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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the handle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the handle” is supposed to be “the handle assembly” or “the housing”. Since the handle assembly is claimed as including the trigger, the claim limitation “a trigger pivotable relative to the handle assembly” would be unclear. Thus “the handle” is being interpreted as “the housing” for examination purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the handle" in line 2. It is unclear if “the handle” is supposed to be “the handle assembly” or “the housing”. For examination purposes, “the handle” is being interpreted as “the housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the handle" in line 2. It is unclear if “the handle” is supposed to be “the handle assembly” or “the housing”. For examination purposes, “the handle” is being interpreted as “the housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the handle" in line 2. It is unclear if “the handle” is supposed to be “the handle assembly” or “the housing”. For examination purposes, “the handle” is being interpreted as “the housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the handle" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the handle” is supposed to be “the handle assembly” or “the housing”. Since the handle assembly is claimed as including the trigger, the claim limitation “a trigger pivotable relative to the handle assembly” would be unclear. Thus “the handle” is being interpreted as “the housing” for examination purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the handle" in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear if “the handle” is supposed to be “the handle assembly” or “the housing”. For examination purposes, “the handle” is being interpreted as “the housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the step of limiting" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21, 22, 25-28, 31-33, 36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bales et al. (US 5,176,702).
Regarding claim 21 Bales discloses (fig. 1a-1b) a surgical instrument, comprising a handle assembly comprising:
(a) a housing 85;
(b) a trigger 75 pivotable relative to the housing 85 from a distal position to a proximal position (see col. 5 ln. 56-65); and
(c) a restrictor 440 mounted to the housing and configured to adjustably restrict the trigger 75 from pivoting to the proximal position (see fig. 1b and col. 11 ln. 5-23, col. 12 ln. 44-68).
Regarding claim 31 Bales discloses (fig. 1a-1b) a surgical instrument, comprising a handle assembly comprising:
(a) a housing 85;
(b) a shaft 20 extending distally from the handle (see fig. 1b);
(c) an end effector (22, 24) positioned along a distal portion of the shaft (see fig. 1a and col. 5 ln. 13-40);
(d) a trigger 75 pivotable relative to the housing 85 from a first position to a second position (see col. 5 ln. 56-65); and
(e) a restrictor 440 affixed to the housing and configured to selectively restrict the trigger from pivoting to the second position (see fig. 1b and col. 11 ln. 5-23, col. 12 ln. 44-68).
Regarding claims 22 and 33 Bales further discloses (fig. 1a-1b) the restrictor 440 comprising a linear 440 actuator configured to translate towards and away from the trigger to thereby adjustably restrict the trigger (see fig. 1b and col. 12 ln. 44-68).
Regarding claims 25 and 36, Bales further discloses (fig. 1a-1b) the housing comprising a guide (cavity 442 is positioned in) configured to guide at least a portion of the restrictor 440 towards and away from the trigger (see fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 26 Bales further discloses (fig. 1a-1b) the proximal position being defined by a relative position of the restrictor to the handle (the restrictor can move relative to the handle to lock the trigger in a proximal position; see fig. 1b and col. 12 ln. 44-68).
Regarding claim 27 Bales further discloses (fig. 1a-1b) the housing including a pin 80 about which the trigger 75 is pivotable (see fig. 1b and col. 5 ln. 56-65).
Regarding claim 28 Bales further discloses (fig. 1a-1b) a shaft 20 extending distally from the handle (see fig. 1b) and an end effector (22, 24) at a distal end of the shaft (see fig. 1a and col. 5 ln. 13-40), the trigger being configured to operate the end effector (see col. 6 ln. 9-34).
Regarding claim 32, Bales further discloses (fig. 1a-1b) the trigger 75 being pivotable about an axis 80 below the shaft (see fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 38 Bales further discloses (fig. 1a-1b) the restrictor 440 being configured to be locked in a position relative to the handle such that, upon contact (contact via 400) of the restrictor 440 with the trigger 75, the restrictor remains fixed in place relative to the handle (see col. 12 ln. 44-68).
Regarding claim 39 Bales discloses (fig. 1a-1b) a method of using a surgical instrument, the method comprising:
(a) presenting a handle having a housing 85 with a trigger 75 having a trigger range of motion 70 (see fig. 1b and col. 5 ln. 56-65);
(b) actuating a restrictor 440 to thereby limit the trigger range of motion (see col. 12 ln. 44-68).
Regarding claim 40 Bales further discloses (fig. 1a-1b) the surgical instrument including an end effector affixed (22, 24) relative to the handle (see fig. 1a-b and col. 5 ln. 13-40), the step of limiting the trigger range of motion via the restrictor thereby including limiting a function of the end effector (see col. 12 ln. 44-68).
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.
Claims 21, 28-32, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 20120253370 A1) in view of Soutorine et al. (US 20100102105 A1).
Regarding claim 21 Ross discloses (fig. 1-3) a surgical instrument, comprising a handle assembly comprising:
(a) a housing 24;
(b) a trigger 20 pivotable relative to the housing 24 from a distal position to a proximal position (see [0032]); and
Ross is silent regarding a restrictor mounted to the housing and configured to adjustably restrict the trigger from pivoting to the proximal position.
However Soutorine, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-2b) a restrictor (115+116) mounted to a housing 111 and configured to adjustably restrict a trigger 150 from pivoting to a proximal position (see [0063]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ross to have a restrictor mounted to the housing and configured to adjustably restrict the trigger from pivoting to the proximal position as taught by Soutorine, for the purpose of limiting inward movement of the bolt to limit the force that can be applied to tissue (see Soutorine [0063] and Ross [0032]).
Regarding claim 31 Ross discloses (fig. 1-3) a surgical instrument, comprising a handle assembly comprising:
(a) a housing 24;
(b) a shaft 4 extending distally from the handle (see fig. 1 and [0028]);
(c) an end effector 12 positioned along a distal portion of the shaft 4 (see fig. 1 and [0029]);
(d) a trigger 20 pivotable relative to the housing 24 from a first position to a second position (see [0032]); and
Ross is silent regarding a restrictor affixed to the housing and configured to selectively restrict the trigger from pivoting to the second position.
However Soutorine, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-2b) a restrictor (115+116) affixed to a housing 111 and configured to selectively restrict a trigger 150 from pivoting to a second position (see [0063]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ross to have a restrictor affixed to the housing and configured to selectively restrict the trigger from pivoting to the second position as taught by Soutorine, for the purpose of limiting inward movement of the bolt to limit the force that can be applied to tissue (see Soutorine [0063] and Ross [0032]).
Regarding claim 28 Ross as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Ross further discloses (fig. 1-3) a shaft 4 extending distally from the handle (see fig. 1 and [0028]) and an end effector 12 at a distal end of the shaft (see fig. 1 and [0029]), the trigger 20 being configured to operate the end effector (see [0032]).
Regarding claims 29 and 37, Ross as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 28 and 31. Ross further discloses (fig. 1-3) the end effector 12 including a clamp arm 15a configured to move along a clamping range upon pivoting the trigger 20 (see fig. 2-3 and [0032]). Ross as modified further teaches the restrictor (115+116 in Soutorine) being configured to limit a pivot range of the trigger (150 in Soutorine) to thereby limit the clamping range of the clamp arm (since movement of the trigger of Ross moves the clamping arm, limiting that movement will limiting the clamping range of the clamping arm).
Regarding claim 30, Ross as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 28. Ross further discloses (fig. 1-3) the end effector 12 including an ultrasonic blade 17 (see [0029]), the handle including a firing button 7 operable to activate the ultrasonic blade upon pivoting the trigger towards the restrictor and to a threshold position (see [0028]).
Regarding claim 32, Ross as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 31. Ross further discloses (fig. 1-3) the trigger 20 being pivotable about an axis below the shaft (see fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 24, 34, and 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious, the linear actuator comprising a rack gear, the restrictor further comprising a pinion gear coupled with the rack gear and configured to translate the rack gear. The closest prior art includes Bales and Soutorine neither of which teach the linear actuator comprising a rack gear, the restrictor further comprising a pinion gear coupled with the rack gear and configured to translate the rack gear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE H MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4:00 pm.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/KATHERINE H MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights