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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/29/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 2-3 have been cancelled and claim 10 has been added. Thus, claims 1 and 4-10 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1
Applicant argues that the release sleeve 9 of Chenaux, equated to the claimed annular body, only rotates for special modes and thus the rotation is not required to achieve the normal releasable clamp and unclamped positioned as a part of the main functional mating/locking action. The Office agrees with applicant’s analysis that the release sleeve 9 of Chenaux, equated to the claimed annular body, only rotates for special modes (specifically disassembly for cleaning and sterilization), but disagrees with applicant that the claim requires the rotation of the annular body to be part of the normal releasable clamp and unclamped positioned as a part of the main functional mating/locking action. The current claim language of claim 1 is “the annular body further being rotatable about the central body and a milling axis (X) thus selectively defining a releasable clamping condition and a disengagement condition of said cutter with respect to said central body”. There is no indication in this language that the disengagement condition need be the normal releasable unclamped positioned as a part of the main functional mating/locking action as applicant has argued. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the rotation is required to achieve the normal releasable clamp and unclamped positioned as a part of the main functional mating/locking action) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a disengagement condition can be interpreted as a special mode for cleaning and sterilization so long as those elements are disengaged.
Applicant further agues Chenaux has the locking elements on the central body and not the annular body. 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).
Applicant further argues that because Bresler and Chenaux disclose different functional roles of the annular body, the combination of references would not be obvious without hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, The Office maintains that Bresler as modified by Chenaux teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 4
Applicant argues “the magnets of claim 4 have a different purpose (than that of Tommaso), namely the purpose of clamping the annular body (ring nut) 23 to the connection portion 24 of the central body 22”. While The Office acknowledges that the magnets of the instant invention and that of Tommaso serve a slightly different purpose, the purpose of the magnets of the instant application are not reflected fully in claim 4. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the purpose of clamping the annular body (ring nut) 23 to the connection portion 24 of the central body 22) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, claim 4 recites “said annular body comprises magnetic elements configured to cooperate with said connection portion”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim language, only the annular body needs to comprise magnetic elements and those magnetic elements need to somehow cooperate with said connection portion. That cooperation can include any number of things, such as the way the fit together, their materials, their color. The language “cooperate with said connection portion” does not require a magnetic connection.
Applicant further argues that Bresler is silent regarding “any releasable coupling between annular body and connection portion of the central body”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a releasable coupling between annular body and connection portion of the central body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “[[r]]eplacing the compression spring system with magnetic elements would alter the technical teaching of Chenaux, since introducing magnets would change the nature of the biasing force from mechanical to electromagnetic. This could affect, for instance, any one or more of the precision of locking, the force profile, and/or the overall user interaction. Moreover, even if one were to consult Tommaso, the reference replacement would not teach or properly suggest a straightforward replacement, as the magnets as taught by Tommaso serve a very different purpose”. First, 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). Second, the proposed modification does not replace the compression spring system of Chenaux as applicant has argued rendering this argument moot.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, The Office maintains that Bresler as modified by Chenaux and Tommaso teaches the limitations of claim 4. The Office notes that the scope of new claim 10 differs from that of claim 4 and is thus rejected accordingly as being unpatentable over Bresler in view of Weigand and Desarzens (see rejection below).
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 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bresler et al. (US 6,102,915) in view of Chenaux et al. (US 20180153560 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Bresler discloses (fig. 1-3) a milling device for surgery comprising a handling body 9 containing a transmission unit terminating in attachment portions (10, 11; see col. 3 ln. 46-51) which comprise a distal attachment portion 10 having releasable hooking means for attaching a cutter 2 of said milling device (see col. 3 ln. 46-51 and fig. 2), wherein said hooking means comprise a central body 18 and an annular body 15 moveable with respect to said central body both axially with respect to a milling axis thus selectively defining a releasable clamping condition and disengagement condition of said cutter with respect to said central body (see col. 3 ln. 46-51, 59-64);
said central body 18 comprises a connection portion having hooking slots 19 configured to form a releasable bayonet-type connection (see fig. 2) between a joining portion of said cutter and corresponding apertures parallel to said milling axis (see fig. 2, col. 3 ln. 52-59, col. 3 ln. 65 - col. 4 ln. 5);
said annular body 15 is provided with clamping elements 20 which project in an axial direction toward said connection portion (see fig. 2), the clamping elements configured to be inserted inside said corresponding apertures in order to close access to the respective hooking slots when said annular body is in said releasable clamping condition (see col. 3 ln. 65 - col. 4 ln. 5).
Bresler is silent regarding the annular body further being rotatable about the central body.
However Chenaux, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-2 and 5A-6B) a milling device comprising: a handling body containing a transmission unit terminating a hooking means for attaching a cutter of said milling device (see fig. 1-2), wherein said hooking means comprise a central body 6 and an annular body 9 moveable axially with respect to said central body (see [0032] and fig. 5A-5B), the annular body further being rotatable about the central body (see [0033] and fig. 6A-6B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bresler to have the annular body further being rotatable about the central body as taught by Chenaux, for the purpose of being able to disassemble to device to sterilize the different pieces of the device (see Chenaux [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Bresler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Bresler further discloses (fig. 1-3) said annular body 15 is axially constrained to move in abutment between said handling body 9 and said connection portion 18 (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Bresler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Bresler further discloses (fig. 1-3) said releasable clamping condition said cutter is integral with said central body (see fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bresler in view of Chenaux as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tommaso (EP 2915493 A1).
Note that all citations of Tommaso refer to the copy provided by applicant.
Regarding claim 4, Bresler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Bresler as modified is silent regarding said annular body comprises magnetic elements configured to cooperate with said connection portion.
However Tommaso, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 5) an annular body 14 comprises magnetic elements configured to cooperate with a connection portion 11d (see [0060]-[0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bresler as modified to have said annular body comprises magnetic elements configured to cooperate with said connection portion as taught by Tommaso, for the purpose of having a fully releasable connection between the connection portion and the annular body to allow for cleaning and easy changing of tools (see Tommaso [0060]-[0062]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bresler in view of Chenaux as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown (US 4,712,951).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bresler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Bresler further discloses (fig. 1-3) the attachment portions include a proximal attachment portion 11 which comprises a base, a coupling head and an intermediate plate (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bresler as modified is silent regarding a connection adapter provided with a joining cavity having a shape mating with a shape of said coupling head and of said plate in order to contain the coupling head and the plate completely; said connection adapter has a circular lip which envelops said plate circumferentially.
However Brown, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (fig. 4 and 6) a connection adapter 32 (see col. 3 ln. 64 - col. 4 ln. 25) provided with a joining cavity 104 having a shape mating with a shape of said coupling head and of said plate in order to contain the coupling head and the plate completely (see annotated fig. 6 below and fig. 4); said connection adapter has a circular lip which envelops said plate circumferentially (see fig. 4 and col. 6 ln. 39-54).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bresler as modified to have a connection adapter provided with a joining cavity having a shape mating with a shape of said coupling head and of said plate in order to contain the coupling head and the plate completely; said connection adapter has a circular lip which envelops said plate circumferentially as taught by Brown, for the purpose of having a longer extension to attach to a drill (see Brown col. 3 ln. 64 - col. 4 ln. 25).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bresler in view of Chenaux as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salyer (US 5,980,170).
Regarding claim 9, Bresler as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Bresler as modified is silent regarding the central body comprises a central pin configured for insertion into a mating central aperture of the joining portion of the cutter.
However Salyer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-4 and 8) a central body 12 comprises a central pin 38 (see col. 3 ln. 54-65) configured for insertion into a mating central aperture 116 of a joining portion of a cutter 110/112 (see col. 4 ln. 44-52).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bresler as modified to have the central body comprise a central pin configured for insertion into a mating central aperture of the joining portion of the cutter as taught by Salyer, for the purpose of assisting in centering the central body with the cutter (see Salyer col. 3 ln. 54-65).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bresler et al. (US 6,102,915) in view of Weigand et al. (US 4,023,572) and Desarzens (US 20030216716 A1).
Regarding claim 10 Bresler discloses (fig. 1-3) a milling device for surgery comprising a handling body 9 containing a transmission unit terminating in attachment portions (10, 11; see col. 3 ln. 46-51) which comprise a distal attachment portion 10 having releasable hooking means for attaching a cutter 2 of said milling device (see col. 3 ln. 46-51 and fig. 2), wherein said hooking means comprise a central body 18+14 and an annular body 15 moveable with respect to said central body axially with respect to a milling axis thus selectively defining a releasable clamping condition and disengagement condition of said cutter with respect to said central body (see col. 3 ln. 46-51, 59-64);
said central body 18+14 comprises a connection portion having hooking slots 19 configured to form a releasable bayonet-type connection (see fig. 2) between a joining portion of said cutter and corresponding apertures parallel to said milling axis (see fig. 2, col. 3 ln. 52-59, col. 3 ln. 65 - col. 4 ln. 5);
said annular body 15 is provided with clamping elements 20 which project in an axial direction toward said connection portion (see fig. 2), the clamping elements configured to be inserted inside said corresponding apertures in order to close access to the respective hooking slots when said annular body is in said releasable clamping condition (see col. 3 ln. 65 - col. 4 ln. 5).
Bresler is silent regarding the annular body further being rotatable about the central body; said annular body comprises magnets configured to form a releasable coupling with the connection portion.
However Weigand, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 11-12) a milling device comprising: a transmission unit 220 comprising a central body 226+221 and an annular body 222 (see fig. 12) moveable axially with respect to said central body (see col. 10 ln. 15-36), the annular body 222 further being rotatable about the central body (see fig. 12 and see col. 10 ln. 15-36); said annular body 222 comprises connection elements 224 configured to form a releasable coupling with the connection portion (see col. 9 ln. 27-36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bresler to have the annular body further being rotatable about the central body; said annular body comprises threads configured to form a releasable coupling with the connection portion as taught by Weigand, for the purpose of having a cover to close the open end of the tool cavity to retain tissue material therein (see Weigand col. 9 ln. 15-26).
Bresler as modified is silent regarding said the connection member releasably coupling the annular body with the connection portion is magnets.
However Desarzens, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches that magnets are an alternative to threads for a connection mechanism (see [0028]).
Therefore, the substitution of one known connection mechanism (magnets as taught in Desarzens) for another (threads as taught in Bresler as modified) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since Desarzens teaches that magnets are a suitable alternative to threads for a connection mechanism and the substitution of the magnets as taught in Desarzens would have yielded predictable results, namely, a secure connection mechanism in Bresler as modified. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE H SCHWIKER whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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.
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771