DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites, “…to be remained in the second state.” However, it appears that the claim should recite some form of “…to remain in the second state” or “…to be maintained in the second state.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim broadly recites, “when an external force is applied to the stop member, the stop member rotates relative to the connecting member…” The specification only describes a single, specific embodiment for generating this force: the translation of a specifically configured “driving member 4” (a sled on the staple cartridge) that abuts the stop member during the rotation/closing of the jaws (see ¶ [0063] and figures 12-14). However, claim 1 does not limit the “external force” to the force applied by the driving member or the jaw-closing mechanism. By using the generic term “external force,” the claim broadly encompasses any force applied by any means (e.g., a manual button pressed by the surgeon, an independent electronic actuator, a lever on the handle). The specification does not demonstrate that the inventor possessed the broad genus of applying “an external force” by any means other than the specific mechanical interaction of the jaw-mounted driving member abutting the stop member. Therefore, the claim is broader than the disclosure and therefore lacks sufficient written disclosure. To overcome this rejection, the applicant may amend the claim to further clarify the “external force.”
Regarding claims 2-20, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 18 and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites that the “connecting member comprises a first limiting portion, and the mounting groove is provided with a second limiting portion.” Based on the dependencies of claims 2 and 13, the mounting groove is a feature of the connecting member. Therefore, the connecting member houses both the first and second limiting portions. The claim then states these portions cooperate to limit the rotation of the connecting member. A single rigid body cannot limit its own rotation via two of its own fixed internal features interacting. Clarification of the cooperation between the structures to limit the rotation of the connecting member would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is also rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aranyi (US 2017/0325813 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aranyi discloses a staple head (Figure 3A, #106) for a surgical stapler (Figure 1), comprising:
a first jaw (Figure 3B, #108) and a second jaw (Figure 3B, #110) arranged opposite to each other (Shown in figures 3A-3B);
a connecting member (Figures 3B and 4, #150), connected to proximal ends of the first jaw and the second jaw (Described in ¶ [0045]);
a stop member (Figure 5, #130) rotatably mounted on the connecting member (Shown in figures 4 and 5, and described in ¶ [0059]) and comprising a first blocking portion (Figure 5, #132/#145a/#145b/#145c. See further ¶ [0053]); and
a firing mechanism (Figure 5, #D) movable along an axial direction of the surgical stapler (Described in ¶ [0045]) and comprising a second blocking portion (Figure 7, #116. Further described in ¶'s [0050] & [0053]); wherein when the stop member is in a first state, the first blocking portion is located on a path where the second blocking portion moves toward a distal end (Shown in figure 7, and described in ¶'s [0055] & [0063]); and when an external force is applied to the stop member (Described in ¶ [0064] - installation of a new cartridge), the stop member rotates relative to the connecting member in a first direction (Shown in figure 14) such that the first blocking portion moves away from an axial center of the stapler, the stop member enters a second state, and the first blocking portion disengages from the path where the second blocking portion moves toward the distal end (Shown in figure 14 and described in ¶'s [0064] - [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Aranyi further discloses wherein a distal end of the connecting member is provided with a mounting portion for mounting the stop member (Figures 4, 7, & 8, #153b); when the first jaw and the second jaw are in an open state, the mounting portion is at least partially located on a side of the second blocking portion away from an axial center of the stapler (Shown in figures 3B and 4); and a first distance is set between the first blocking portion and the second blocking portion along the axial direction of the surgical stapler (Figure 7 illustrates a distance between elements #145c and #119b).
Regarding claim 3, Aranyi further discloses wherein the stop member further comprises a pivoting portion (Figures 5 & 6, #134) rotatably mounted on the mounting portion via a pin shaft (Described in ¶'s [0046] - [0048]); and when the stop member is in the first state, the first blocking portion protrudes in a direction toward the axial center of the stapler relative to the pivoting portion (Shown in figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, Aranyi further discloses wherein the firing mechanism (Figure 5, #D) comprises a cutter (Shown in figure 5) and a cutter push rod (Figure 5, #103), a distal end of the cutter is provided with the second blocking portion (Shown in figure 7), and a proximal end of the cutter is connected to the cutter push rod (Shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Aranyi further discloses wherein when the stop member is in the second state and the firing mechanism moves toward the distal end the stop member at least partially abuts against a side surface of the cutter push rod to be remained in the second state (Described in ¶'s [0060] - [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Aranyi further discloses an elastic member (Figure 5, #131) configured to apply a biasing force to the stop member to drive the stop member to rotate in a second direction opposite to the first direction (Described in ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, Aranyi further discloses wherein the mounting portion is provided with a mounting groove (Figure 4, #153b), and an opening of the mounting groove faces toward the axial center of the stapler (Shown in figures 7-9), and the stop member at least partially enters into the mounting groove (Shown in figures 4 and 9).
Regarding claim 14, Aranyi further discloses wherein the elastic member is a torsion spring (Figure 5, #131) disposed at the pin shaft (Described in ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 15, Aranyi further discloses wherein the elastic member is a compression spring (Figure 5, #131 and described in ¶ [0064]) disposed between the stop member and an inner wall of the mounting groove (Shown in figures 4, 5, and 8).
Regarding claim 20, Aranyi further discloses a surgical stapler, comprising the staple head according to claim 1 (Shown in figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112 are overcome, claims 4-9 and 16-19 would be 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731