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.
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 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31-35, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter et al (US 2020/0222044), hereinafter Baxter, in view of Shelton et al (US 2021/0186495), hereinafter Shelton.
Regarding claim 21, Baxter discloses a surgical tool (Fig. 83, item 8410), comprising:
an end effector (Fig. 84, item 8412) comprising an elongate channel (Fig. 84, end effector 8412 has channel running along axis DD) and an anvil (Fig. 84, item 8420), wherein a lock cavity (Fig. 84, lock cavity is where blocker 8991, 8992 is located in end effector 8412) is defined into the elongate channel;
an shaft (Fig. 83, item 8500) defining a longitudinal axis (Fig. 83, item DD/PD), wherein a yaw axis (Fig. 83) (Para. 0415) and a pitch axis (Fig. 83) (Para. 0415) are oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis;
a joint (Fig. 86, item 8510);
a beam head (Fig. 84, item 8973) movable distally through a closure stroke (Para. 0424-0426) from a proximal position (Para. 0424-0426) to an intermediate position (Para. 0424-0426) to close the end effector (Para. 0424-0426) and movable distally through a firing stroke (Para. 0424-0426) from the intermediate position (Para. 0424-0426) to a distal position (Para. 0424-0426), the beam head comprising:
a first cam (Fig. 84, item 8977) positioned to cammingly engage the elongate channel (Para. 0424-0426); and
a second cam (Fig. 84, item 8977’) positioned to cammingly engage the anvil (Para. 0424-0426); and
a blocker (Fig. 84, item 8991, 8992) movable relative to the beam head and the lock cavity (Fig. 84) (Para. 0427), wherein the blocker is movable between a blocking position (Para. 0427) and an unblocking position (Para. 0427), and wherein the blocker, in the blocking position, is positioned to block (Para. 0427) distal advancement of the beam head (Para. 0427) through the firing stroke (Para. 0427).
Baxter is silent about wherein the end effector is articulatable about the yaw axis and the pitch axis at the joint.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Fig. 1, item 1200) articulable about a yaw axis (Fig. 1, item AA1) (Para. 0594) and a pitch axis (Fig. 1, item AA2) (Para. 0594) at the joint.
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 Baxter and Shelton to modify the surgical tool of Baxter to include the multiple articulation axis of Shelton. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to permit the user to more precisely position the end effector during use (Para. 0594).
Regarding claim 23, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 21, wherein the blocker comprises a spring-loaded blocker (Fig 84, item 8992) (Para. 0427), and wherein the spring-loaded blocker is biased (Para. 0427) toward the blocking position by a spring (Para. 0427).
Regarding claim 24, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 23, further comprising an unfired staple cartridge (Fig. 84, item 8430) removably positioned in the elongate channel (Para. 0427), wherein the unfired staple cartridge is structured to move the blocker (Para. 0427) from the blocking position (Para. 0427) to the unblocking position (Para. 0427).
Regarding claim 25, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 24, wherein the unfired staple cartridge comprises a plurality of staples (Fig. 84, item 8990) and a sled (Fig. 84, item 8985) comprising a ramp (Fig. 84, item 8988) movable to eject the plurality of staples (Para. 0424-0426), wherein the sled is structured to move the blocker (Para. 0424-0426) from the blocking position to the unblocking position (Para. 0424-0427).
Regarding claim 27, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 21, wherein the beam head further comprises a distal-facing abutment surface (Fig. 84, item 8977) structured to receive a blocking force (Para. 0427) via the blocker to prevent distal advancement (Para. 0427) of the beam head unless an unfired staple cartridge (Para. 0424-0427) is positioned in the end effector (Para. 0424-0427).
Regarding claim 28, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 21, further comprising a plurality of pushers (Fig. 84, item 8971, 8972) to push the beam head (Para. 0428) distally through the closure stroke (Para. 0428) and the firing stroke (Para. 0428), wherein each pusher extends through the joint to the beam head (Para. 0428).
Regarding claim 29, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 28, wherein the plurality of pushers comprises an upper pusher (Fig. 84, item 8971) and a lower pusher (Fig. 84, item 8972).
Regarding claim 31, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 29, wherein the upper pusher and the lower pusher are vertically spaced apart within the shaft (Fig. 84, upper pusher 8971 and lower pusher 8972 are spaced apart when they connect with the upper cam 8977’ and lower cam 8977, respectively).
Regarding claim 32, Baxter discloses a surgical tool (Fig. 83, item 8410), comprising:
a shaft (Fig. 83, item 8500);
an end effector (Fig. 84, item 8412) coupled to the shaft at an articulation joint (Fig. 83) (Para. 0415), wherein the end effector is rotatable (Fig. 83) (Para. 0415) relative to the shaft at the articulation joint (Fig. 83) (Para. 0415), wherein the end effector further comprises a channel (Fig. 84, end effector 8412 has channel running along axis DD) to support a staple cartridge (Fig. 84, item 8430), and wherein a lock cavity (Fig. 84, lock cavity is where blocker 8991, 8992 is located in end effector 8412) is defined in the channel (Para. 0424-0426);
a beam head (Fig. 84, item 8973) comprising an upper cam (Fig. 84, item 8977’) and a lower cam (Fig. 84, item 8977), wherein the beam head is movable distally through a closure stroke (Para. 0424-0426) from a proximal position (Para. 0424-0426) to an intermediate position (Para. 0424-0426) to close the end effector (Para. 0424-0426) and movable distally through a firing stroke (Para. 0424-0426) from the intermediate position (Para. 0424-0426) to a distal position (Para. 0424-0426); and
a spring-loaded blocker (Fig. 84, item 8991, 8992) movable relative to the beam head and the lock cavity (Para. 0427), wherein the spring-loaded blocker is biased toward a blocking position (Para. 0427), and wherein the spring-loaded blocker, in the blocking position, (Para. 0427) is positioned to block distal advancement (Para. 0427) of the beam head through the firing stroke (Para. 0427).
Baxter is silent about the end effector rotatable relative to the shaft at the articulation joint in a plurality of articulation planes.
However, Shelton teaches an end effector (Fig. 1, item 1200) rotatable relative to the shaft (Fig. 1, item 1110) at the articulation joint in a plurality of articulation planes (Fig. 1, item AA1, AA2) (Para. 0594).
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 Baxter and Shelton to modify the surgical tool of Baxter to include the multiple articulation axis of Shelton. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to permit the user to more precisely position the end effector during use (Para. 0594).
Regarding claim 33, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 32, further comprising an unfired staple cartridge (Fig. 84, item 8430) removably positioned in the end effector (Para. 0427), wherein the unfired staple cartridge is structured to move the blocker (Para. 0427) from the blocking position (Para. 0427) to the unblocking position (Para. 0427).
Regarding claim 34, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 33, wherein the unfired staple cartridge comprises a plurality of staples (Fig. 84, item 8990) and a sled (Fig. 84, item 8985) comprising a ramp (Fig. 84, item 8988) movable to eject the plurality of staples (Para. 0424-0426), wherein the sled is structured to overcome a spring force (Para. 0424-0426) to shift the spring-loaded blocker (Para. 0424-0426) from the blocking position to an unblocking position (Para. 0424-0426).
Regarding claim 35, Baxter discloses t he surgical tool of claim 34, wherein the spring-loaded blocker is compressed into the lock cavity (Para. 0427) by the sled of the unfired staple cartridge (Para. 0427).
Regarding claim 37, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 33, wherein the beam head further comprises a distal-facing abutment surface (Fig. 84, item 8977) structured to receive a blocking force (Para. 0427) via the spring-loaded blocker to prevent distal advancement (Para. 0427) of the beam head unless an unfired staple cartridge (Para. 0424-0427) is positioned in the end effector (Para. 0424-0427).
Regarding claim 38, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 33, wherein the spring-loaded blocker is resiliently supported in the channel (Para. 0427).
Regarding claim 39, Baxter discloses the surgical tool of claim 33, further comprising a plurality of pushers (Fig. 84, item 8971, 8972) to push the beam head distally through the closure stroke and the firing stroke (Para. 0428), wherein each pusher extends through the articulation joint (Para. 0428) to the beam head (Para. 0428), wherein the plurality of pushers comprises an upper pusher (Fig. 84, item 8971) and a lower pusher (Fig. 84, item 8972), and wherein the upper pusher and the lower pusher are vertically spaced apart within the shaft (Fig. 84, upper pusher 8971 and lower pusher 8972 are spaced apart when they connect with the upper cam 8977’ and lower cam 8977, respectively).
Claims 22, 26, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter in view of Shelton further in view of Shelton et al (US 2018/0168651), hereinafter Shelton ‘651.
Regarding claim 22, Baxter in view of Shelton is silent about the surgical tool of claim 21, wherein the blocker, in the blocking position, is positioned to block distal advancement of the beam head past the intermediate position such that the beam head is movable through the closure stroke to the intermediate position to close the end effector regardless of the blocker being in the blocking position.
However, Shelton ‘651 teaches a blocker (Shelton ‘651, Fig. 29, item 2182), in the blocking position (Shelton ‘651, Fig. 28), is positioned to block distal advancement (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0448) of the beam head (Shelton ‘651, Fig. 29, item 1763) past the intermediate position (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0448) such that the beam head is movable through the closure stroke (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0448) to the intermediate position (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0448) to close the end effector regardless of the blocker being in the blocking position (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0448, after staple cartridge is inserted, closure stroke can be completed by beam head, regardless of blocker position).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baxter, Shelton, and Shelton ‘651 to modify the surgical tool of Baxter in view of Shelton to include the configuration of Shelton ‘651. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to prevent the tool from misfiring before the tool is properly positioned (Shelton ‘651, Para. 0443).
Regarding claim 26, Baxter in view of Shelton is silent about the surgical tool of claim 21, wherein the intermediate position of the beam head over the lock cavity is maintained regardless of a presence or an absence of an unfired staple cartridge in the elongate channel.
However, Shelton ‘651 teaches the intermedial position of the beam head (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0447-0049) over the lock cavity (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0447-0049) is maintained regardless of a presence or an absence (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0447-0049) of an unfired staple cartridge in the elongate channel (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0447-0049).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baxter, Shelton, and Shelton ‘651 to modify the surgical tool of Baxter in view of Shelton to include the configuration of Shelton ‘651. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to prevent the tool from misfiring before the tool is properly positioned (Shelton ‘651, Para. 0443).
Regarding claim 36, Baxter in view of Shelton is silent about the surgical tool of claim 33, wherein the intermediate position of the beam head over the lock cavity is maintained regardless of a presence or an absence of an unfired staple cartridge in the end effector.
However, Shelton ‘651 teaches the intermediate position of the beam head over the lock cavity (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0447-0049) is maintained regardless of a presence or an absence (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0447-0049) of an unfired staple cartridge in the end effector (Shelton, ‘651, Para. 0447-0049).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Baxter, Shelton, and Shelton ‘651 to modify the surgical tool of Baxter in view of Shelton to include the configuration of Shelton ‘651. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to prevent the tool from misfiring before the tool is properly positioned (Shelton ‘651, Para. 0443).
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter in view of Shelton further in view of Wixey et al (US 2022/0061841), hereinafter Wixey.
Regarding claim 30, Baxter in view of Shelton is silent about the surgical tool of claim 29, wherein the upper pusher and the lower pusher each comprise a pusher coil extending through the joint to the beam head.
However, Wixey teaches a surgical tool (Wixey, Fig. 1) wherein the upper pusher (Wixey, Fig. 7A, item 120) and the lower pusher (Wixey, Fig. 7A, item 120) each comprise a pusher coil (Wixey, Fig. 7A, item 120) (Wixey, Para. 0063) extending through the joint to the beam head (Wixey, Fig. 7A, item 150) (Wixey, Para. 0063).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at having the teachings of Baxter, Shelton, and Wixey to modify the surgical tool of Baxter in view of Shelton to include the pusher coils of Wixey. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to enhance the flexibility of the driver (Wixey, Para. 0011).
Regarding claim 40, Baxter in view of Shelton is silent about the surgical tool of claim 39, wherein the upper pusher and the lower pusher each comprise a pusher coil extending through the articulation joint to the beam head.
However, Wixey teaches a surgical tool (Wixey, Fig. 1) wherein the upper pusher (Wixey, Fig. 7A, item 120) and the lower pusher (Wixey, Fig. 7A, item 120) each comprise a pusher coil (Wixey, Fig. 7A, item 120) (Wixey, Para. 0063) extending through the joint to the beam head (Wixey, Fig. 7A, item 150) (Wixey, Para. 0063).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at having the teachings of Baxter, Shelton, and Wixey to modify the surgical tool of Baxter in view of Shelton to include the pusher coils of Wixey. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to enhance the flexibility of the driver (Wixey, Para. 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reason:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Baxter does not teach a lock cavity and a blocker movable relative to the lock cavity, Examiner disagrees. The lock cavity of Baxter is the area of the staple cartridge where the blocker 8992, defined by the staple cartridge 8430 and the driver 8973. This area of the lock cavity is located within elongate channel 8414. Additionally, although a portion of blocker 8992 may be mounted to the channel 8414, the portion of the blocker 8992 which is not fixed in place does move with respect to the lock cavity as defined above and with respect to the elongate channel. Examiner recommends incorporating further details into the claim clarifying the configuration of the lock cavity. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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