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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams (US 2022/0233192).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a surgical instrument (Fig. 1, item 10) comprising an end tool (Fig. 1, item 100, 102, 104, 106) that rotates in at least one direction (Para. 0083-0086), wherein the end tool includes:
a pair of jaws (Fig. 10, item 114, 118) including a first jaw (Fig. 10, item 118) and a second jaw (Fig. 10, item 114), which are rotatable with respect to each other (Para. 0050), wherein the first jaw includes a first slit (Fig. 13, item 131) formed in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 13), and the second jaw includes a second slit (Fig. 13, item 161) formed in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 13); and
an operation member (Fig. 24, item 522, 532, 536, 534) including a body (Fig. 24, item 522, 532, 536, 534) accommodated in the first slit and the second slit (Para. 0083-0086), a first flange (Fig. 24, item 532) formed on one side of the body (Fig. 24), and a second flange (Fig. 24, item 534) formed on another side of the body (Fig. 24), and moving in the longitudinal direction of the jaw (Fig. 24),
wherein the operation member performs an operation of closing the pair of jaws (Para. 0083-0086) while moving from a proximal end of the pair of jaws (Para. 0083-0086) toward a distal end (Para. 0083-0086) and an operation of linearly moving in the longitudinal direction (Para. 0083-0086) of the pair of jaws (Para. 0083-0086) while the pair of jaws are closed (Para. 0083-0086).
Regarding claim 2, Williams discloses the surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein the second jaw includes a jaw-inclined surface (Fig. 10, item 114, 114a, 114b) formed to be inclined upward (Fig. 10, surface 114a of second jaw 114 is inclined upward) in a direction toward the distal end of the second jaw (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Williams discloses the surgical instrument of claim 2, wherein the jaw-inclined surface is formed such that an inclination angle changes (Para. 0050, angle of inclination of second jaw 114 and second surface 114a changes as the jaw pivots) in the longitudinal direction (Para. 0050).
Regarding claim 4, Williams discloses the surgical instrument of claim 3, wherein the jaw-inclined surface is formed such that an inclination angle (Fig. 10, inclination angle of surface 114a is greater closer to pivot point of jaw 114 than inclination angle of surface 114a farther away from pivot point) at a proximal end is greater than an inclination angle (Fig. 10) at a distal end (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Williams the surgical instrument of claim 2, wherein:
a distance between a surface of the first flange (Fig. 24, item 532) that comes into contact with the second jaw and a surface of the second flange (Fig. 24, item 534) that comes into contact with the first jaw is formed to have a value greater than or equal to that of a vertical distance between the first jaw and the second jaw (Fig. 24, distance between top of first flange 532 and bottom of second flange 534 is greater than the distance between the inner surface of first jaw 118 and the inner surface of second jaw 114); and
the operation member is subjected to a rotational force (Para. 0085, threaded shaft 528 applies a rotating force to adjustment member 526, which causes advancement of flange 534) while moving in the longitudinal direction of the pair of jaws (Para. 0085, flange 534 advances distally).
Regarding claim 6, Williams discloses the surgical instrument of claim 5, wherein, when performing the operation of closing the pair of jaws, the operation member is subjected to a rotational force (Para. 0085, threaded shaft 528 applies a rotating force to adjustment member 526, which causes advancement of flange 534) in a direction that causes the second flange to move forward (Para. 0085) further toward the distal end of the pair of jaws (Para. 0085, flange 534 advances distally) than the first flange.
Regarding claim 7, Williams discloses, the surgical instrument of claim 6, wherein, when the operation member performs the operation of closing the pair of jaws (Para. 0083-0086), a distal end of the first flange (Fig. 24, item 532) comes into contact with the jaw-inclined surface (Para. 0083-0086) (Fig. 16, item 114a, 114b), and a distal end of the second flange (Fig. 24, item 534) comes into contact with the first jaw (Para. 0083-0086) (Fig. 16, item 118a).
Regarding claim 8, Williams discloses the surgical instrument of claim 5, wherein, when the operation member is moved in a direction toward the distal end of the pair of jaws while the pair of jaws are closed, the second flange is subjected to a rotational force (Para. 0085, threaded shaft 528 applies a rotating force to adjustment member 526, which causes advancement of flange 534) in a direction that causes the second flange to move forward (Para. 0085) further toward the distal end (Para. 0085, flange 534 advances distally) than the first flange (Para. 0083-0086).
Regarding claim 9, Williams discloses the surgical instrument of claim 8, wherein, when the operation member is moved in the direction toward the distal end of the pair of jaws while the pair of jaws are closed (Para. 0083-0086), a proximal end of the first flange (Fig. 24, item 532) comes into contact with the second jaw (Para. 0083-0086) (Fig. 16, item 114a, 114b) and a distal end of the second flange (Fig. 24, item 534) comes into contact with the first jaw (Para. 0083-0086) (Fig. 16, item 118a).
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.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams.
Regarding claim 10, Williams does not expressly disclose the surgical instrument of claim 5, wherein a relationship of n+o>10 mm is satisfied where n [mm] is a horizontal distance from a rotation axis of the operation member to a proximal end of the first flange, and o [mm] is a horizontal distance from the rotation axis of the operation member to a distal end of the second flange.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the first flange and the second flange such that a relationship of n+o>10 mm is satisfied, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Williams does not expressly disclose the surgical instrument of claim 2, wherein the operation member is formed such that the second flange extends further in a direction toward the distal end than the first flange.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the first flange and the second flange such that the second flange extends further in a direction toward the distal end than the first flange, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Williams does not expressly disclose the surgical instrument of claim 11, wherein the first flange has a length of about 2 mm to about 10 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the first flange such that the first flange has a length of about 2 mm to about 10 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Williams does not expressly disclose the surgical instrument of claim 11, wherein a relationship of m/l<10 is satisfied where m [mm] is a length of the first flange and l [mm] is a length by which the second flange extends further than the first flange.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the first flange and the second flange such that a relationship of n+o>10 mm is satisfied, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Williams does not expressly disclose the surgical instrument of claim 11, wherein the second flange extends further than the first flange to a length whose value is greater than a value that causes a sum of rotational moments applied to the operation member to be zero.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the first flange and the second flange such that the second flange extends further than the first flange to a length whose value is greater than a value that causes a sum of rotational moments applied to the operation member to be zero, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Williams does not expressly disclose the surgical instrument of claim 11, wherein a relationship of w/l<5 [degree/mm] is satisfied where w [degree] is an inclination angle of the jaw-inclined surface and l [mm] is a length by which the second flange extends further than the first flange.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the first flange and the second flange such that a relationship of w/l<5 [degree/mm] is satisfied, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights