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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a wire positioned in the cartridge accommodation part in a longitudinal direction of the first jaw, wherein the guard part is positioned between the cartridge and the wire when the cartridge is accommodated in the cartridge accommodation part” renders the .subject matter allowable, as the feature of a wire positioned as such cannot be found in the prior art. Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the second jaw further includes a hinge part having a first rotation shaft serving as a center of the rotation with respect to the first jaw, and the guard part is configured to cover at least a portion of outer side of the hinge part” renders the subject matter allowable, as the Examiner is unable to locate a similar device in which the hinge is covered by the guard part.
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 15 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the claim limitation “in a closed state…a maximum outer diameter of the end tool is defined as a maximum distance between the first jaw and the second jaw in a cross section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the end tool” renders the claim indefinite, as the terms “maximum diameter” and the term “a maximum distance between the first jaw and the second jaw” are incongruous and the Examiner is unable to understand what the Applicant is claiming. As seen in Fig. 9, when in the closed state in which the jaws actually overlap, the distance between the jaws, maximum or otherwise, is zero. As such, since no other claim limitation is presented and as the current claim limitation represents an impossible concept, this claim cannot be Examined as written.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fiebig, US 20250120700.
Regarding claim 1, Fiebig discloses: An end tool (Fig. 22, end effector 3300) comprising:
a first jaw (Fig. 22, cartridge jaw 3310) configured to be rotatable around a pitch rotation axis and including a cartridge accommodation part (Fig. 23, channel 3314) configured to accommodate a cartridge (Fig. 22, replaceable cartridge 2000) therein;
a second jaw (Fig. 22, anvil jaw 3320) facing the first jaw and configured to rotate with respect to the first jaw; and
the cartridge (Fig. 22, replaceable cartridge 2000) accommodated in the cartridge accommodation part and including a plurality of staples,
wherein the second jaw includes a guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) extending toward the first jaw, such that at least one region of the guard part is positioned in the cartridge accommodation part during the rotation of the second jaw with respect to the first jaw (see Figs. 22-25).
Regarding claim 2, Fiebig further discloses: the first jaw (Fig. 22, cartridge jaw 3310) further includes side wall parts (Fig. 23, lateral sidewalls 3315) extending from opposite sides of a base of the first jaw toward the second jaw, and the side wall parts form the cartridge accommodation part (Fig. 23, channel 3314) in a space therebetween.
Regarding claim 3, Fiebig further discloses: the guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) is positioned between the cartridge and the side wall parts when the cartridge is accommodated in the cartridge accommodation part (Fig. 23, channel 3314).
Regarding claim 4, Fiebig further discloses: the guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) comprises a first guard part and a second guard part, the first guard part and the second guard part are disposed to face each other on opposite sides of the second jaw with respect to a longitudinal axis of the second jaw, and a width between the first guard part and the second guard part is less than a width between the side wall parts (see Figs. 22-25).
Regarding claim 5, Fiebig further discloses: a width between the side wall parts is constant in a direction in which the first jaw extends (see Figs. 22-25).
Regarding claim 7, Fiebig further discloses: the guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) is positioned on a proximal side of the second jaw (Fig. 22, anvil jaw 3320).
Regarding claim 8, Fiebig further discloses: at least one region of the guard part is positioned in the cartridge accommodation part when the first jaw and the second jaw are spaced apart at the greatest distance (see Figs. 22-25).
Regarding claim 11, Fiebig further discloses: the guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) restricts a body tissue from being inserted into a predefined region when the body tissue is clamped between the first jaw and the second jaw ([0409], “The tissue stops 3323 inhibit the migration of tissue proximally into the end effector 3300 past the tissue stops 3323 which can reduce the possibility of the tissue coming into contact with a tissue cutting edge of the tissue cutting knife 3250 parked in its proximal unfired position.”).
Regarding claim 16, Fiebig discloses: A surgical instrument (Fig. 1, surgical stapling instrument 1000) comprising:
a connection part (Fig. 1, articulation joint 1400);
an end tool (Fig. 22, end effector 3300) disposed on a first side of the connection part and rotatable in at least one direction; and
a manipulation part (Fig. 1, handle 1100) disposed on a second side of the connection part and configured to control a rotation of the end tool; wherein
the end tool includes:
a first jaw (Fig. 22, cartridge jaw 3310) configured to be rotatable around a pitch rotation axis and including a cartridge (Fig. 23, channel 3314) accommodation part configured to accommodate a cartridge (Fig. 22, replaceable cartridge 2000) therein;
a second jaw (Fig. 22, anvil jaw 3320) facing the first jaw and configured to rotate with respect to the first jaw; and
the cartridge accommodated in the cartridge accommodation part and including a plurality of staples ([0410], staples 2240),
wherein the second jaw includes a guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) extending toward the first jaw, such that at least one region of the guard part is positioned in the cartridge accommodation part during the rotation of the second jaw with respect to the first jaw (see Figs. 22-25).
Regarding claim 17, Fiebig further discloses: the first jaw (Fig. 22, cartridge jaw 3310) further includes side wall parts (Fig. 23, lateral sidewalls 3315) extending from opposite sides of a base of the first jaw toward the second jaw, and the side wall parts form the cartridge accommodation part (Fig. 23, channel 3314) in a space therebetween.
Regarding claim 18, Fiebig further discloses: the guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) is positioned between the cartridge and the side wall parts when the cartridge is accommodated in the cartridge accommodation part (Fig. 23, channel 3314).
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 6 and 12-14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiebig.
Regarding claim 6, Fiebig discloses the device of claim 2.
Fiebig does not explicitly disclose: the guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) is positioned closer to the cartridge than to the side wall parts when the cartridge is accommodated in the cartridge accommodation part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to locate the guard part closer to the cartridge than to the side walls as a matter of design choice, as it has been held that a simple rearrangement of parts is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. First, the Examiner notes that no criticality for this limitation is discussed in the specification, merely that “[0013] … the guard part may be positioned closer to the cartridge than to the side wall parts…”. No reason for this feature exists in the specification. Second, the Examiner notes that the term “may” is not an affirmative statement, and therefore carries less weight than similar terms. Finally, based upon Fig. 9, it is not entirely clear that the guard is in fact closer to the cartridge than to the side wall, as portions of the side wall curve inwardly at the top. This rendition is in contravention to the jaw structure shown in 1C, in which the guard part is inarguably closed to the cartridge.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Fiebig further discloses: a width of the second jaw is less than the maximum outer diameter (the width of the first jaw) of the end tool (see Figs. 22-25).
Fiebig does not explicitly disclose: in a closed state of the second jaw, in which the second jaw is rotated to be in closest proximity to the first jaw, a width of the first jaw defines a maximum outer diameter of the end tool.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an end effector in which the maximum diameter equates to the width of the first jaw as a matter of design choice, as it has been held that a simple rearrangement of parts is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. First, the Examiner notes that no criticality for this limitation is discussed in the specification, merely that “[00133] Meanwhile, in a closed state in which the second jaw 102 is rotated to be in closest proximity to the first jaw 101, a width of the first jaw 101 may define the maximum outer diameter of the end tool 100. That is, in the closed state of the end tool 100, the maximum outer diameter of the end tool 100 may be determined by the width of the first jaw 101”. Second, the Examiner notes that this feature could very well exist in the Fiebig reference; however, this specific feature is neither discussed in the specification nor is a cross section shown in the Figures would illustrate the limitation. Finally, the Examiner would note that based upon certain of the figures of other embodiments of the Fiebig reference, this feature is actually quite likely to exist. Fig. 39, which has a similar design to the embodiment of Figs. 22-25, clearly depicts that the second jaw inserts into the first, therefore having a smaller diameter, and that the first jaw clearly depicts the outer diameter of the end effector. Similarly, Figs. 9 and 12 show cross sections of a similar device (although the guard portions are outside of the side walls), in which the lower jaw traces the maximum extent of the outer diameter of the end effector (item 1220 is a collar that does not extend to the end effector).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Fiebig further discloses: the guard part (Fig. 24, tissue stop 3323) comprises a first guard part and a second guard part (there is a tissue stop 3323 on both sides of the jaw), the width of the first jaw (Fig. 22, cartridge jaw 3310) is greater than a distance between the first guard part and the second guard part in at least one region (see Figs. 22-25).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Fiebig further discloses: the closed state of the second jaw, the guard part is restricted from coming into contact with an outside by the first jaw (see Figs. 22-25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights