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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-40 remain pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 25, line 2, “a motor axis” should instead be “the motor axis”.
-Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21-26, 30, 33, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US PGPUB 2016/0174976), in view of Ross (US PGPUB 2010/0211053).
Regarding Claim 21, Morgan discloses a surgical instrument (10; Figure 1), comprising:
a housing (100; Figure 1);
a shaft (200) extending from the housing (100; Para. 0125), wherein the shaft (200) defines a shaft axis (“SA”; Para. 0121);
an end effector (300) rotatable relative to the shaft (200) about an articulation axis (“A” Figure 1; Para. 0122);
a nozzle assembly (400) to rotate the end effector (300) about the shaft axis (“SA”; Para. 0132);
an articulation motor (510; Figure 3), actuatable to rotate the end effector about the articulation axis (“A”; Para. 0133, 0137),
wherein the articulation motor (510) is mounted to the nozzle assembly (400; Figure 3) and rotatable with the nozzle assembly (400; note Para. 0132 which outlines the spine assembly 250 is rotated with nozzle 400 and further, as shown in Figures 5-6 and Paras. 0133-0134, the connection of the motor 510 with the spine assembly would require the motor to rotate with the nozzle assembly 400, and therefore the motor can be viewed as mounted to the nozzle assembly via connection with spine assembly 250).
Note: the motor (510) is clearly mounted within the nozzle assembly/actuator (400) and must rotate with the nozzle assembly/actuator (400) as the spine assembly (250) and the end effector (300), connected to the spine assembly, both rotate with the nozzle assembly (400) and further the articulation drivers (520, 530) are connected to the end effector (300; Figure 8; Para. 0133) and therefore since the drivers must rotate, the motor must also rotate with the nozzle assembly/actuator (400).
However, Morgan does not readily disclose the articulation motor having a motor output gear which rotates about a motor axis and wherein the motor axis is parallel to and offset to the shaft axis. Attention can first be brought to the embodiment of Figure 9 of Morgan which includes an articulation motor (510’) and a output gear (512’) wherein the motor axis is offset from the shaft axis (SA; as shown in Figure 9) but such motor (510’) is not disclosed as parallel to the shaft axis (SA).
Further attention is brought to the teachings of Ross which includes another instrument (10; Figure 1) comprising a nozzle assembly (170, 180) and an articulation motor (132; Figure 2) mounted within the nozzle assembly (170, 180) wherein the motor (132) actuates an articulation gear (233) and therefore must comprise an output gear that extends about a motor axis of the motor (132) and wherein such a motor axis is offset and substantially parallel to a shaft axis (A) of the instrument (10; clearly shown in Figures 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have rearranged the articulation motor (510) and output gear (512) of Morgan to be offset (similar to Figure 9 of Morgan) and substantially parallel relative to the shaft axis as taught by Ross. Further, although Ross does not explicitly recite the motor axis being parallel, such an arrangement is viewed as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed because Applicant has not disclosed that the motor axis and shaft axis being parallel provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the motor arrangement of Morgan or Ross, as incorporated into Morgan, or that as claimed because in either instance, the articulation motor is mounted within the nozzle assembly and capable of providing articulation drive controls.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Morgan to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification outlines “The motor output gear 2142 rotates about motor axis MA that is parallel to and offset from the longitudinal axis LA.” but does not provide any criticality to such an arrangement.
Regarding Claim 22, Morgan, as modified, discloses an articulation drive (a gear 512 and drivers 520, 530; Figures 5-6) to transmit an articulation motion from the articulation motor (510) to the end effector (300) to rotate the end effector about the articulation axis (“A”; Para. 0133).
Regarding Claim 23, Morgan, as modified, discloses the articulation drive (512, 520, 530) comprises:
a proximal driver (512) rotatable based on the actuation of the articulation motor (510; Para. 0133); and
a distal driver (520, 530) axially translatable along the shaft axis based on the rotation of the proximal driver (512; Para. 0133).
Regarding Claim 24, Morgan, as modified, discloses the nozzle assembly (400) comprises an internal surface defining a nozzle cavity (as shown in Figure 3), and wherein the articulation motor (510) is positioned within the nozzle cavity (of 400 as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 25, Morgan, as modified, discloses the articulation motor (510) outputs a rotational drive motion defined along a motor axis (extending along 511; Figure 5), wherein the motor axis (of 510) is offset from the shaft axis (SA) and orbits around the shaft axis (SA) based on rotation of the nozzle assembly (400; note as modified in view of Ross the motor axis will extend and orbit as claimed; see Figures 2-4 of Ross for reference).
Regarding Claim 26, Morgan, as modified, discloses a gear assembly (700) to transmit the rotational drive motion output by the articulation motor (510’) to the articulation drive (520’, 530’; Para. 0139; note in view of the modification above, a gear assembly similar to that of Figure 9 would readily be used; note 233 and Para. 0033 of Ross for reference).
Regarding Claim 30, Morgan discloses an articulation switch (515; Figure 1) in signal communication with the articulation motor (510; Para. 0137), wherein the articulation switch (515) is movable to a first position to rotate the end effector (300) in a first direction relative to the shaft (200), and wherein the articulation switch (515) is movable to a second position to rotate the end effector (300) in a second direction relative to the shaft (200; Para. 0137 discloses the rocker switch to change directions of the rotation).
Regarding Claim 33, Morgan discloses the articulation switch is a rocker switch (515) movable from a neutral position to the first position and from the neutral position to the second position (Para. 0137).
Regarding Claim 39, Morgan discloses a surgical instrument (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a handle assembly (102);
a shaft (200) extending from the handle assembly (102), wherein the shaft defines a shaft axis (“SA”; Para. 0121);
an end effector (300) pivotably coupled to a distal end of the shaft (200; Para. 0122);
a nozzle assembly (400) extending from the handle assembly (102; Para. 0132) and surrounding a proximal portion of the shaft (portion of 230 of 200; see Figure 3), wherein the nozzle assembly (400) is rotatable relative to handle assembly (102) to roll the shaft (200) and rotate the end effector (300) about the shaft axis (“SA”; see Para. 0132); and
an articulation motor (510) actuatable to pivot the end effector (300; Para. 0133, 0137), wherein the articulation motor (510) is mounted to the nozzle assembly (400; note Para. 0132 which outlines the spine assembly 250 is rotated with nozzle 400 and further, as shown in Figures 5-6 and Paras. 0133-0134, the connection of the motor 510 with the spine assembly would require the motor to rotate with the nozzle assembly 400, therefore the motor can be viewed as mounted to the nozzle assembly, via connection with spine assembly 250).
However, Morgan does not readily disclose the articulation motor having a motor output gear which rotates about a motor axis and wherein the motor axis is parallel to and offset to the shaft axis. Attention can first be brought to the embodiment of Figure 9 of Morgan which includes an articulation motor (510’) and a output gear (512’) wherein the motor axis is offset from the shaft axis (SA; as shown in Figure 9) but such motor (510’) is not disclosed as parallel to the shaft axis (SA).
Further attention is brought to the teachings of Ross (see rejection of Claim 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have rearranged the articulation motor (510) and output gear (512) of Morgan to be offset (similar to Figure 9) and substantially parallel relative to the shaft axis as taught by Ross. Further, although Ross does not explicitly recite the motor axis being parallel, such an arrangement is viewed as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed because Applicant has not disclosed that the motor axis and shaft axis being parallel provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the motor arrangement of Morgan or Ross, as incorporated into Morgan, or that as claimed because in either instance, the articulation motor is mounted within the nozzle assembly and capable of providing articulation drive controls.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Morgan to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification outlines “The motor output gear 2142 rotates about motor axis MA that is parallel to and offset from the longitudinal axis LA.” But does not provide any criticality to such an arrangement.
Regarding Claim 40, Morgan discloses a surgical instrument (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a housing (100);
a shaft (200) extending from the housing (100; Para. 0125) along a shaft axis (SA; Para. 0121);
an end effector (300) rotatably coupled to a distal end of the shaft (200; Para. 0122), the end effector (300) comprising a first jaw (320) and a second jaw (elongate channel 302) movable relative to the second jaw (302; Para. 0123);
a manual shaft roll actuator (nozzle portion 400) coupled to the shaft (200; Para. 0132), wherein actuation of the manual shaft roll actuator (400) causes the shaft (200) to roll about the shaft axis (SA; Para. 0132); and
a motor (510) to drive rotation of the end effector (300 about axis “A”; Para. 0133, 0137), wherein the motor (510) is mounted to the manual shaft roll actuator (400; note Para. 0132 which outlines the spine assembly 250 is rotated with nozzle 400 and further, as shown in Figures 5-6 and Paras. 0133-0134, the connection of the motor 510 with the spine assembly would require the motor to rotate with the nozzle assembly 400, therefore the motor can be viewed as mounted to the nozzle assembly, via connection with spine assembly 250).
However, Morgan does not readily disclose the articulation motor having a motor output gear which rotates about a motor axis and wherein the motor axis is parallel to and offset to the shaft axis. Attention can first be brought to the embodiment of Figure 9 of Morgan which includes an articulation motor (510’) and a output gear (512’) wherein the motor axis is offset from the shaft axis (SA; as shown in Figure 9) but such motor (510’) is not disclosed as parallel to the shaft axis (SA).
Further attention is brought to the teachings of Ross (see rejection of Claim 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have rearranged the articulation motor (510) and output gear (512) of Morgan to be offset (similar to Figure 9) and substantially parallel relative to the shaft axis as taught by Ross. Further, although Ross does not explicitly recite the motor axis being parallel, such an arrangement is viewed as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed because Applicant has not disclosed that the motor axis and shaft axis being parallel provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the motor arrangement of Morgan or Ross, as incorporated into Morgan, or that as claimed because in either instance, the articulation motor is mounted within the nozzle assembly and capable of providing articulation drive controls.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Morgan to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification outlines “The motor output gear 2142 rotates about motor axis MA that is parallel to and offset from the longitudinal axis LA.” But does not provide any criticality to such an arrangement.
Alternatively regarding Claims 21, 39, and 40, assuming arguendo that the articulation motor (510) of Morgan cannot be readily viewed as mounted to the nozzle assembly or the manual shaft roll actuator (400), in which the Examiner does not readily concede to, as outlined above, the motor (510) is clearly mounted within the nozzle assembly/actuator (400) and must rotate with the nozzle assembly/actuator (400) as explained in the 102 rejections above. Further attention can be brought to the embodiment of Figure 9 of Morgan which includes an articulation motor (510’) that is clearly mounted within the frame structure (specifically the lug portion 406) of the nozzle assembly (400).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have mounted the motor (510) of Morgan to the nozzle assembly/shaft roll actuator (400) as taught by the embodiment of Figure 9 as mounting the motor to the nozzle/roll actuator would readily allow for integrated rotation of the nozzle/roll actuator and the motor in combination with the spine assembly as well as the end effector, and with such integrated rotation, motion from the motor can be effectively transmitted to the end effector in different orientations.
Further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993) and In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US PGPUB 2016/0174976), in view of Ross (US PGPUB 2010/0211053), as applied to Claims 24 and 30, and in further view of Leimbach (US PGPUB 2015/0272575).
Regarding Claim 27, Morgan discloses:
a control circuit (156; Figure 2) and while it can be readily assumed that the slip ring assembly (620) of Morgan includes an electrical contact and a conductor (i.e. 622) and wherein the conductor remains in contact with it the electrical contact to electrically couple the articulation motor (510) to the control circuit (156) while the nozzle assembly (400) rotates the end effector (300) about the shaft axis (SA; Para. 0135), Morgan does not readily disclose that the electrical contact is fixed relative to the housing and positioned within the nozzle cavity; and the conductor (622) is mounted to the internal surface of the nozzle assembly.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Leimbach which includes another surgical instrument (10; Figure 1) including a control circuit (100; Figure 4) and another slip ring assembly (1600; Figures 19-22) comprising an electrical contact (1620 including 1630, 1640, 1650, 1660; Para. 0216) fixed relative to a housing of the instrument (10 via mount 1610; Para. 0215) and positioned within a nozzle cavity (of 1201; Figure 19) and a conductor (1800 including contacts 1802-1806; Figures 19-20) is mounted to the internal surface of the nozzle assembly (1201).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a slip ring connector assembly as taught by Leimbach in the instrument of Morgan to thereby insure constant electrical contact as taught by Leimbach (Para. 0218-0219) between the nozzle and its components and the control circuitry.
Regarding Claim 34, Morgan discloses several features of the claimed invention including but does not readily disclose the articulation switch (515) comprises a first articulation switch and a second articulation switch which are redundant switches positioned on opposite sides of the housing.
Attention is brought to Leimbach which outlines the use of redundant articulation switches (11058a-11064b; Figure 72A; Para. 0414, 0415) which are positioned on opposite sides (left, right; Para. 0414, 0415).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized such a switch arrangement of Leimbach with the articulation switch of Morgan to prevent the occurrence of accidental actuation and therefore increasing the safety of the tool.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US PGPUB 2016/0174976), in view of Ross (US PGPUB 2010/0211053), as applied to Claim 30, and in further view of Zemlock (US PGPUB 2015/0272575).
Regarding Claim 31, Morgan discloses the end effector (300) defines an end effector axis, wherein a center position of the end effector (300) corresponds to the end effector axis being aligned with the shaft axis (SA), however, Morgan does not readily disclose the actuation of the articulation motor (510) is configured to stop based on the articulation switch being in the first position or the second position (i.e. articulation operating) and the end effector rotating to the center position.
Attention is brought to Zemlock 2009’ which teaches use of an articulation sensor (235; Figure 5) which detects an identifier (265) which corresponds to a center of a range of rotation of an end effector (see Paras. 0127-0128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included a central position sensor arrangement as taught by Zemlock 2009’ into the articulation system of Morgan that will readily stop the articulation. This would readily allow the user to extract the shaft portion without the user having to manually align the end effector as taught by Zemlock 2009’ (Para. 0128).
Regarding Claim 32, Morgan, as modified, discloses, the actuation of the articulation motor (510) is configured to resume based on moving the articulation switch (515) away from the first position or the second position and then returning the articulation switch (515) to the first position or the second position (note given the modification above, if the motor is “auto stop” mode the motor is stopped and in order to restart the articulation, the switch would have to be moved away from the position it was in order to reclose the switch).
Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US PGPUB 2016/0174976), in view of Ross (US PGPUB 2010/0211053), as applied to Claim 21, and in further view of Zemlock (US PGPUB 2008/0255413).
Regarding Claim 35, Morgan discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose:
a drive screw rotatable based on actuation of the articulation motor;
a switch traveler movable along a path defined by the drive screw based on rotation of the drive screw; and
an articulation position switch positioned to interact with the switch traveler as the switch traveler moves along the path, wherein the articulation position switch is in signal communication with the articulation motor.
Attention can be brought to Zemlock which teaches another instrument (100; Figure 1) which includes an articulation drive system including:
a drive screw (242; Figure 7) rotatable based on actuation of a motor (210; Para. 0039);
a switch traveler (244) movable along a path defined by the drive screw (242) based on rotation of the drive screw (242; Para. 0040); and
an articulation position switch (“limit switches”; Para. 0041) positioned to interact with the switch traveler (244) as the switch traveler moves (244) along the path, wherein the articulation position switch (“limit switches”) is in signal communication with the articulation motor (210 via control system; Para. 0041, 0050).
Utilization of a drive screw to provide linear output for articulation is known in the art as taught by Zemlock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized such drive screw, traveler and limit switch configuration of Zemlock in the instrument of Morgan as the articulation can be readily controlled and monitored as taught by Morgan (see Para. 0041).
Regarding Claims 36 and 37, Morgan, as modified, discloses a position of the articulation position switch (incorporated “limit switches” of Zemlock) corresponds to an end of a range of rotation of the end effector (300) and although it is not disclosed that the articulation motor (510) is configured to stop actuation or adjust a speed of actuation based on the switch traveler (244 of Zemlock) interacting the articulation position switch (“limit switches” of Zemlock), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to control the motor to stop when a limit switch is reached in order to prevent damage to the instrument and its components.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US PGPUB 2016/0174976), in view of Ross (US PGPUB 2010/0211053) and Zemlock (US PGPUB 2008/0255413), hereinafter Zemlock 2008’, as applied to Claim 36, and in further view of Zemlock (US PGPUB 2009/0090763), hereinafter Zemlock 2009’.
Regarding Claim 38, Morgan, as modified by Zemlock 2008’, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose a position of the articulation position switch corresponds to a center of a range of rotation of the end effector.
Attention is brought to Zemlock 2009’ which teaches use of an articulation sensor (235; Figure 5) which detects an identifier (265) which corresponds to a center of a range of rotation of an end effector (see Paras. 0127-0128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included a central position indicator (i.e. switch) as taught by Zemlock 2009’ into the articulation system of Morgan that will readily stop the articulation. This would readily allow the user to extract the shaft portion without the user having to manually align the end effector as taught by Zemlock 2009’ (Para. 0128).
Claims 21-27, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemlock (US PGPUB 2009/0090763; note Marczyk US PGPUB 2008/0223903 is incorporated by reference per Para. 0073 and referenced below), in view of Ross (US PGPUB 2010/0211053).
Regarding Claim 21, Zemlock discloses a surgical instrument (10; Figure 1), comprising:
a housing (110; Figure 1);
a shaft (140) extending from the housing (100), wherein the shaft (140) defines a shaft axis (“A”; Para. 0048);
an end effector (160) rotatable relative to the shaft (140) about an articulation axis (Para. 0051, 0070);
a nozzle assembly (172, 180; Para. 0072) to rotate the end effector (160) about the shaft axis (“A”; Para. 0072);
an articulation motor (132), having a motor output gear (233B; Figure 5) which rotates about a motor axis (of 132), actuatable to rotate the end effector (160) about the articulation axis (Para. 0070),
wherein the articulation motor (132) is mounted to the nozzle assembly (172, 180; see Figure 4), and rotatable with the nozzle assembly (172, 180; see Para. 0072 which outlines the articulation housing and articulation mechanism 170 (which includes the motor 132) in continuous contact with rings 157, 159 as it is rotated; further see Figure 14 of Marczyk for reference).
However, although it can be readily implied that the motor (132) is comprised in the housing of the articulation mechanism (170) that extends substantially parallel to the shaft axis (as shown in Figure 3), it is not explicitly disclosed that the motor axis is parallel to and offset from the shaft axis (A).
Attention is brought to Ross which clearly teaches the articulation motor (132; Figures 2-4) extending offset and substantially parallel to the shaft axis (A; Figure 1 as shown in Figures 2-4; see Para. 0033 for reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have rearranged the articulation motor and output gear of Zemlock to be offset and substantially parallel relative to the shaft axis as taught by Ross. Further, although Ross does not explicitly recite the motor axis being parallel, such an arrangement is viewed as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed because Applicant has not disclosed that the motor axis and shaft axis being parallel provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the motor arrangement of Ross, as incorporated into Zemlock, or that as claimed because in either instance, the articulation motor is mounted within the nozzle assembly with an orientation substantially parallel to the shaft axis and is capable of providing articulation drive controls.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Zemlock to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification outlines “The motor output gear 2142 rotates about motor axis MA that is parallel to and offset from the longitudinal axis LA.” But does not provide any criticality to such an arrangement.
Regarding Claim 22, Zemlock, as modified, discloses an articulation drive (gear 233; Figure 5) to transmit an articulation motion from the articulation motor (132) to the end effector (160) to rotate the end effector about the articulation axis (Para. 0070).
Regarding Claim 23, Zemlock, as modified, discloses the articulation drive comprises: a proximal driver (233) rotatable based on the actuation of the articulation motor (132; Para. 0070); and a distal driver (see “articulation link” of Para. 0043 of Marczyk) axially translatable along the shaft axis based on the rotation of the proximal driver (233).
Regarding Claim 24, Zemlock, as modified, discloses the nozzle assembly (172, 180) comprises an internal surface defining a nozzle cavity (shown in Figure 4), and wherein the articulation motor (132) is positioned within the nozzle cavity (Shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 25, Zemlock, as modified, discloses the articulation motor (132) outputs a rotational drive motion defined along a motor axis, wherein the motor axis is offset from the shaft axis (“A”), and wherein the motor axis orbits around the shaft axis (“A”) based on rotation of the nozzle assembly (172, 180; note that Figure 4 shows the articulation motor 132 but appears to be mislabeled as the motor is clearly depicted adjacent to the structure “444” and is clearly offset to the axis “A”).
Regarding Claim 26, Zemlock, as modified, discloses a gear assembly (233; Figure 5) to transmit the rotational drive motion output by the articulation motor (132) to the articulation drive (downstream drive connected to gear 233; Para. 0070).
Regarding Claim 27, Zemlock, as modified, discloses control circuit (discharge circuit 410 of 400); an electrical contact (157, 159; Figure 26) fixed relative to the housing (110; Para. 0072) and positioned within the nozzle cavity (within 172, 180) and a conductor (“brush and/or spring loaded contacts in contact with the conductive rings 157 and 159”; Para. 0072) mounted to the internal surface of the nozzle assembly (172, 180), wherein the conductor remains in contact with it the electrical contact (157, 159) to electrically couple the articulation motor (132) to the control circuit while the nozzle assembly rotates the end effector (160) about the shaft axis (“A”; Para. 0072).
Regarding Claim 39, Zemlock discloses surgical instrument (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a handle assembly (110);
a shaft (140) extending from the handle assembly (110), wherein the shaft defines a shaft axis (“A”);
an end effector (160) pivotably coupled to a distal end of the shaft (140; Para. 0051, 0070);
a nozzle assembly (172, 180) extending from the handle assembly (110) and surrounding a proximal portion of the shaft (140; note the 112 rejections above; see Figure 4), wherein the nozzle assembly (172, 180) is rotatable relative to handle assembly (110) to roll the shaft (140) and rotate the end effector (160) about the shaft axis (“SA”; Para. 0072); and
an articulation motor (132; Figures 4-5), having a motor output gear (233B) which rotates about a motor axis (of 132), actuatable pivot the end effector (160), wherein the articulation motor (132) is mounted to the nozzle assembly (172, 180; see Para. 0072 which outlines the articulation housing and articulation mechanism 170 (which includes the motor 132) in continuous contact with rings 157, 159 as it is rotated; further see Figure 14 of Marczyk for reference).
However, although it can be readily implied that the motor (132) is comprised in the housing of the articulation mechanism (170) that extends substantially parallel to the shaft axis (as shown in Figure 3), it is not explicitly disclosed that the motor axis is parallel to and offset from the shaft axis (A).
Attention is brought to Ross which clearly teaches the articulation motor (132; Figures 2-4) extending offset and substantially parallel to the shaft axis (A; Figure 1 as shown in Figures 2-4; see Para. 0033 for reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have rearranged the articulation motor and output gear of Zemlock to be offset and substantially parallel relative to the shaft axis as taught by Ross. Further, although Ross does not explicitly recite the motor axis being parallel, such an arrangement is viewed as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed because Applicant has not disclosed that the motor axis and shaft axis being parallel provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the motor arrangement of Ross, as incorporated into Zemlock, or that as claimed because in either instance, the articulation motor is mounted within the nozzle assembly with an orientation substantially parallel to the shaft axis and is capable of providing articulation drive controls.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Zemlock to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification outlines “The motor output gear 2142 rotates about motor axis MA that is parallel to and offset from the longitudinal axis LA.” But does not provide any criticality to such an arrangement.
Regarding Claim 40, Zemlock discloses surgical instrument (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a housing (110);
a shaft (140) extending from the housing (110) along a shaft axis (“SA”);
an end effector (160) rotatably coupled to a distal end of the shaft (140; Para. 0051, 0070), the end effector comprising a first jaw (162) and a second jaw (164) movable relative to the second jaw (164; Para. 0049);
a manual shaft roll actuator (172, 180) coupled to the shaft (140; See Figure 4), wherein actuation of the manual shaft roll actuator (172, 180) causes the shaft (140) to roll about the shaft axis (“SA”; Para. 0072); and
a motor (132; Figures 4-5), having a motor output gear (233b) which rotates about a motor axis (of 132), to drive rotation of the end effector (160), wherein the motor (132) is mounted to the manual shaft roll actuator (172, 180; see Para. 0072 which outlines the articulation housing and articulation mechanism 170 (which includes the motor 132) in continuous contact with rings 157, 159 as it is rotated; further see Figure 14 of Marczyk for reference).
However, although it can be readily implied that the motor (132) is comprised in the housing of the articulation mechanism (170) that extends substantially parallel to the shaft axis (as shown in Figure 3), it is not explicitly disclosed that the motor axis is parallel to and offset from the shaft axis (A).
Attention is brought to Ross which clearly teaches the articulation motor (132; Figures 2-4) extending offset and substantially parallel to the shaft axis (A; Figure 1 as shown in Figures 2-4; see Para. 0033 for reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have rearranged the articulation motor and output gear of Zemlock to be offset and substantially parallel relative to the shaft axis as taught by Ross. Further, although Ross does not explicitly recite the motor axis being parallel, such an arrangement is viewed as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed because Applicant has not disclosed that the motor axis and shaft axis being parallel provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the motor arrangement of Ross, as incorporated into Zemlock, or that as claimed because in either instance, the articulation motor is mounted within the nozzle assembly with an orientation substantially parallel to the shaft axis and is capable of providing articulation drive controls.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Zemlock to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification outlines “The motor output gear 2142 rotates about motor axis MA that is parallel to and offset from the longitudinal axis LA.” But does not provide any criticality to such an arrangement.
Claim 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemlock (US PGPUB 2009/0090763), in view of Ross (US PGPUB 2010/0211053), as applied to Claim 21, and in further view of Morgan (US PGPUB 2016/0174976).
Regarding Claim 30, Zemlock, as modified, discloses an articulation switch (174) in signal communication with the articulation motor (132) but does not readily disclose the articulation switch is movable to a first position to rotate the end effector in a first direction relative to the shaft, and wherein the articulation switch is movable to a second position to rotate the end effector in a second direction relative to the shaft.
Attention is brought to Morgan which teaches a rocker articulation switch (515; Figure 1) in signal communication with the articulation motor (510; Para. 0137), wherein the articulation switch (515) is movable to a first position to rotate the end effector (300) in a first direction relative to the shaft (200), and wherein the articulation switch (515) is movable to a second position to rotate the end effector (300) in a second direction relative to the shaft (200; Para. 0137 discloses the rocker switch to change directions of the rotation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a rocker switch as taught by Morgan into the instrument of Zemlock in order to effectively control the rotation of the motor in either direction and therefore articulation of the end effector in multiple directions.
Regarding Claim 31, Zemlock, as modified, discloses the end effector (160) defines an end effector axis (“B”), wherein a center position of the end effector (160) corresponds to the end effector axis (“B”) being aligned with the shaft axis (“A”), and wherein the actuation of the articulation motor (132) is configured to stop based on the articulation switch (515 of Morgan) being in the first position or the second position (of switch of Morgan) and the end effector (160) rotating to the center position (Para. 0128).
Regarding Claim 32, Zemlock, as modified, discloses the actuation of the articulation motor (132) is configured to resume based on moving the articulation switch (515 of Morgan) away from the first position or the second position and then returning the articulation switch (515 of Morgan) to the first position or the second position (note given the modification above, if the motor is “auto stop” mode the motor is stopped and in order to restart the articulation, the switch would have to be moved away from the position it was in order to reclose the switch).
Regarding Claim 33, Zemlock, as modified, discloses the articulation switch is a rocker switch (515 of Morgan) movable from a neutral position to the first position and from the neutral position to the second position (Para. 0137 or Morgan).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 28, Morgan, as modified by Leimbach (see rejection of Claim 27), discloses the internal surface of the nozzle assembly (400) defines an internal circumference of the nozzle assembly, and wherein the conductor (interpreted as 1800 of Leimbach) is mounted to the internal surface of the nozzle assembly but does not explicitly disclose the conductor extends along an entirety of the internal circumference of the nozzle assembly.
Leimbach further teaches annular conductors (1620; Figure 20) and a contact (1800) fixed to the nozzle (1201) but does not disclose the conductor (1620) mounted to the internal surface of the nozzle assembly and extends along an entirety of the internal circumference of the nozzle assembly (1201) and wherein the contact (1800) is fixed to relative to the housing.
It would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized the annular conductors of Leimbach, when incorporated into Morgan, on the inner circumference of the nozzle without significant structural modifications and improper hindsight.
Zemlock (US PGPUB 2009/0090763) also does not disclose such configuration of conductors and contact as claimed.
Therefore, Claims 28 and 29 are viewed as allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which rely on references not challenged within the arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”.
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 JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 2/25/2026