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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 1/28/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozdzierz (US 2018/0360460 A1) in view of Malinouskas (US 2011/0121049 A1) and Johnson (US 2019/0183591 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mozdzierz discloses a surgical system comprising: a surgical instrument (the assembly of 100, 200, and 400 – Fig. 1); and a display (146 – Fig. 12).
However, Mozdzierz does not expressly disclose an interface device configured to communicate with the surgical instrument
Malinouskas teaches an interface device (100 – Fig. 4) configured to communicate with surgical instruments (200a-200c – Fig. 4; para. 0061) and a display (110 – Fig. 1a) coupled to the interface device; the display configured to show a graphical user interface based on a type of the surgical instrument (para. 0084). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, upon reading the teaching of Malinouskas, that the interface device of Malinouskas provides the advantage over the display of Mozdzierz of allowing a display to be easily seen regardless of the orientation of the surgical instrument, thereby improving the ease of use. Furthermore, it would allow many instruments to be communicated to the display, thereby, improving information transmission to an operator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the display of Mozdzierz to be attached to an interface device as taught by Malinouskas in order to improve ease of use and information transmission to an operator.
However, Mozdzierz, as modified by Malinouskas, does not expressly teach the graphical user interface has a first interface and a second interface.
Johnson teaches an interface device (100 – Fig. 1A) configured to communicate with a surgical instrument (150 – Fig. 1A; para. 0036); and a display (130 – Fig. 1A) coupled to the interface device, the display configured to show a graphical user interface, the graphical user interface including a first interface (410a – Fig. 4A) and a second interface (any of 410b-h – Fig. 4A), the first interface configured to provide information on operation of the surgical instrument at a level of detail provided on the second interface (para. 0062). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Johnson, would have recognized that multiple interfaces on a graphical user interface allow more than one piece of important information to be communicated at one time, thereby improving the safety of operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the graphical user interface of Mozdzierz and Malinouskas to include multiple interfaces including a first interface and a second interface as taught by Johnson in order to improve the safety of operation. Note that the combination of Mozdzierz, Malinouskas, and Johnson would result in the information transmitted by Mozdzierz and Malinouskas being displayed on multiple interfaces as taught by Johnson.
Mozdzierz, as modified by Malinouskas and Johnson, further teaches:
Claim 2, the surgical instrument is a powered modular, surgical stapler (para. 0399 and see Fig. 1, Mozdzierz).
Claim 3, the powered, modular, surgical stapler includes a handle assembly (100 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz), an adapter (200 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz), and a reload (400 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz).
Claim 5, the type of stapler is a linear stapler (in the embodiment where the stapler is Fig. 5a, Malinouskas).
Claim 6, the first interface displays a segmented progress bar (para. 0128, last sentence, Johnson).
Claim 9 (based on the same combination rationale set forth above in claim 1), a powered, modular, surgical stapler (the assembly of 100, 200, and 400 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz) including a handle assembly (100 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz), an adapter (200 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz), and a reload (400 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz); an interface device (100 – Fig. 4, Malinouskas) configured to communicate with the surgical stapler (para. 0061, Malinouskas); and a display (110 – Fig. 1a, Malinouskas) coupled to the interface device, the display configured to show a graphical user interface based on a type of the adapter and the reload (para. 0084, Malinouskas), the graphical user interface including a first interface (410a – Fig. 4a, Johnson) and a second interface (any of 410b-h, Johnson), the first interface configured to provide information on operation of the surgical instrument at a level of detail different from a level of detail provided on the second interface (para. 0062, Johnson).
Claim 11, the type of the adapter and the reload is linear (in the embodiment where the stapler is Fig. 5a, Malinouskas).
Claim 14, the type of the adapter and the reload is a circular (see Fig. 1, Mozdzierz).
Claim 15, the graphical user interface displays trocar and anvil travel (para. 0368, Mozdzierz).
Claim 20 (based on the same combination rationale set forth above in claim 1), a method for controlling a surgical system, the method comprising: connecting a handle assembly (100 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz) of a powered surgical system to an interface device (100 – Fig. 4; para. 0061, Malinouskas); coupling an adapter (200 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz) to the handle assembly and a reload (400 – Fig. 1, Mozdzierz) to the adapter (see Fig. 1, Mozdzierz); and displaying a graphical user interface based on a type of the adapter and the reload (para. 0048, Malinouskas), the graphical user interface including a first interface (410a – Fig. 4a, Johnson) and a second interface (any of 410b-h, Johnson), the first interface configured to provide information on operation of the surgical instrument at a level of detail different from a level of detail provided on the second interface (para. 0062, Johnson).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozdzierz (US 2018/0360460 A1) in view of Malinouskas (US 2011/0121049 A1), Johnson (US 2019/0183591 A1), and Wang (US 2003/0040758 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Mozdzierz, as modified by Malinouskas and Johnson, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 6 and 11, respectively.
However, they do not teach that the progress bar includes a plurality of color-coded segments indicating force applied by the user.
Wang discloses a similar invention comprising an interface (72 – Fig. 6) displaying a segmented progress bar having a plurality of color-coded segments indicating force applied by a linear stapler (para. 0023 and see Fig. 6) in order to avoid complications in a surgical procedure (para. 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have included a progress bar as taught by Wang in the interface of Mozdzierz, Malinouskas, and Johnson in order to avoid complications in a surgical procedure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 10, 13, and 16-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 4, 8, 10, 13, and 16-19, the combination of Mozdzierz, Malinouskas, and Johnson simply does not teach a graphical representation for each of the handle assembly, the adapter, and the reload based on their connection status, a live plot of force as a function of distance a segmented progress bar indicating tissue pressure applied by the stapler, an animated staple icon displaying staple shape during the stapling process, an animated knife icon having a pivoting blade displayed during a cutting process, and a live plot of tissue pressure as a function of travel distance during tissue compression. Furthermore, there are no known references which disclose these specific images.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leimbach (US 2019/0102930 A1) discloses an animated knife icon (5200, 5202, and 5204 – Fig. 28) and Satti (US 11564685 B2) discloses a plot of force vs. speed (Fig. 83).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
8/20/2026
