DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 6/16/2025.
Claims 1-33 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The 5 IDS documents have been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for informalities:
Claim 7 has a stray “m” in the preamble;
Claim 10 recites “seated in the a jaw”;
Claims 13 and 27 recite “configure to” which should be “configured to”;
Claims 1, 22, and 29 recite “coupled with control circuit” which should be “coupled with the control circuit”;
In claims 15 and 32, “received” should be changed to “receives”;
In claim 29, the semicolon after “a shaft” should be removed;
In claim 21, “communicates value” should be changed to “communicates a value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-21, 24, 26, 28, 31, and 32 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.
Claims 4 and 16-20 each recite instances of “the stapling instrument” which are indefinite for lacking antecedent basis, since no such instrument was recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “conditionally couples” which is indefinite for not reciting what the condition is.
Claim 9 recites “comprises one of a battery or a charge accumulator” which is indefinite because it is an improper Markush form.
Claim 10 recites “seated in the a jaw” which is indefinite because the article is not properly defined.
Claim 17 recites “the at least one cartridge antenna and at least one instrument antenna” which are indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, these are interpreted to be “the at least one cartridge antenna circuit and at least one instrument antenna circuit”.
Claims 5 and 24 recite “the second operating modem” which is unclear and indefinite for lacking antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to be “the second operating mode”
Claims 11 and 26 recite “the packaging” which is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis because claims 10 and 25 present a packaging only as an optional alternative.
Claims 12 and 31 recite “the jaw” which is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis because the claims from which they depend present a jaw only as an optional alternative.
Claims 14 and 28 recite “the power source” which is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis because the claims from which they depend present a power source only as an optional alternative.
Claims 12 and 31 recite a list including a conductive element, circuit closer, magnet, object, and power connector, but never uses the word “or”, seeming to require all of these redundant alternatives.
Claim 15 and 32 is generally unclear and indefinite due to the uses of “and” and “or”, making it unclear what conditions trigger the signal.
Claim 4 recites “the control circuit is not sampling data from tissue sensors, processing data communicated to the staple cartridge from the stapling instrument, and/or transmitting data to the stapling instrument” which is generally unclear and indefinite due to the use of “and/or” in this context.
Claim 21 is unclear and indefinite because it provides no recipient of the claimed communication.
Claims dependent on the above claims are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13, 22-23, 25, 27, 29-30, and 33 are allowed.
Claims 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-21, 24, 26, 28, 31, and 32 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 following is a statement of reasons for indicating claims 1, 22, and 29 allowable: the prior art has been found to disclose related cartridges for surgical stapling instruments (see prior art of record in the PTO-892). For example, Giordano et al. US 2018/0125590 discloses a staple cartridge comprising: a cartridge body (34); staples (380) removably stored in the cartridge body; a control circuit which performs a plurality of functions ([0094]). Giordano does not teach the first and second operating modes, nor a wake up circuit. Leimbach et al. US 2015/0272574 discloses a multi-mode control circuit that switches between sleep and active modes ([0155]), however Leimbach does not specifically teach a cartridge-resident wake up circuit coupled with the control circuit and operable to conditionally switch the operation of the control circuit between operating modes dependent on a signal provided thereto. Upon examination, the art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the invention as claimed. It is Examiner's opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at Applicant's claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: for example, see Giordano et al. US 2018/0125590, Leimbach et al. US 10,013,049, and others in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights