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 .
This action is in response to the Election/Restriction response filed on 09/02/2026. Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21, 30, and 36 are independent. Claims 30-40 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 21-35) and Species C (Figures 22A-23B) in the reply filed on 09/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 36-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2026.
Claims 30-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently, none of the claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the resilient drive shaft is cantilevered downwardly from a bevel drive gear of the transmission assembly” which does not have sufficient support in the disclosure and is considered as new matter. Based on the disclosure of the pending application (Specification, Para. [0107]), it is the articulation control knob (instead of the resilient drive shaft) is cantilevered downwardly from the bevel drive gear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 23-29 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to teach or render obvious a surgical instrument comprising, inter alia, wherein the articulation control lock includes: (A) a resilient drive shaft coupled to the articulation control knob, (B) a plurality of shaft teeth radially projecting from the resilient drive shaft, and (C) a plurality of channel teeth extending from a distal channel end of an elongated lower mount channel in the housing, wherein the resilient drive shaft is biased distally to engage the shaft teeth with the channel teeth in the locked articulation state.
The closest prior art of record, Worrell et al. (US Pub. No.: 2015/0320437), Monroe et al. (US Pub. No.: 2016/0302812), and Baxter, III et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017/0112488), each discloses a surgical instrument comprising (a) a shaft assembly having an articulation section configured to deflect a distal end portion from a longitudinal axis;(b) a handle assembly including a housing; and(c) a shaft control assembly comprising:(i) an articulation control knob rotatably mounted relative to the shaft assembly,(ii) a transmission assembly connected between the articulation control knob and the articulation section, the transmission assembly configured to transmit selective manipulation of the articulation control knob to the articulation section,(iii) an articulation control lock configured to secure the articulation control knob relative to the housing of the surgical instrument, the articulation control lock having a locked articulation state that inhibits articulation of the articulation section and an unlocked articulation state that allows articulation of the articulation section. However, none of Worrell, Monroe, and Baxter, III disclose that the articulation control lock includes: (A) a resilient drive shaft coupled to the articulation control knob, (B) a plurality of shaft teeth radially projecting from the resilient drive shaft, and (C) a plurality of channel teeth extending from a distal channel end of an elongated lower mount channel in the housing, wherein the resilient drive shaft is biased distally to engage the shaft teeth with the channel teeth in the locked articulation state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120078243 A1 Worrell; Barry C. et al. discloses a surgical apparatus having control features for articulating surgical device.
US 20140371737 A1 Korvick; Donna L. et al. discloses a surgical apparatus having articulation indicator.
US 20170112488 A1 Baxter, III; Chester O. et al. a suturing instrument with locking articulation knob.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING RUI OU whose telephone number is (571)270-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am -5:00pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/JING RUI OU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights