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
The amendment filed 01/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 2-21 are pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/02/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12262893 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ross et al. (US 20110174099 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ross et al. (US 20110174099 A1) in view of Bilotti et al. (US 5219111 A) and further in view of Mastri et al. (US 5762256 A).
Regarding claims 2-3, Ross et al. discloses an adapter assembly (100) for operably connecting an end effector (20/30/40, FIG. 1) to a surgical instrument (10), comprising: a base (130/132); a support structure (drive coupling assembly 110-112/ drive shaft 114, 116) rotatable relative to the base along a longitudinal axis; a rotation handle (102) rotatably secured to the base (130/132) and fixedly secured to a proximal end of the support structure (fig. 2 shows drive coupling assembly 110 fixedly coupled to 102, [0089-0090], figs. 1-5), wherein rotation of the rotation handle (102) causes rotation of a distal portion (106/20/30/40) of the adapter assembly relative to a proximal end of the adapter assembly ([0103], figs. 2-3 and 8-11); a latch (160), mounted to the rotation handle, the latch including a pin (162/lock arm 166) having a spring (biasing member 168/170) biasing the pin into engagement and distally with a notch (window 164b/cut-out 148d) formed in the base (actuation bar 164/drive shaft 148) to selectively lock the rotation handle (102) in a fixed longitudinal position [0103-0106], figs. 1-11);
a drive coupling assembly (actuation bar 164) disposed within the base and configured for operable connection to the surgical instrument (10); a drive transfer assembly (drive converter assembly 140/nut146) disposed within the base and operably connected to the drive coupling assembly [0097-0099]; and first and second pusher assemblies (drive bar 154 with hook 154c and end portion 148b of drive shaft 148 axially translatable drive causes concomitant axial translation of the drive member of any of end effectors 20, 30 and/or 40) disposed within the support structure and operably connected to the drive transfer assembly (140/146).
In the alternative, if it can be argued that Ross et al. fails to disclose the rotation handle is rotatably secured to the base and fixedly secured to a proximal end of the support structure, wherein rotation of the rotation handle causes rotation of a distal portion of the adapter assembly relative to a proximal end of the adapter assembly and the latch does not selectively lock the rotation handle in a fixed longitudinal position –
Ross et al. teaches another adapter assembly (200) for operably connecting an end effector (20/30/40, FIG. 19) with a rotatable rotation handle (202) that is rotatably secured to a base (212) and fixedly secured to a proximal end of the support structure (254/259), wherein rotation of the rotation handle (202) causes rotation of a distal portion of the adapter assembly (254/259) relative to a proximal end of the adapter assembly (212 is rotatable relative to 202 so when 202 rotates 212 will remain fixed and 254/259 will rotate ([0109-0122], figs. 19-27).
Bilotti et al. teaches an adapter assembly (108/20, figs. 1 and 8-10) having a rotation handle (collar of 803) rotatably secured to a base (handle 10/inner proximal portion of 108 inside 803, fig. 10) and fixedly secured to a proximal end of a support structure (drive system in 108/proximal end of tube 108) a, wherein rotation of the rotation handle (803) causes rotation of a distal portion of the adapter assembly (arrow 24) relative to a proximal end (portion connecting to handle assembly 10) of the adapter assembly and teaches having a latch (803) including a pin (fig. 10) biased into engagement (spring shown fig. 10) with a notch (fig. 10) formed in the base (proximal portion of 108 is part of the handle base 10) to selectively lock the rotation handle (collar of 803) in a fixed longitudinal position (col. 3 lines 12-55, col. 7, line 45- col. 8, line 5, figs. 1 and 8-10).
Mastri et al. also teaches an adapter assembly (14) having a rotation handle (70) rotatably secured to a base (22 via flange 66/annular recess 68 in 22) and fixedly secured to a proximal end of a support structure (enlarged gripping portion with finger grooves), wherein rotation of the rotation handle (70) causes rotation of a distal portion (coupling slot 130) of the adapter assembly (14) relative to a proximal end (62) of the adapter assembly (col. 6 line 20-col. 7, line 67, figs. 1-5).
Given the teachings of Ross et al. to have an adapter assembly spring biased latch to lock into rotational position, it 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 to modify the rotation handle to be rotatably secured to the base and fixedly secured to a proximal end of the support structure, wherein rotation of the rotation handle causes rotation of a distal portion of the adapter assembly relative to a proximal end of the adapter assembly and the latch does not selectively lock the rotation handle in a fixed longitudinal position to have improved detent locking, user tactile feedback, precise mating of the pin in the slot and/or for having a quick connect purposes as taught by Bilotti et al. and Mastri et al.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ross et al. (US 20110174099 A1) in view of Bilotti et al. (US 5219111 A) in view of Mastri et al. (US 5762256 A).
and further in view of Sivertson (US 4460296 A).
Regarding claim 4, Ross et al. teaches having a latch (160), mounted to the rotation handle, the latch including a pin (162/lock arm 166) having a spring (biasing member 168/170) biasing the pin into engagement and distally with a notch (window 164b/cut-out 148d) formed in the base (actuation bar 164/drive shaft 148) to selectively lock the rotation handle (102) in a fixed longitudinal position [0103-0106], figs. 1-11).
Ross et al. fails to explicitly disclose the latch includes a spring biasing the pin distally into the notch wherein the base defines a second notch diametrically opposed to the notch to lock the rotation handle in a 180 degree rotated position.
Sivertson teaches a coupler (80) defining a notches (diametrically opposed openings 88) 180 degrees apart with a spindle latch/lock (90/94) coupled to the spindle housing, wherein the spindle lock is biased (110) towards an unlocked position and movable toward a locked position in which the spindle lock is engaged with the recess (openings 88) to restrict rotation of a spindle (82) and the spindle lock (90/94) is movable between the unlocked position and the locked position in a direction biased by a biasing member with a pin (102) and the pin is configured to selectively engage the recess when the button is actuated (col. 3, lines 1-67, claims 1-3, figs. 1-9).
Given the teachings of Ross et al. to have an adapter assembly spring biased latch to lock into rotational position, it 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 to modify the latch includes a spring biasing the pin distally into the notch wherein the base defines a second notch diametrically opposed to the notch to lock the rotation handle in a 180 degree rotated position to have improved/stronger detent locking, more adjustment needs, precise mating of the pin in the slot and/or for having a quick connect/adjustment purposes as taught by Sivertson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17 and 19-21 are allowed.
Claim 5 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.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious an adapter assembly for operably connecting an end effector to a surgical instrument, comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, comprising: a base; a support structure rotatable relative to the base along a longitudinal axis, the support structure including: a plurality of plates; a plurality of tubular supports maintaining the plates in spaced apart relation; at least one support ring positioned between adjacent plates; a plurality of ribs positioned between adjacent plates; and a plurality of rivets securing the plates, tubular supports, support rings, and ribs together; a drive coupling assembly disposed within the base; and first and second pusher assemblies disposed within the support structure. Though Mather et al. (US 20070039996 A1) teaches an adapter assembly for operably connecting an end effector to a surgical instrument, it would not be obvious to modify cable system to add the support structure including: a plurality of plates; a plurality of tubular supports maintaining the plates in spaced apart relation; at least one support ring positioned between adjacent plates; a plurality of ribs positioned between adjacent plates; and a plurality of rivets securing the plates, tubular supports, support rings, and ribs together; a drive coupling assembly disposed within the base; and first and second pusher assemblies disposed within the support structure and one of ordinary skill would recognize that a having the specific drive system installed having different tubular support segments without having to completely modify the base member and support structure to function with plurality of palates and supports. Having the efficiency and dynamic drive system in a support structure provides an effect adapter system for a variety of effectors for effectively achieving a healing closure of a surgical area.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent: see form 892.
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 ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731