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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the amendment filed 06/02/2025.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 20 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: claims 10, 20 recite wherein the pressure sensor, the temperature sensor, and the pH level monitor are positioned at the tip of the triangular-shaped shaft component to provide continuous measurements to the measurement system, wherein the pressure sensor is configured with a flexible and deformable membrane that covers a reference cavity that is sealed at a low vacuum pressure and wherein the deformation of the membrane causes two mechanical changes usable for transduction to an electrical measurement.
The Office agrees the art of record fail to teach or suggest these features.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0038990 (Prior et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,273,882 (Whittier et al.), U.S. Patent Number 6,004,341 (Zhu et al.), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2010/0030057 (Gavriely et al.), U.S. Patent Number 5,916,232 (Hart), of U.S. Patent Number 5,893,369 (LeMole et al.),
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, Prior et al. discloses as shown in Figure 24 a surgical instrument capable of use in performing a mid-urethral procedure requiring placement of a mesh prosthetic within a female body, comprising: a flexible introducer component (body 1310, see paragraph [0148]), the flexible introducer component including two scissor members (spring legs 1334 are interpreted as scissor members because they pivoting handles in the shape of what one ordinary skill in the art would understand scissor handles to be, see paragraph [0148]) configured to allow a surgeon or a robot arm to hold the scissor members, the flexible introducer component including a channel opening extending through its length, from a distal end to a proximal end; and a shaft component (shaft 1210, see paragraph [0148]) configured to be insertable within the channel opening and capable of pulling a mesh prosthetic; the scissor members capable of being used to control a direction and magnitude of force required to precisely navigate and position the mesh prosthetic pulled by the shaft component, the shaft component movable within the channel opening of the flexible introducer component until the scissor members are compressed to cause a locking member (tooth 1332, see paragraph [0148]) of at least one of the scissor members to engage and grip the shaft component and arrest movement thereof to be capable of properly position the mesh prosthetic at an appropriate location within the female body. See paragraph [0148].
Prior et al. fails to disclose the channel opening is shaped as a triangular orifice, the tip of the shaft component includes a pressure sensor configured to provide measurements taken at predetermined intervals to a measurement system, or the instrument monitoring system, the shaft component being a triangular shape, and the flexible introducer component being made from acetal, polyamide, polyethene, polyvinylchloride, and being sterilizable at a high temperature.
Whittier et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar instrument where a scissor member is known alternative to a pivoting member. See col. 7, lines 52-57.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Whittier et al. by substituting the shape of the spring legs 1334 for the scissor handles disclosed by Whittier et al. because it would only require the simple substitution of one known another alternative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Zhu et al., from related field of endeavor teaches a similar instrument with a similar shaft component (150) as shown in Figure 17 where the tip of the shaft component includes a pressure sensor configured to provide measurements taken at predetermined intervals to a measurement system for the purpose of measuring pressure on the outside of the shaft component. See col. 13, lines 7-22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior et al. in view of Whittier et al. to incorporate the pressure sensor positioned at the tip of the shaft component and measurement system taught by Zhu in order to measuring pressure on the outside of the shaft component.
Prior fails to disclose comprising: an instrument monitoring system coupled to the measurement system and configured to receive measurements from the measurement system, the instrument monitoring system further comprising a navigation guidance module configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body.
Wenderow et al., from a relate field of endeavor teaches a similar instrument, which includes a navigation guidance module (monitors 304, 306, see paragraph [0034]) configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body, wherein the navigation guidance module is capable of providing real time navigation data to a surgeon or a robot arm, for the purpose of displaying data from a measurement system. See paragraph [0035]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior to include the monitors taught by Wenderow et al. such that an instrument monitoring system coupled to the measurement system and configured to receive measurements from the measurement system, the instrument monitoring system further comprising a navigation guidance module configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body in order to displaying data from a measurement system.
Gavriely et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar introducer component as shown in Figure 1A, wherein a channel opening is shaped as a triangular orifice for the purpose of configuring the introducer component to have a higher bending stiffness, resistance to collapse and prevention of kinking. See paragraph [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior to make the channel opening shaped as a triangular orifice in order to configure the introducer component to have a higher bending stiffness, resistance to collapse and prevention of kinking.
Hart, from the same field of endeavor teach a similar instrument as shown in Figure 1, where the instrument includes a similar shaft component (shaft 20, see col. 5, lines 4-15) being triangular shape, where the triangle shaped shaft component has a smooth surface capable of reducing tissue during passe of the shaft component and a curvature and tip radius that is capable of maintaining contact with a posterior aspect of the pubic bone. See col. 6, lines 40-58.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior et al. by substituting the shape of the shaft component disclosed by Prior et al. for the triangle shape taught by Hart because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
LeMole et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar surgical instrument as shown in Figure 3, where the flexible introducer component (collar 10) is made from a bio-compatible plastic material taken from a group including acetal, polyamide, polyethylene, polyvinylchloride; said plastic material being sterilizable at high temperature. See col. 5, lines 16-19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior et al. to substitute the material of the body 1310 disclosed by Prior et al. for the material (polyethylene) of the body taught by LeMole et al. because it would only require the simple substitution of one known material for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 5, 6 since they only refer to limitations recited in the alternative and Prior et al. in view of Whittier et al., Zhu and Wenderow et al. disclose the other alternative, the Office interprets Prior et al. in view of Whittier et al., Zhu and Wenderow et al. as teaching the limitations.
Regarding claims 8, 9 Prior et al. fails to disclose the scissor members include one large member and one small member and the locking mechanism is affixed to the large member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scissor members taught by Prior et al. such that one was a large member and one was a small member as a matter of engineering design choice.
Applicant has not disclosed the sizes of the scissor members relative to one another provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. See paragraph [0056] of the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Prior et al.’s scissor members, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well regardless of their size relative to another or the claimed one large one and one small one because both relative dimensions would perform the same function of providing a structure for a robot or operator to grab and pivot equally well considering the relative dimensions disclosed.
So modified, Prior et al. is considered to disclose the locking mechanism is affixed to the large member, the locking mechanism affixed to the large scissor member has a protruding member configured to grip the shaft component as the introducer component is moved up and down on the shaft component by a surgeon's hand or a robot's, because a locking mechanism (tooth 1332, see paragraph [0148]) is affixed to both, so it would necessarily be affixed to the larger member.
Regarding clam 11-17, 20 Prior et al. discloses as shown in Figure 24 a method for constructing a surgical instrument for navigation into a human body, comprising: forming a flexible introducer component (body 1310, see paragraph [0148]), the flexible introducer component including two scissor members (spring legs 1334 are interpreted as scissor members because they pivoting handles in the shape of what one ordinary skill in the art would understand scissor handles to be, see paragraph [0148]) configured to allow a surgeon or a robot arm to hold the scissor members, the flexible introducer component including a channel opening extending through its length, from a distal end to a proximal end; and inserting a shaft component (shaft 1210, see paragraph [0148]) within the channel opening, the shaft component movable within the channel opening of the flexible introducer component until the scissor members are compressed to cause a locking member (tooth 1332, see paragraph [0148]) of at least one of the scissor members to engage and grip the shaft component and arrest movement thereof.
Whittier et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar instrument where a scissor member is known alternative to a pivoting member. See col. 7, lines 52-57.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Whittier et al. by substituting the shape of the spring legs 1334 for the scissor handles disclosed by Whittier et al. because it would only require the simple substitution of one known another alternative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Prior et al. fails to disclose the channel opening is shaped as a triangular orifice.
Zhu et al., from related field of endeavor teaches a similar instrument with a similar shaft component (150) as shown in Figure 17 where the tip of the shaft component includes a pressure sensor configured to provide measurements taken at predetermined intervals to a measurement system for the purpose of measuring pressure on the outside of the shaft component. See col. 13, lines 7-22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Prior et al. in view of Whittier et al. to position at least one pressure sensor at the tip of the shaft component and measurement system taught by Zhu in order to measuring pressure on the outside of the shaft component.
Prior fails to disclose comprising: coupling an instrument monitoring system to the measurement system and configured to receive measurements from the measurement system, the instrument monitoring system further comprising a navigation guidance module configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body.
Wenderow et al., from a relate field of endeavor teaches a similar instrument, which includes a navigation guidance module (monitors 304, 306, see paragraph [0034]) configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body, wherein the navigation guidance module is capable of providing real time navigation data to a surgeon or a robot arm, for the purpose of displaying data from a measurement system. See paragraph [0035]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Prior to couple the monitors taught by Wenderow et al. such that an instrument monitoring system coupled to the measurement system and configured to receive measurements from the measurement system, the instrument monitoring system further comprising a navigation guidance module configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body in order to displaying data from a measurement system.
Gavriely et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar introducer component as shown in Figure 1A, wherein a channel opening is shaped as a triangular orifice for the purpose of configuring the introducer component to have a higher bending stiffness, resistance to collapse and prevention of kinking. See paragraph [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Prior to make the channel opening shaped as a triangular orifice in order to configure the introducer component to have a higher bending stiffness, resistance to collapse and prevention of kinking.
Hart, from the same field of endeavor teach a similar instrument as shown in Figure 1, where the instrument includes a similar shaft component (shaft 20, see col. 5, lines 4-15) being triangular shape. See col. 6, lines 40-58.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior et al. by substituting the shape of the shaft component disclosed by Prior et al. for the triangle shape taught by Hart because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
LeMole et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar surgical instrument as shown in Figure 3, where the flexible introducer component (collar 10) is made from a bio-compatible plastic material taken from a group including acetal, polyamide, polyethylene, polyvinylchloride; said plastic material being sterilizable at high temperature. See col. 5, lines 16-19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior et al. to substitute the material of the body 1310 disclosed by Prior et al. for the material (polyethylene) of the body taught by LeMole et al. because it would only require the simple substitution of one known material for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, 17 Prior fails to disclose comprising: an instrument monitoring system coupled to the measurement system and configured to receive measurements from the measurement system, the instrument monitoring system further comprising a navigation guidance module configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body.
Wenderow et al., from a relate field of endeavor teaches a similar method, which includes a navigation guidance module (monitors 304, 306, see paragraph [0034]) configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body, wherein the navigation guidance module is capable of providing real time navigation data to a surgeon or a robot arm, for the purpose of displaying data from a measurement system. See paragraph [0035]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Prior to include the monitors taught by Wenderow et al. such that an instrument monitoring system coupled to the measurement system and configured to receive measurements from the measurement system, the instrument monitoring system further comprising a navigation guidance module configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body in order to displaying data from a measurement system
Regarding claims 15, 16 since they only refer to limitations recited in the alternative and Prior et al. in view of Whittier et al., Zhu and Wenderow et al. disclose the other alternative, the Office interprets Prior et al. in view of Whittier et al., Zhu and Wenderow et al. as teaching the limitations.
Regarding claims 18, 19 Prior et al. fails to disclose the scissor members include one large member and one small member and the locking mechanism is affixed to the large member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scissor members taught by Prior et al. such that one was a large member and one was a small member as a matter of engineering design choice.
Applicant has not disclosed the sizes of the scissor members relative to one another provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. See paragraph [0056] of the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Prior et al.’s scissor members, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well regardless of their size relative to another or the claimed one large one and one small one because both relative dimensions would perform the same function of providing a structure for a robot or operator to grab and pivot equally well considering the relative dimensions disclosed.
So modified, Prior et al. is considered to disclose the locking mechanism is affixed to the large member, the locking mechanism affixed to the large scissor member has a protruding member configured to grip the shaft component as the introducer component is moved up and down on the shaft component by a surgeon's hand or a robot's, because a locking mechanism (tooth 1332, see paragraph [0148]) is affixed to both, so it would necessarily be affixed to the larger member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2026, see pages 9-18 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues obviousness is negated by the use of six references to reject the claims. In response, the office respectfully disagrees. Reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The applicant further argues the art of record fail to teach an introducer channel opening is triangular formed of sterilizable biocompatible plastics, a conforming triangular shaft that slides within the channel and is selectively arrested by a scissor-actuated locking mechanism while a surgeon or robot uses the scissor members to control direction and force, and a tip-mounted pressure sensor providing measures at predetermined intervals to a measurement system; and an instrument monitoring system coupled to the measurement system and comprising a navigation guidance module.
In response, the office respectfully disagrees. Zhu et al. teaches the limitations about the pressure sensor. Wenderow et al teaches the limitations regarding the navigation guidance module. Gavriely et al., teaches a channel opening which is triangular. Hart teaches making the shaft a triangular and configuring to slide within a complementary channel. LeMole et al. teaches making components of biocompatible plastics which are sterilizable. See rejection of claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant notes the cited portions of Zhu relate to vascular closure rather than pelvic mesh navigation. In response, the office will not it did not rely on Zhu for teaching limitations relating to the steps of performing pelvic mesh navigation. Thus, whether or not Zhu discloses vascular closure or pelvic mesh navigation is of little relevance as it does not relate to the grounds of rejection.
The pressure sensor taught by Zhu is recognized as useful in surgical procedures in general. It would clearly be reasonably pertinent and commend itself to an inventors attention considering the problem of avoiding applying unintended pressure with a shaft within the body using the tool disclosed by Prior et al. Zhu’s failure to disclose the guidance module is of little relevance as the Office relied on Wenderow for teaching these features.
The applicant notes Hart’s triangular obturator pertains to trocar penetration rather than selectively lockable sliding shaft. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees this makes claim 1 distinguishable. Prior et al. teaches the limitations of selectively lockable sliding shaft. The obturator disclosed by Hart the and the shaft disclosed by Prior et al. are similar and interpreted as equivalents because they are both shafts that are advanced through the body to perform a treatment. Substituting one shape for another would produce nothing but predictable results.
The applicant speculates that using the triangular shape of the shaft disclosed by Hart for the shaft disclosed by Prior would create nontrivial issues of friction, planar edge loading, and lock-to facet engagement. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case, Prior’s disclosure does not suggest that changing the shape of the shaft to be anything (let alone triangular) would introduce any issues (trivial or otherwise). In fact, Prior discloses paragraph [0196] that the disclosure is not intended to be interpreted as limiting and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that certain modification would be within the scope of the invention.
Applicant argues the rejection fails to provide articulated reason with rational underpinnings, but does not actually address the articulated reasons provided.
In particular, the Office stated it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior et al. in view of Whittier et al. to incorporate the pressure sensor positioned at the tip of the shaft component and measurement system taught by Zhu in order to measuring pressure on the outside of the shaft component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior to include the monitors taught by Wenderow et al. such that an instrument monitoring system coupled to the measurement system and configured to receive measurements from the measurement system, the instrument monitoring system further comprising a navigation guidance module configured to provide data to guide movement of the surgical instrument within a human body in order to displaying data from a measurement system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior to make the channel opening shaped as a triangular orifice in order to configure the introducer component to have a higher bending stiffness, resistance to collapse and prevention of kinking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior et al. by substituting the shape of the shaft component disclosed by Prior et al. for the triangle shape taught by Hart because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instrument disclosed by Prior et al. to substitute the material of the body 1310 disclosed by Prior et al. for the material (polyethylene) of the body taught by LeMole et al. because it would only require the simple substitution of one known material for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
None of these provided reasons were actually addressed by the applicant’s arguments. The applicant argues a simple material list cannot remedy missing internal geometry. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. It remains unclear what geometry recited in the claims is missing from the prior art. The applicant further speculates the claimed invention avoids operational consequences (anti-rotation indexing, contact patches, jamming). In response, the office respectfully disagrees as it speculation. These operational consequences are not discussed in the applicant’s own specification and the applicant has not explained how the structure disclosed by prior would not function in exactly the same manner to avoid them. Function follows structure. Since the structural limitations (i.e., triangular shapes, sensors, measuring system, navigation system) are met by the reference, then it may be reasonably conclude that the functional limitations are also met.
The applicant argues proof of predictable performance is absent. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. As explained above, all the prior art are either from the same field of endeavor or teach similar structure used for the same purpose. Prior discloses paragraph [0196] that the disclosure is not intended to be interpreted as limiting and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that certain modification would be within the scope of the invention. This is the proof of predictable performance which the applicant does not specifically address.
Next, the applicant argues that the Office does not address how a triangular shaft under a scissor actuated lock would arrest movement. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. Prior discloses the shaft’s movement is arrested via the scissor actuated lock by when the lock is in contact with shaft. see paragraph [0148]. Changing the shape of the shape to triangular would still allow the scissor actuated lock to contact it in the same manner. It would follow that the scissor actuated lock would arrest the motion in the same manner meeting the limitations of the claim.
Regarding the instrument monitoring system, the applicant argues that mere display of sensed data is not equivalent to a module configured to transform interval tip signals into directional guidance that actively informs instrument movement. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees as this is not a limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites a monitoring system configured to provide date to a guide directional movement of the surgical instrument within a human body. A monitor would clearly provide data by displaying it which could be used to guide directional movement.
The applicant argues the record does not identify where Zhu’s tip-sensor date is processed. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. Wenderow et al. discloses processing pressure sensor data and displaying on a monitor, which is exactly what is recited in the claim.
The applicant further argues that the combined prior art is based on a change in principle operation. In response the Office respectfully disagrees. Prior discloses the shaft’s movement is arrested via the scissor actuated lock by when the lock is in contact with shaft. see paragraph [0148]. Changing the shape of the shape to triangular would still allow the scissor actuated lock to contact it in the same manner. It would follow that the scissor actuated lock would arrest the motion in the same manner meeting the limitations of the claim. It would not change its principle operation because it would work in exactly the same manner.
The applicant also argues the rejection was based on hindsight. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. The Office’s rejection is based on specific factual assertions contain in the references themselves which the applicant does not actually dispute.
The applicant argues the Office’s finding that making one handle larger than the other as a design choice is unsupported. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. The applicant does not recognize the size of the handles for any purpose or function. It follows that modifying one handle of porter to be larger (or smaller than another) would be obvious as a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 am – 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights