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 Objections
Claims 21, 39, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites the limitation ‘bewteen’ in line 6 of the claim. It is suggested this limitation be changed to ‘between’ for grammatical purposes.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “the second translation boy din” in line 22 of the claim. It is suggested this limitation be changed to “the second translating body in” to refer to the second translating body in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation ‘bewteen’ in line 5 of the claim. It is suggested this limitation be changed to ‘between’ for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21-29, 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houser et al (US 6063098).
Regarding claim 21, Houser teaches a surgical instrument, comprising:
(a) a shaft (160, 170) extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the shaft comprises a distal end;
(b) an end effector (180’) located distally relative to the shaft;
(c) an articulation section (182) associated with the distal end of the shaft, wherein the articulation section is interposed between the end effector and the shaft; wherein the articulation section is configured to deflect the end effector relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft between a non-articulated configuration and an articulated configuration (C:9, L:49-62), wherein the end effector is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the shaft in the non- articulated configuration (figure 3); and
(d) an articulation drive (140) operatively coupled to the articulation section, wherein the articulation drive comprises:
(i) a first translating body (145) extending through the shaft and coupled to the articulation section,
(ii) a second translating body (146) extending thought the shaft and coupled to the articulation section, and
(iii) a driver (141) configured to actuate in a direction to simultaneously drive the first translating body in a proximal direction and the second translating body in a distal direction to thereby deflect the articulation section from the non-articulated configuration toward the articulated configuration (C:12, L:5-15; 54-65)
Regarding claim 22, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 21, wherein the driver comprises a pinion (143), wherein the articulation drive further comprise a rack (147 or 144) configured to rotate the pinion in the direction.
Regarding claim 23, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 22, wherein a proximal end of the first translation body and a proximal end of the second translating body are both attached to the pinion (all components are attached to one another to form the device as a whole).
Regarding claim 24, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 23, wherein the pinion is pivotally attached to the shaft (pivoting 144, C:12, L:24-35).
Regarding claim 25, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 24, wherein the end effector comprises an ultrasonic blade (C:18, L:40-50), wherein the shaft comprises an ultrasonic waveguide (180), wherein the pinion is pivotally attached to the ultrasonic waveguide (figure 3).
Regarding claim 26, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 21, wherein the articulation drive comprises a clutch (147, 212) configured to selectively engage the driver (141), wherein the clutch is configured to actuate the driver when selectively engaged with the driver.
Regarding claim 27, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 26, wherein the clutch is configured to rotate at least a portion of the shaft about the longitudinal axis of the shaft when the clutch is disengaged from the driver (rotates articulating portion 182 with respect to shaft via translating bodies).
Regarding claim 28, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 27, wherein the clutch (147) is configured to translate along a path defined by the shaft (figure 7, ‘a path defined by the shaft’ is sufficiently broad to encompass rotation with respect to the shaft).
Regarding claim 29, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 27, wherein the clutch is slidably attached to the shaft (the clutch 147 can slide in a rotating motion).
Regarding claim 33, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 32, wherein the first translating body is operatively coupled to the first thread, wherein the second translating body is operatively coupled to the second thread (145, 146, figure 3).
Regarding claim 34, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 21, wherein the driver comprises a lever (190).
Regarding claim 35, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 21, wherein the articulation drive comprises a lock configured to inhibit the driver from actuating in the direction (teeth gear can inhibit driver from actuating in direction without sufficient force).
Regarding claim 36, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 21, wherein the first translating body comprises a cable (figure 3).
Regarding claim 37, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 21, further comprising a handle (222, 224) attached to a proximal end of the shaft, wherein the shaft is configured to rotate relative to the handle.
Regarding claim 38, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 21, wherein the end effector comprises an ultrasonic waveguide (180, 180’, 190).
Regarding claim 39. (New) A surgical instrument, comprising:
(a) a shaft (160) extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the shaft comprises a distal end;
(b) an end effector (180’) located distally relative to the shaft;
(c) an articulation section (182) configured to deflect the end effector relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft between a non-articulated configuration and an articulated configuration, wherein the end effector is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the shaft in the non-articulated configuration (C:9, L:49-62); and
(d) an articulation drive (140) operatively coupled to the articulation section, wherein the articulation drive comprises:
(i) a first translating body (145) slidably attached to the shaft and coupled to the articulation section,
(ii) a second translating body (146) slidably attached to the shaft and coupled to the articulation section, and
(iii) a driver (141), wherein the driver is configured to actuate in a first direction to simultaneously drive the first translating body in a proximal direction and the second translating body in a distal direction to thereby deflect the articulation section from the non- articulated configuration toward the articulated configuration, wherein the drive is configured to actuate in a second direction to simultaneously dive the first translating body in the distal direction and the second translating body in the proximal direction to thereby deflect the articulation section from the articulated configuration toward the non-articulated configuration (C:12, L:5-15; 54-65).
Regarding claim 40. (New) A surgical instrument, comprising:
(a) a shaft (160) extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the shaft comprises a distal end;
(b) an end effector (180’);
(c) an articulation section (182) interposed between the end effector and the shaft; wherein the articulation section is configured to deflect the end effector relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (C:9, L:49-62); and
(d) an articulation drive operatively coupled to the articulation section, wherein the articulation drive comprises:
(i) a first cable (145) extending through the shaft and coupled to the articulation section,
(ii) a second cable (146) extending thought the shaft and coupled to the articulation section, and
(iii) a driver (141) configured to actuate along a path to simultaneously drive the first cable in a proximal direction and the second cable in a distal direction to thereby deflect the articulation section relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (C:12, L:5-15; 54-65).
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.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houser et al (US 6063098) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Marczyk et al (US 20100179540).
Regarding claim 30, Houser discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 21, further comprising a gear (143) to actuate the driver in the direction, but does not specifically disclose the articulation drive comprises a motor mechanically coupled to the gear, wherein the motor and the gear are configured to actuate the driver in the direction. However, Marczyk et al (hereafter Marczyk) teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention for ultrasonic surgical instruments having articulation drives having first and second translating bodies (cables 3901, 3904) to utilize motors to automatically articulate the cables within a shaft (paragraph 0268). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a motor in the articulation drive of Houser, mechanically coupled to the gear, as taught as known in the art by Marczyk for articulation drives at the time of the invention, in order to automatically articulate the first and second translating bodies and actuate the driver in the direction.
Regarding claim 31, Houser in view of Marczyk teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 30, wherein Houser teaches the shaft comprises an ultrasonic waveguide (180), wherein the articulation drive comprises a drive shaft (216) coaxially disposed about the ultrasonic waveguide (figure 3).
Regarding claim 32, Houser in view of Marczyk teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 31, wherein Houser teaches the drive shaft comprises a first thread and a second thread (145, 146).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH TIEU DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm EST).
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.
/ANH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights