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 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 1-10 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 front end" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the mouth” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the length direction” in lines 10 and 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the inner side” in line 12-13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the tail ends” in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strip (321) is provided with two” in line 2-3 of the claim. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Claim 2 also recites the limitation “the two lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strips” in line 3 of the claim, since claim 1 only previously recites a single “lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strip” in lines 10-11 of claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the end face” in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first tooth body” in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim only previously recites “several first tooth bodies” and it is unclear if this limitation refers to a single first tooth body of the several first tooth bodies or all of the first tooth bodies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first groove bottom” in line 7-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first tooth groove” in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim only previously recites “first tooth grooves” and it is unclear if this limitation refers to a single first tooth groove of the first tooth grooves or all of the first tooth grooves.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the second tooth body” in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim only previously recites “several second tooth bodies” and it is unclear if this limitation refers to a single second tooth body of the several second tooth bodies or all of the first tooth bodies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first tooth slot” in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the reference numeral 323 is previously used to identify the limitation “first tooth grooves” in lines 5-6 of the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the second tooth groove” in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim only previously recites “second tooth grooves” and it is unclear if this limitation refers to a single second tooth groove of the second tooth grooves or all of the second tooth grooves.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “two lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strips” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this refers to the same limitation in claim 2. The examiner interprets the limitation to be “the two lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strips” for examination purposes.
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 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latterell et al (US 20040049185) in view of Kanehira et al (US 20030171747).
Regarding claim 1, Latterell et al (hereafter Latterell) discloses a multifunctional integrated surgical forceps (paragraphs 0024-0047), characterized in that it comprises a multifunctional forceps head (66), a sleeve (62), a forceps head opening and closing mechanism (61), and a housing (60), the sleeve (62) is connected to the housing (60), and the multifunctional forceps head (66) is set at the front end of the sleeve (62) and extends outside the mouth of the sleeve (62), the forceps head opening and closing mechanism (61) controls the opening and closing action of the multifunctional forceps head (66), the multifunctional forceps head (66) comprises a first forceps head (72) and a second forceps head (76), and the first forceps head (72) is formed with an upper toothed (91) clamping electrocoagulation strip (75) along the length direction, and the second forceps head (76) is formed with a lower toothed (91) clamping electrocoagulation strip (80) that cooperates with the upper toothed clamping electrocoagulation strip (75) along the length direction, the inner side of the second forceps head (76) is also provided with a coagulation strip (78). Latterell does not disclose that the tail ends of the first forceps head (31) and the second forceps head (32) are both hooked. However, Kanehira et al (hereafter Kanehira) teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention for surgical forceps heads to have first and second forceps heads with hooked tail ends (figure 7, paragraph 0201) to more easily bring the treatment portion in close contact with the patient’s body tissue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the tail ends f the first and second forceps head of Latterell hooked, as taught as a known configuration for forceps heads in the art by Kanehira, in order to more easily bring the treatment portion in close contact with the patient’s body tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Latterell in view of Kanehira teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, characterized in that the lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strip is provided with two teeth, and the two lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strips are arranged parallel to each other, the lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strip comprises several first tooth bodies and first tooth grooves arranged alternately in sequence, and the end face of the first tooth body is a first arc-shaped surface protruding upward, and the groove bottom of the first tooth groove is a second arc-shaped surface protruding downward; the upper toothed clamping electrocoagulation strip comprises several second tooth bodies and second tooth grooves ranged alternately in sequence, wherein the second tooth body corresponds to the first tooth slot, and the second tooth groove corresponds to the first tooth body (multiple teeth 91 of first and second jaws meet all of the limitations, figure 7).
Regarding claim 3, Latterell in view of Kanehira teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 2, characterized in that the coagulation strip (78) is arranged between two lower toothed clamping electrocoagulation strips (figure 5, 78 lies in between the sides of 76). Kanehira teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention to make a forceps head with a width of the coagulation strip (42) gradually decreases from the side close to the second forceps head (43) to the side far away from the second forceps head (41), and providing a provided with a V-shaped groove (43) that cooperates with the coagulation strip (42), such that the strip can act as a blade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one to ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further make the width of the coagulation strip gradually decreases from the side close to the second forceps head to the side far away from the second forceps head, and providing a provided with a V-shaped groove that cooperates with the coagulation strip, as taught as a known configuration for coagulation strips at the time of the invention by Kanehira, such that the coagulation strip can also act as a blade for cutting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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 and to resolve the 112 issues above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art (Latterell in view of Kanehira, see above) discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 3, but does not specifically teach the top surface of the coagulation strip is higher than the top surface of the upper toothed clamping electrocoagulation strip , and the top surface of the V-shaped groove is higher than the inner surface of the first forceps head. Therefore, the claims have not been rejected over the body of prior art since no reference could be found that teaches the combination of limitations set forth in claim 3 with the top surface of the coagulation strip is higher than the top surface of the upper toothed clamping electrocoagulation strip , and the top surface of the V-shaped groove is higher than the inner surface of the first forceps head, and there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to produce the claimed invention.
The prior art (Latterell in view of Kanehira, see above) discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, but does not specifically teach the forceps head opening and closing mechanism comprises a sliding rod , a sliding block, a front handle, a rear handle, and the sliding rod passes through the tube hole of the sleeve, the sliding block is fixed on the outer side of the sliding rod and is slidably connected to the sleeve, the rear handle is rotatably connected to the starting end of the sliding rod, and a second forceps head fixing plate is formed on the side of the second forceps head close to the sliding rod, the second forceps head fixing plate is sequentially provided with a first mounting hole and a second mounting hole from left to right, the height of the first mounting hole is higher than that of the second mounting hole, the sliding rod is a third mounting hole on top that cooperates with the first mounting hole, and the sliding rod and the second forceps head fixing plate are rotatably connected to the first mounting hole through the third mounting hole ;the first forceps head is formed with two first forceps head fixing plates on one side close to the sliding rod, the two first forceps head fixing plates are arranged on both sides of the second forceps head fixing plate, the first forceps head fixing plate is provided with a fourth mounting hole and a fifth mounting hole from left to right, the fourth mounting hole corresponds to the second mounting hole, and the height of the fifth mounting hole is higher than that of the fourth mounting hole , the first forceps head fixing plate and the second forceps head fixing plate is rotatably connected to the second mounting hole through the fourth mounting hole, and the fifth mounting hole is provided with a fixing pin , the inner side of the end of the sleeve is provided with an extension tube , the extension tube is provided with extension plates on both sides of the first forceps head fixing plate , and the extension plates are connected to the fixing pins. Therefore, the claims have not been rejected over the body of prior art because no reference could be found that teaches all of the limitations set forth above in combination with the teachings of the prior art, and there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to produce the claimed invention.
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