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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 16/197,911, filed 11/21/2018, and Application No. 14/207,813, filed 3/13/2014, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/05/2021.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first interlocking feature in claim 1 and second interlocking feature in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the first interlocking features" in 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as “the first interlocking feature”.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for their dependency on rejected claim 1.
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.
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) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo (US 2011/0288579 A1) in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hyodo discloses a surgical device (see for example manipulator 1, while reference is made to the embodiment of Fig. 1 for like parts, the embodiment of Figs. 11A-11C is being used in the current rejection), comprising: a first clamp jaw (see for example lower gripping member 16, which is replaced by an opposing gripping member of the gripping member 73 of Figs. 11A-11C); a second clamp jaw (gripping member 73) rotatably coupled to the first clamp jaw such that the first clamp jaw and the second clamp jaw pivot between a first unclamped position (Fig. 11A) and a second clamped position (Fig. 11C), the second clamp jaw (73) comprising: an inner profile (grasping face 73A); and a deflection control profile opposite the inner profile (profile of surface opposing 73A; Fig. 11A), wherein the deflection control profile comprises a first abutment surface (single planar surface formed on one side of first stopper 75A) formed in the second clamp jaw (73) and a second abutment surface (single planar surface formed on the opposing side of the first stopper 75A; Fig. 11A) formed in the second clamp jaw, wherein in the first unclamped position (Fig. 11A), the first abutment surface is disposed remote from the second abutment surface (as there is a gap between the first stopper surfaces), and wherein in the second clamped position (Fig. 11C), all or a portion of the first abutment surface contacts all or a portion of the second abutment surface (as the gap between the first stopper surfaces is closed); wherein in the first unclamped position (Fig. 11A), the inner profile (73A) of the second clamp jaw has a first shape (linear shape) and in the second clamped position (Fig. 11C), the inner profile (73A) of the second clamp jaw has a second shape (curved or bent shape).
Hyodo fails to disclose wherein the first abutment surface includes a first interlocking feature and the second abutment surface includes a second interlocking feature, and wherein in the second clamped position the first interlocking feature operatively engages the second interlocking feature.
However, Siegal teaches an elongated element (Figs. 15A-15B) with a deflection control profile (side of segments 12 with cutouts) opposite an inner profile (side of segments 12 without cutouts), wherein the deflection control profile comprises a first abutment surface (abutment surface 18) and a second abutment surface (abutment surface 16), wherein the first abutment surface (18) includes a first interlocking feature (interpreted under 112(f) as a protrusion and equivalents thereof, and Siegal teaches projecting ridges 36; Fig. 15A; [0112]) and the second abutment surface (16) includes a second interlocking feature (interpreted under 112(f) as a channel and equivalents thereof, and Siegal teaches slots 34), and wherein in a second clamped position (Fig. 15B) the first interlocking feature (36) operatively engages the second interlocking feature (34; Fig. 15B; [0112]) for the purpose of providing various forms of interlocking, thereby improving mechanic stability of the predefined curved configuration ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second abutment surfaces of Hyodo to include first and second interlocking features as claimed, as taught by Siegal in order to improve mechanic stability of the predefined curved configuration in the clamped configuration.
Regarding claim 2, Hyodo modified discloses wherein the first interlocking feature (36) of the first abutment surface (18) is a protrusion (projecting ridge; Fig. 15A of Siegal), and the second interlocking feature (34) of the second abutment surface (16) is a channel (slot; Fig. 15A of Siegal), and in the second clamped position, all or a portion of the first abutment surface contacts all or a portion of the second abutment surface such that all or a portion of the protrusion (36) of the first abutment surface is received into the channel (34) of the second abutment surface (as projecting ridges 36 are configured for engaging slots 34; [0112]; Fig. 15B of Siegal).
Regarding claim 3, Hyodo modified discloses wherein in the first unclamped position (Fig. 15A of Siegal), the protrusion (36) of the first abutment surface (18) is disposed external to the channel (34) of the second abutment surface (16; Fig. 15A of Siegal).
Regarding claim 4, Hyodo modified discloses wherein the protrusion (36 of Siegal) of the first abutment surface (18) has a first uniform cross-sectional shape along the length of the protrusion (Fig. 15A) and the channel (34 of Siegal) of the second abutment surface (16) has a second uniform cross-sectional shape along the length of the channel (Fig. 15A of Siegal).
Regarding claim 5, Hyodo modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Hyodo further discloses the second clamp jaw (73) further comprising a flexion assistance void (circular opening of first buffer part 76A) formed in the second clamp jaw, wherein the flexion assistance void is defined by one or more surfaces (surface(s) along circular opening; Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 6, Hyodo modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Hyodo further discloses wherein a first portion (half of circular opening of 76A) of the one or more surfaces defining the flexion assistance void is in contact with or adjacent to a portion of a surface at least partially defining the first abutment surface (planar surface of 75A; Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 7, Hyodo modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Hyodo further discloses wherein a second portion (other half of circular opening of 76A) of the one or more surfaces defining the flexion assistance void is in contact with or adjacent to a portion of a surface at least partially defining the second abutment surface (opposing planar surface of 75A; Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 8, Hyodo modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Hyodo further discloses wherein a first planar surface (planar surface on one side of first stopper 76A) at least partially defines the first abutment surface and a second planar surface (planar surface on other side of first stopper 76A) at least partially defines the second abutment surface (Fig. 11A), wherein in the first unclamped position (Fig. 11A), the first planar surface and the second planar surface cooperate to define a slot (gap between surfaces of 76A) formed in the second clamp jaw (Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 9, Hyodo modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Hyodo further discloses wherein the flexion assistance void is defined by a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 11A) but fails to disclose the plurality of surfaces cooperate to form a substantially triangular shape. Instead, the flexion assistance void is formed in a substantially circular shape (76A; Fig. 11A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the flexion assistance void of modified Hyodo to be substantially triangular instead of substantially circular as an obvious matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the triangular shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the claimed shape. For example, applicant states “other embodiments may use other shapes” [0060], including flexion assistance voids 202 “which are substantially circular” [0068], equivalent to those disclosed by Hyodo.
Regarding claim 11, Hyodo modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Hyodo further discloses the second clamp jaw (73) further comprising a plurality of flexion assistance voids (openings of 76A, 76B) formed in the second clamp jaw (Fig. 11A), and wherein each of the plurality of flexion assistance voids is defined by one or more surfaces (circular surfaces surrounding 76A, 76B).
Regarding claim 12, Hyodo modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Hyodo further discloses wherein the first abutment surface (single planar surface formed on one side of first stopper 75A) and the second abutment surface (single planar surface formed on the opposing side of the first stopper 75A; Fig. 11A) define a first set of abutment surfaces (Fig. 11A) formed in the second clamp jaw, and the deflection control profile comprises at least a second set of abutment surfaces (set of planar surfaces at 74B) and a third set of abutment surfaces (while only two sets are shown, three or more buffer parts i.e. sets of abutment surfaces may be provided; [0099]).
Regarding claim 13, Hyodo modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Hyodo further discloses wherein the inner profile (73A) comprises a smooth surface (as surface 73A is smooth; Fig. 11A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauer (US 2015/0257776 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sauer discloses a surgical device (Figs. 1A, 16A, 16B, wherein the surgical clamp jaw 256 may replace jaw 32; [0075]), comprising: a first clamp jaw (30); a second clamp jaw (256) rotatably coupled to the first clamp jaw such that the first clamp jaw and the second clamp jaw pivot between a first unclamped position (Fig. 2A) and a second clamped position (Fig. 2B), the second clamp jaw (256) comprising: an inner profile (inner surface of 256); and a deflection control profile (outer surface of 256) opposite the inner profile (Figs. 16A-16B), wherein the deflection control profile comprises a first abutment surface (260A) formed in the second clamp jaw and a second abutment surface (260B) formed in the second clamp jaw, wherein the first abutment surface includes a first interlocking feature (258A) and the second abutment surface includes a second interlocking feature (258B); wherein in the first unclamped position, the first abutment surface is disposed remote from the second abutment surface (Fig. 16A), and wherein in the second clamped position, all or a portion of the first abutment surface contacts all or a portion of the second abutment surface such that the first interlocking features operatively engages the second interlocking feature (Fig. 16B), and wherein in the first unclamped position, the inner profile of the second clamp jaw has a first shape (Fig. 16A) and in the second clamped position, the inner profile of the second clamp jaw has a second shape (see for example, Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 2, Sauer discloses wherein the first interlocking feature (258A) of the first abutment surface is a protrusion (Fig. 16B), and the second interlocking feature (258B) of the second abutment surface is a channel (Fig. 16B), and in the second clamped position, all or a portion of the first abutment surface contacts all or a portion of the second abutment surface such that all or a portion of the protrusion of the first abutment surface is received into the channel of the second abutment surface (see for example, Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 3, Sauer discloses wherein in the first unclamped position, the protrusion of the first abutment surface is disposed external to the channel of the second abutment surface (Fig. 16B).
Regarding claim 4, Sauer discloses wherein the protrusion of the first abutment surface has a first uniform cross-sectional shape along the length of the protrusion and the channel of the second abutment surface has a second uniform cross-sectional shape along the length of the channel (Fig. 16B).
Regarding claim 5, Sauer discloses the second clamp jaw further comprising a flexion assistance void (see for example, 136, Fig. 5B) formed in the second clamp jaw, wherein the flexion assistance void is defined by one or more surfaces (Figs. 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 6, Sauer discloses wherein a first portion of the one or more surfaces defining the flexion assistance void is in contact with or adjacent to a portion of a surface at least partially defining the first abutment surface (Figs. 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 7, Sauer discloses wherein a second portion of the one or more surfaces defining the flexion assistance void is in contact with or adjacent to a portion of a surface at least partially defining the second abutment surface (Figs. 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 8, Sauer discloses wherein a first planar surface at least partially defines the first abutment surface and a second planar surface at least partially defines the second abutment surface (Figs. 16A-16B), wherein in the first unclamped position, the first planar surface and the second planar surface cooperate to define a slot formed in the second clamp jaw (Figs. 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 9, Sauer discloses wherein the flexion assistance void is defined by a plurality of surfaces, and the plurality of surfaces cooperate to form a substantially triangular shape (Figs. 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 10, Sauer discloses wherein in the first shape, at least a portion on the inner profile has a concave shape (Fig. 16A), and in the second shape, at least a portion on the inner profile has a convex shape (as jaw 256 may be in a clamped shape similar to jaw 160 in Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 11, Sauer discloses the second clamp jaw further comprising a plurality of flexion assistance voids (see for example, 136, Fig. 5B) formed in the second clamp jaw, and wherein each of the plurality of flexion assistance voids is defined by one or more surfaces (Figs. 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 12, Sauer discloses wherein the first abutment surface and the second abutment surface define a first set of abutment surfaces formed in the second clamp jaw, and the deflection control profile comprises at least a second set of abutment surfaces and a third set of abutment surfaces (Figs. 16A-16B).
Regarding claim 13, Sauer discloses wherein the inner profile comprises a smooth surface (Fig. 16A).
Regarding claim 14, Sauer discloses wherein in the first shape, at least a portion on the inner profile has a first concave shape (Fig. 16A), and in the second shape, at least a portion on the inner profile has a second concave shape that is different than the first concave shape (as jaw 256 may be in a clamped shaped similar to jaw 140 in Fig. 6C).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1).
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims a surgical device, comprising: a first clamp jaw (claims 1, lines 1-2); a second clamp jaw rotatably coupled to the first clamp jaw such that the first clamp jaw and the second clamp jaw pivot between a first unclamped position and a second clamped position (claim 1, lines 3-6), the second clamp jaw comprising: an inner profile (claim 1, line 8); and a deflection control profile opposite the inner profile, wherein the deflection control profile comprises a first abutment surface formed in the second clamp jaw and a second abutment surface formed in the second clamp jaw (claim 1, lines 9-13); wherein in the first unclamped position, the first abutment surface is disposed remote from the second abutment surface, and wherein in the second clamped position, all or a portion of the first abutment surface contacts all or a portion of the second abutment surface (claim 1, lines 14-18), and wherein in the first unclamped position, the inner profile of the second clamp jaw has a first shape and in the second clamped position, the inner profile of the second clamp jaw has a second shape (claim 1, lines 19-22).
U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 fails to claim wherein the first abutment surface includes a first interlocking feature and the second abutment surface includes a second interlocking feature, and wherein in the second clamped position the first interlocking feature operatively engages the second interlocking feature.
However, Siegal teaches an elongated element (Figs. 15A-15B) with a deflection control profile (side of segments 12 with cutouts) opposite an inner profile (side of segments 12 without cutouts), wherein the deflection control profile comprises a first abutment surface (abutment surface 18) and a second abutment surface (abutment surface 16), wherein the first abutment surface (18) includes a first interlocking feature (interpreted under 112(f) as a protrusion and equivalents thereof, and Siegal teaches projecting ridges 36; Fig. 15A; [0112]) and the second abutment surface (16) includes a second interlocking feature (interpreted under 112(f) as a channel and equivalents thereof, and Siegal teaches slots 34), and wherein in a second clamped position (Fig. 15B) the first interlocking feature (36) operatively engages the second interlocking feature (34; Fig. 15B; [0112]) for the purpose of providing various forms of interlocking, thereby improving mechanic stability of the predefined curved configuration ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second abutment surfaces of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 to include first and second interlocking features as claimed, as taught by Siegal in order to improve mechanic stability of the predefined curved configuration in the clamped configuration.
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 modified discloses wherein the first interlocking feature (36) of the first abutment surface (18) is a protrusion (projecting ridge; Fig. 15A of Siegal), and the second interlocking feature (34) of the second abutment surface (16) is a channel (slot; Fig. 15A of Siegal), and in the second clamped position, all or a portion of the first abutment surface contacts all or a portion of the second abutment surface such that all or a portion of the protrusion (36) of the first abutment surface is received into the channel (34) of the second abutment surface (as projecting ridges 36 are configured for engaging slots 34; [0112]; Fig. 15B of Siegal).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 modified discloses wherein in the first unclamped position (Fig. 15A of Siegal), the protrusion (36) of the first abutment surface (18) is disposed external to the channel (34) of the second abutment surface (16; Fig. 15A of Siegal).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 modified discloses wherein the protrusion (36 of Siegal) of the first abutment surface (18) has a first uniform cross-sectional shape along the length of the protrusion (Fig. 15A) and the channel (34 of Siegal) of the second abutment surface (16) has a second uniform cross-sectional shape along the length of the channel (Fig. 15A of Siegal).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 modified claims the invention as disclosed above, and further claims wherein in the first shape, at least a portion on the inner profile has a first concave shape, and in the second shape, at least a portion on the inner profile has a second concave shape that is different than the first concave shape (claim 1, lines 23-27).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims the second clamp jaw further comprising a flexion assistance void formed in the second clamp jaw, wherein the flexion assistance void is defined by one or more surfaces (claim 2, lines 1-4).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims wherein a first portion of the one or more surfaces defining the flexion assistance void is in contact with or adjacent to a portion of a surface at least partially defining the first abutment surface (claim 3, lines 1-4).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims wherein a second portion of the one or more surfaces defining the flexion assistance void is in contact with or adjacent to a portion of a surface at least partially defining the second abutment surface (claim 4, lines 1-5).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims wherein a first planar surface at least partially defines the first abutment surface and a second planar surface at least partially defines the second abutment surface, wherein in the first unclamped position, the first planar surface and the second planar surface cooperate to define a slot formed in the second clamp jaw (claim 5, lines 1-7).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims wherein the flexion assistance void is defined by a plurality of surfaces, and the plurality of surfaces cooperate to form a substantially triangular shape (claim 6, lines 1-4).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims a surgical device, comprising: a first clamp jaw (claims 10, lines 1-2); a second clamp jaw rotatably coupled to the first clamp jaw such that the first clamp jaw and the second clamp jaw pivot between a first unclamped position and a second clamped position (claim 10, lines 3-6), the second clamp jaw comprising: an inner profile (claim 10, line 8); and a deflection control profile opposite the inner profile, wherein the deflection control profile comprises a first abutment surface formed in the second clamp jaw and a second abutment surface formed in the second clamp jaw (claim 10, lines 9-13); wherein in the first unclamped position, the first abutment surface is disposed remote from the second abutment surface, and wherein in the second clamped position, all or a portion of the first abutment surface contacts all or a portion of the second abutment surface (claim 10, lines 14-18), and wherein in the first unclamped position, the inner profile of the second clamp jaw has a first shape and in the second clamped position, the inner profile of the second clamp jaw has a second shape (claim 10, lines 19-22); wherein in the first shape, at least a portion on the inner profile has a concave shape, and in the second shape, at least a portion on the inner profile has a convex shape (claim 10, lines 23-25).
U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 fails to claim wherein the first abutment surface includes a first interlocking feature and the second abutment surface includes a second interlocking feature, and wherein in the second clamped position the first interlocking feature operatively engages the second interlocking feature.
However, Siegal teaches an elongated element (Figs. 15A-15B) with a deflection control profile (side of segments 12 with cutouts) opposite an inner profile (side of segments 12 without cutouts), wherein the deflection control profile comprises a first abutment surface (abutment surface 18) and a second abutment surface (abutment surface 16), wherein the first abutment surface (18) includes a first interlocking feature (interpreted under 112(f) as a protrusion and equivalents thereof, and Siegal teaches projecting ridges 36; Fig. 15A; [0112]) and the second abutment surface (16) includes a second interlocking feature (interpreted under 112(f) as a channel and equivalents thereof, and Siegal teaches slots 34), and wherein in a second clamped position (Fig. 15B) the first interlocking feature (36) operatively engages the second interlocking feature (34; Fig. 15B; [0112]) for the purpose of providing various forms of interlocking, thereby improving mechanic stability of the predefined curved configuration ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second abutment surfaces of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 to include first and second interlocking features as claimed, as taught by Siegal in order to improve mechanic stability of the predefined curved configuration in the clamped configuration.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims the second clamp jaw further comprising a plurality of flexion assistance voids formed in the second clamp jaw, and wherein each of the plurality of flexion assistance voids is defined by one or more surfaces (claim 7, lines 1-5).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims wherein the first abutment surface and the second abutment surface define a first set of abutment surfaces formed in the second clamp jaw, and the deflection control profile comprises at least a second set of abutment surfaces and a third set of abutment surfaces (claim 8, lines 1-6).
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 in view of Siegal (US 2008/0208255 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 12,324,600 B2 claims wherein the inner profile comprises a smooth surface (claim 9, lines 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571)272-7134. 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.
/SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights