DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment and Request for Continued Examination filed October 3, 2025. By that amendment, claims 1 and 20 were amended. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-20 stand pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 3, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, even in view of the amendment filed October 3, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments state that none of the references teaches placing the striking surface substantially coaxial with the blade. Rather, the striking surfaces are all offset relative to the blade (remarks, p. 5).
Examiner agrees with applicant’s statements. However, examiner takes the position that Legostaev ‘410 renders the limitation in question obvious. Examiner points to two embodiments disclosed in Legostaev ‘410 at figs. 10 and 11 which demonstrate placement of strike plates at various positions along a longitudinal axis. At [0027], it is taught that these different points are utilized to impart favorable force vectors to the tool.
It is clear from this teaching that placement/longitudinal location of the strike plate is a variable which Legostaev ‘410 contemplated modifying in order to make the tool more effective for use in certain tasks.
Therefore, the arguments, even in view of the amendment, are not considered to overcome the rejection of record, stating that the combination of references of record renders the instant claims obvious.
The rejection is maintained, below, modified only to correlate to the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legostaev, Jr. (US 2009/0199410 A1) {Legostaev ‘410} in view of Chumchal (US D924,647 S) and Legostaev, Jr. (US 2009/0199962 A1) {Legostaev ‘962}.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4 and 18, Legostaev ‘410 teaches a device capable of use as an implant extractor. The device includes an extractor head (distal end) having
a laterally extending (elongated, tapered) blade 14 having a rounded tip about a laterally extending end [0026], a distally facing side and a proximally facing side capable of mating with the implant.
the head includes an intermediate portion including a part of 12 near 20 adjacent to the blade 14 and a part of the blade 14 where it joins the shaft 12; and
a laterally extending strike plate 20 adjacent to the intermediate portion of 12;
a shaft (portion of 12 proximal to the head) having a distal end coupled to the extractor head and a proximal end opposite the distal end (at the junction with the handle 10); and
a handle 10 coupled to the proximal end of the shaft 12 (there being no reason the proximal end of the handle cannot be considered to be formed as a plate which is capable of being struck by a hammer);
wherein the proximally facing side of 14 faces the handle 10.
Legostaev ‘410 fails to teach the blade having a distally facing central ridge, and a planar proximally facing side; and fails to teach a fully rounded tip. Legostaev ‘410 further fails to teach the strike plate having a striking surface disposed such that impacts on the striking surface are substantially coaxial with the blade.
Legostaev ‘410 teaches two embodiments at figs. 10 and 11 which demonstrate placement of strike plates 20 at various positions along a longitudinal axis of the device. At [0027], it is taught that these different points are utilized to impart favorable force vectors to the tool.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to move the strike plate 20 to a location which causes impacts on the surface of the plate 20 to be coaxial with the blade. It is clear from the teaching at [0027] that placement/longitudinal location of the strike plate is a variable which Legostaev ‘410 contemplated modifying in order to make the tool more effective for use in certain tasks. One would have placed the strike plate in the claimed location in order to provide the blade with impacts in a desired direction.
Legostaev ‘410 continues to fail to teach the blade having a distally facing central ridge, and a planar proximally facing side; and fails to teach a fully rounded tip.
Chumchal teaches a blade design for a device capable of use as an implant extractor for removing an implant. The device includes a blade with a distally facing side including a central ridge, and a planar proximally facing side capable of mating with the implant.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the Legostaev ‘410 device’s head 14 to include one side including a central ridge and the other side being planar. One would have done so in order to form the device for the purpose of including particular strength characteristics and for the purpose of causing the Legostaev ‘410 device to be adapted to work with specific substrates (Legostaev ‘410 [0026]). Further one would have done so in order to cause the angle LA (fig. 6) to be chosen to effectively modify the surface 50 which the device is working against.
The combination continues to fail to teach the fully rounded tip.
Legostaev ‘962 teaches that various designs of blade profile are known in the art, and all capable of performing the same function. [0021] Legostaev ‘962 teaches that various blade face designs are simply modified to cause the device to work more efficiently with certain types of materials. [0029] Legostaev teaches use of replaceable blades [0030].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the Legostaev ‘410 device to have removeable blades which are provided in a kit with various shapes, including a fully rounded blade as taught by Legostaev ‘962. One would have done so in order to permit use of Legostaev ‘410 in differently shaped environments and in materials of different material properties.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Chumchal includes beveled lateral surfaces that slopes from the distal facing side to the proximal facing side. It would have been obvious to add this surface to the Legostaev ‘410 device for the same reasons as addition of the central ridge and proximally facing planar side.
Regarding claim 8, Legostaev ‘410 teaches the strike plate being various shapes, including “elliptical (as shown in FIGS. 1 through 14), rectangular, trapezoidal, polyhedral, or combinations of differing surface area profiles” [0028]. Some of these shapes are considered to be prismatic.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 19, the combination suggests the claimed limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach the claimed sizes. It is noted that the handle 12 is taught being between 12 and 18 inches, which puts the claimed sizes within reason based on dimensions of the figures. It would have been obvious to form the Legostaev ‘410 device of any size to permit the device to be useful in working on variously sized workpieces. It is common knowledge that hand tools are provided in various sizes for use with various materials, intricacies, shapes and sizes of workpiece. Modifying a handle or other portion of the device is not beyond the scope of what was suggested by the combination of references. Selection of the claimed sizes would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of an appropriate size and dimension to accomplish an intended use in particular types of workpieces.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the intermediate portion includes a distally facing planar surface at the portion of 14 which joins with 12. A transition surface curving distally and terminating at a distally facing planar surface can be seen in the figures.
Regarding claims 13-16, the as at [0024]-[0025] the handle 10 and shaft 12 can have any manner of shapes and sizes (geometric cross sections; materials; profiles; angles, curves combinations thereof; diameters). These various shapes are considered to have rendered obvious a cross-shaped key for retaining the handle on the shaft, as claimed. Many different sized and shaped keys are known in the art for selectively removable attachment of a handle to a shaft.
Regarding claim 17, as at [0026], the extractor head 14 can be removably attached to the shaft by a “durable” attachment. A threaded attachment is considered to be within the scope of what is taught here, and at least rendered obvious by this teaching. It would have been obvious to provide a threaded coupling between the shaft and head to permit change of angulation between the shaft and the blade as desired by the user [0026].
Regarding claim 20, Legostaev ‘410 teaches a tool capable of use as an implant extractor for removing an implant, comprising:
an extractor head 12/14 that includes:
a laterally extending elongated tapered blade 14 having:
a proximal side (left side of 14 in fig. 1)capable of mating with the implant (see e.g. fig. 6),
a distal side (right in fig. 1), and
a rounded tip about its laterally extending end [0026],
an intermediate portion at junction of 12 and 14 extending up 12 to near 20 adjacent to the blade 14, the intermediate portion having a distally facing planar surface where 12 and 14 join, wherein the blade includes a transition surface curving distally from the distal side and terminating at the distally facing planar surface of the intermediate portion as can be seen in fig. 1, and
a laterally extending prism-shaped strike plate 20 adjacent to the intermediate portion [0028];
a shaft 12 having:
a distal end coupled to the extractor head 12/14,
a proximal end opposite the distal end at junction with 10, and
a key spaced from the distal end about 2/3 of an overall length of the shaft: as at [0024]-[0025] the handle 10 and shaft 12 can have any manner of shapes and sizes (geometric cross sections; materials; profiles; angles, curves combinations thereof; diameters), which can be considered to be a key; and
a handle 10 coupled to the proximal end of the shaft about the key and having a surface considered to be formed as a plate and capable of being struck about its proximal end.
Legostaev ‘410 fails to teach the blade having a distally facing central ridge, and a planar proximally facing side; and fails to teach a fully rounded tip. Legostaev ‘410 further fails to teach the strike plate having a striking surface disposed such that impacts on the striking surface are substantially coaxial with the blade.
Legostaev ‘410 teaches two embodiments at figs. 10 and 11 which demonstrate placement of strike plates 20 at various positions along a longitudinal axis of the device. At [0027], it is taught that these different points are utilized to impart favorable force vectors to the tool.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to move the strike plate 20 to a location which causes impacts on the surface of the plate 20 to be coaxial with the blade. It is clear from the teaching at [0027] that placement/longitudinal location of the strike plate is a variable which Legostaev ‘410 contemplated modifying in order to make the tool more effective for use in certain tasks. One would have placed the strike plate in the claimed location in order to provide the blade with impacts in a desired direction.
Legostaev ‘410 continues to fail to teach the blade having a distally facing central ridge, and a planar proximally facing side; and fails to teach a fully rounded tip.
Chumchal teaches a blade design for a device capable of use as an implant extractor for removing an implant . The device includes a blade with a side including a central ridge, and an opposed planar side capable of mating with the implant.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the Legostaev ‘410 device’s head 14 to include one side including a central ridge and the other side being planar. One would have done so in order to form the device for the purpose of including particular strength characteristics and for the purpose of causing the Legostaev ‘410 device to be adapted to work with specific substrates (Legostaev ‘410 [0026]). Further one would have done so in order to cause the angle LA (fig. 6) to be chosen to effectively modify the surface 50 which the device is working against.
The combination continues to fail to teach the fully rounded tip.
Legostaev ‘962 teaches that various designs of blade profile are known in the art, and all capable of performing the same function. [0021] Legostaev ‘962 teaches that various blade face designs are simply modified to cause the device to work more efficiently with certain types of materials. [0029] Legostaev teaches use of replaceable blades [0030].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the Legostaev ‘410 device to have removeable blades which are provided in a kit with various shapes, including a fully rounded blade as taught by Legostaev ‘962. One would have done so in order to permit use of Legostaev ‘410 in differently shaped environments and in materials of different material properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-6PM
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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571)272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799