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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the leaf spring from claim 7 and the first surface and the second surface that are substantially aligned from claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrase “the biasing element comprises a leaf spring” from claim 7 does not have proper antecedent basis in the specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrase “the first surface and the second surface are substantially aligned” from claim 15 does not have proper antecedent basis in the specification
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 1, recites “wherein latch element” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --wherein the latch element--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 11, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,297 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 2. The latch element in current claim 2 corresponds to the labyrinth in claim 1 of ‘297, and the biasing element in current claim 2 corresponds to the spring in claim 1 of ‘297.
Claim 1 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 3.
Claim 2 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 5.
Claim 3 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 6.
Claim 4 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 8.
Claim 5 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 9.
Claim 6 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 10.
Claim 7 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 11.
Claim 7 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 12. Claim 7 of ‘297 discloses that the latch plate moves thus is also viewed as translating.
Claim 11 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 13.
Claim 12 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 14.
Claim 16 of ‘297 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Twomey (US 8,945,175 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Twomey discloses a latching mechanism comprising:
an actuation member (41) including a latch pin (45), the latch pin configured to move in a prescribed motion (the motion of 45 when 41 is engaged and disengaged);
a latch plate (46) including a latch element (50) for selectively receiving the latch pin, the latch pin engageable with the latch element to cause movement of the latch plate; and
a biasing element (47) configured to bias the latch plate.
Regarding claim 4, Twomey discloses that the biasing element is configured to extend and compress during movement of the latch plate (47 is a cantilevered spring thus when 47 bends from its home/neutral position to a bent position it is viewed as being compressed because it being bent towards itself and when 47 leaves the bent state and returns to the home/neutral position it is viewed as being extended).
Regarding claim 5, Twomey discloses that the biasing element extends from and is connected to the latch plate (see Figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, Twomey discloses that the biasing element is integrally formed with the latch plate (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Twomey discloses that the actuation member comprises a lever (41 is a lever as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Twomey discloses that the prescribed motion comprises arcuate motion (41 moves in an arcuate manner thus 45 moves in a corresponding arcuate manner).
Regarding claim 11, Twomey discloses a latching mechanism of a surgical device, the latching mechanism comprising:
an actuation member (41) including a latch pin (45) configured to move in a prescribed motion (the motion of 45 when 41 is engaged and disengaged);
a latch plate (46) including a latch element (50) for selectively receiving the latch pin, the latch pin and the latch element engageable to move the latch plate in at least two directions (away from the home position and back towards the home position) relative to a home position (the position of 46 when the latching mechanism is not operated by a user); and
a spring (47) for biasing the latch plate towards the home position.
Regarding claim 12, Twomey discloses that the latch plate is configured to translate (46 is capable of moving thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Twomey discloses that the latch element comprises a concave surface (54) for configured to receive the latch pin during latching.
Regarding claim 14, Twomey discloses that the latch element comprises:
a first surface (the area of 50 to the left of P4 in Figure 6) engageable with the latch pin prior to seating of the latch pin in the concave surface; and
a second surface (the area of 50 to the left of P6 in Figure 6) engageable with the latch pin after the latch pin is unseated from the concave surface.
Regarding claim 15, Twomey discloses that the first surface and the second surface are substantially aligned (the viewed first and second surface of Twomey are viewed as being substantially aligned because they are as much substantially aligned as Applicant’s first surface (260) and second surface (265) as shown in Applicant’s Figure 26).
Regarding claim 16, Twomey discloses a latching system for a surgical forceps, the latching system comprising:
a first member (20);
a second member (41) including a latch pin (45), the latch pin configured to move in a prescribed motion (the motion of 45 when 41 is engaged and disengaged);
a latch plate (46) mounted to the first member and including a latch element (50) for selectively receiving the latch pin, the latch pin and the latch element engageable to cause movement of the latch plate; and
a spring (47) extending axially and configured to bias the latch plate.
Regarding claim 18, Twomey discloses that the spring extends from and is connected to the latch plate (see Figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 19, Twomey discloses that the latch element includes a first surface (the surface that P3 directly contacts in Figure 6), a second surface (the surface to the right of P5 in Figure 6), and a third surface (the surface to the left of P6 in Figure 6) defining a labyrinth (see the shape of 50) configured to selectively receive the latch pin.
Regarding claim 20, Twomey discloses that the latch pin is engageable with the first surface of the latch element to force the latch plate away from the latch pin (when the pin is at P3, the pin causes 47 to be flexed and urges 46 off of the neutral axis N-N thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 21, Twomey discloses that the latch pin is engageable with the second surface of the latch element to maintain a position of the latch pin and the first member (Column 7 / Lines 28-32).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twomey (US 8,945,175 B2) in view of Bales et al. (US 5,176,702).
Regarding claim 7, Twomey discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the biasing element comprises a leaf spring.
Bales et al. teaches a spring (400) that is a leaf spring (Column 11 / Lines 52-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biasing element of Twomey to be a leaf spring, as taught by Bales et al., for the purpose of providing a spring type that provides consistent dampening during the pivoting movements of the latch plate while allowing for the user to vary the spring dampening by altering the leaves of the leaf spring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Larson et al. (US 9,192,432 B2) discloses lever latch assemblies that includes a latch assembly that generally includes a latch arm coupled to a movable handle and a latch block engaged to a housing, although the reverse configuration, e.g., wherein the latch block is engaged to the movable handle and the latch arm is coupled to the housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617