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 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 10/16/2025 has been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess et al. US 2013/0172929 in view of Granger US 5,533,521.
Regarding claim 1:
Hess teaches a surgical stapler comprising: a first jaw including an anvil (20); a second jaw including a cartridge (42) including a plurality of staples ([0027]), the first jaw movable towards and away from the second jaw; an anvil lift (see FIG. 197) comprising: a first anvil lift (e.g., 3146 at distal side) extending along a first side of the anvil between the anvil and the first jaw; and a second anvil lift (3147 at proximal side) extending along a second side of the anvil between the anvil and the first jaw; wherein each of the first anvil lift and the second anvil lift comprises a plurality of slots (3146, 3147) formed therein, wherein the first jaw comprises a plurality of protrusions (3231, 3232) extending into engagement with the plurality of slots to move the anvil vertically within the first jaw towards the cartridge upon longitudinal movement of the first and second anvil lifts ([0484]).
Hess therefore differs from instant claim 1 in that Hess discloses first and second anvil lifts that lift the anvil, rather than the claimed cartridge lifts that lift the cartridge.
However, Hess uses the lift as a means to control the gap between the anvil plate and cartridge. A person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that this could equivalently be accomplished by providing similar lifting means to the cartridge. Granger, for example, in a related device for controlling the gap between an upper tissue supporting surface on a first jaw (26) and a lower tissue supporting surface on a second jaw (48), teaches raising or lowering the tissue supporting surface on the second jaw, analogous to Hess's cartridge (e.g. abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Hess, by omitting the anvil plate lifting mechanism, and providing first and second cartridge lifts disposed between the second jaw and the cartridge, the cartridge lifts being arranged to move the cartridge towards the first jaw while the cartridge lift moves in a longitudinal direction. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing such an alternative, and would be further motivated by Granger, who shows it to be a beneficial method to control the gap between the jaws.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first cartridge lift and the second cartridge lift are connected to form a single monolithic structure (Hess, see FIG. 197/198).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the plurality of protrusions extend from the cartridge (Hess, addressed in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the second jaw further comprises a cartridge retainer (Hess, analogous to 3254).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 5, as discussed above, wherein the plurality of protrusions extend from the cartridge retainer (Hess, see FIG. 197).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first jaw is pivotably coupled to the second jaw (Hess, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first jaw comprises jaw springs biasing the first jaw into a spaced configuration relative to the second jaw (e.g., Granger, col. 5, line 62 through col. 6, line 10).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising an actuation beam (3250) longitudinally slidable distally a first predetermined distance from a proximal position in which the first jaw is positioned away from the second jaw to a closed position in which the first jaw is moved towards the second jaw ([0485]).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 9, as discussed above, wherein upon further longitudinally distal advancement of the actuation beam beyond the first predetermined distance, the actuation beam activates the cartridge lift ([0485]).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Hess and Granger teaches the surgical stapler of claim 10, as discussed above, wherein further longitudinally distal advancement of the actuation beam beyond the first predetermined distance, the staples are ejected from the cartridge (e.g., when staples are fired and beam 3250 is at its distal-most position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 prior art does not teach the claimed combination of elements and further wherein the first and second cartridge lifts are biased in a proximal direction to move the cartridge vertically towards the anvil.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: for example, see FIG. 18 of Bedi et al. US 2011/0087276 for similar lift features.
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