.
However, Morgan teaches a power pack including a gear mechanism (Morgan, Fig. 95, items 3334, 3335, 3337, 3338) powered by the motor (Morgan Fig. 95), wherein rotation of a motor shaft (Morgan, Para. 0361) of the motor effects rotation of the gear mechanism (Morgan, Para. 0361) which effects linear movement (Morgan, Para. 0361) of the firing mechanism of the surgical fastener applier (Morgan, Para. 0361).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Contini, Heinrich and Morgan to modify the power pack of Contini in view of Heinrich to include the gear mechanism of Morgan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to increase the efficiency of the power pack.
Regarding claim 16, Contini in view of Heinrich is silent about the surgical fastener of claim 13, wherein the power pack includes a drive belt for moving a drive mechanism linearly to move the articulation mechanism linearly to articulate the jaw assembly.
However, Morgan teaches a power pack including a drive belt (Morgan, Fig. 124, item 3934) for moving a drive mechanism (Morgan, Para. 0397) linearly to move the articulation mechanism (Morgan, Para. 0397) linearly to articulate the jaw assembly (Morgan, Para. 0397).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Contini, Heinrich and Morgan to modify the power pack of Contini in view of Heinrich to include the drive belt of Morgan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to increase the efficiency of the power pack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731