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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Staunton et al. (US 2014/0276949).
Regarding claim 1, Staunton et al. disclose a device (76; Figures 32-38) capable of use as a sleeve extractor (it could attach to an appropriately structured sleeve component of a surgical instrument and pull it off of the instrument), comprising: a body (82) having a closed distal end and an open proximal end (evident from Figures 34A and 36 - the open proximal end at “80” in Figure 34A) defining a cavity (80) sized and shaped to receive an end effector of a surgical instrument, the surgical instrument comprising a sleeve, a shaft, and a shaft adapter; (capable of receiving a sleeve in the same or similar way that member 78 is received - Figure 32); one or more longitudinally-extending fingers (84) defined in the body; and a tab (86) provided on an end of each finger and receivable within a notch defined in the shaft adapter or the shaft of a surgical instrument (as it is shown received within notch 98 of member 114 in Figure 37), the notch being located adjacent to a proximal end of the sleeve, wherein the sleeve is removed by locating the tab of each finger in a corresponding notch, engaging the proximal end of the sleeve with the tab of each finger, and retracting the body and the sleeve distally relative to the shaft adapter or the shaft (as can be seen in Figure 38, the tabs could engage a notch similar to groove 98, located proximal to a sleeve similar to member 78, and the body could then be retracted to remove such a sleeve; a sleeve, shaft and/or shaft adaptor are not positively recited nor structurally required by the claim).
Regarding claims 2-6, the recited components are not structurally required by the claims. The extractor of Staunton et al. is capable of removing a sleeve as claimed with an appropriately constructed surgical tool having the claimed features.
Regarding claim 10, the distal end of the body is closed (evident from Figures 34A and 36 - the open proximal end at “80” in Figure 34A).
Regarding claim 11, the body is capable of containing the sleeve after extraction if used with an appropriately constructed surgical tool having an appropriately constructed sleeve.
Claims 1- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morel (US 4,368,999).
Regarding claim 1, Morel discloses a device (1/2/5; Figures 1-3) capable of use as a sleeve extractor (it could attach to an appropriately structured sleeve component of a surgical instrument and pull it off of the instrument - see drawing below), comprising: a body (1) having a closed distal end (at 8; col. 3, lines 4-8) and an open proximal end (at “1A” - Figure 1) defining a cavity (1A) sized and shaped to receive an end effector of a surgical instrument (see drawing below), the surgical instrument comprising a sleeve, a shaft, and a shaft adapter; (see drawing below); one or more longitudinally-extending fingers (3) defined in the body; and a tab (9) provided on an end of each finger and receivable within a notch defined in the shaft adapter or the shaft of a surgical instrument (see drawing below), the notch being located adjacent to a proximal end of the sleeve, wherein the sleeve is removed by locating the tab of each finger in a corresponding notch, engaging the proximal end of the sleeve with the tab of each finger, and retracting the body and the sleeve distally relative to the shaft adapter or the shaft (as evident from Figures 1 and 2 and the drawing below, the tabs could engage a notch located proximal to a sleeve and the body could then be retracted to remove such a sleeve; a sleeve, shaft and/or shaft adaptor are not positively recited nor structurally required by the claim and the drawing below is one of enumerable, hypothetical
PNG
media_image1.png
530
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Shaft)][AltContent: textbox (Shaft Adapter)][AltContent: textbox (Notch)][AltContent: textbox (Sleevee)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]examples of how the device of Morel could be used as claimed).
Regarding claims 2-6, the recited components are not structurally required by the claims. The extractor of Morel et al. is capable of removing a sleeve as claimed with an appropriately constructed surgical tool having the claimed features.
Regarding claim 7, the sleeve extractor further comprises a cylindrical lock (5) extendable about the body, wherein the cylindrical lock is axially translatable relative to the body to locate the tab of each finger in the corresponding notch (Figures 1-2; col. 2 lines 22-45).
Regarding claim 8, the cylindrical lock defines (is) a locking arm having an extension (6) receivable within a slot (7) defined on the body.
Regarding claim 9, at least one of an inner radial surface of the cylindrical lock or an outer radial surface of the one or more longitudinally-extending fingers are tapered or angled (see angled surface at “3” in Figure 1) to urge the one or more longitudinally-extending fingers radially inward as the cylindrical lock advances.
Regarding claim 10, the distal end of the body is closed (at 8; col. 3, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 11, the body contains the sleeve after extraction (capable of this due to the closed distal end; with an appropriately structured sleeve).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6th 2026 have been fully considered but are are not persuasive. Applicant has appeared to argue that pulling distally on member 76 of Staunton et al. would dismantle the device (12). In paragraph 0158 it is made clear that 76 and 78 are pulled distally to remove the cutting accessory from the device. The fingers must therefore flex to enter and exit the groove/notch (98) and would not cause dismantling of the device. Examiner’s response to arguments in the previous Office action is referred to here as pertinent to Applicant’s present arguments. The disclosure of paragraph 0158 serves as proof that member 76 of Staunton et al. could be used to extract a sleeve as claimed. It is noted that the claims do not structurally require a sleeve, a shaft, a shaft adaptor or a notch. Member 68 (the combination of members 78 and 76) or just member 76 of Staunton et al. are removable instrument guard components and can therefore be analyzed on their own, without the presence of the instrument (12) within the cavity (80), to determine if either could remove a sleeve as claimed if placed over an appropriately structured end effector and sleeve. There are enumerable possible structures for an end effector and sleeve that can be envisioned; some of which could surely function with the guard of Staunton et al. as claimed. Applicant has argued that the modification to Morel presented above removes it as an anticipatory reference. The hypothetical functioning of the Morel device presented above makes no structural modifications to the device and only serves to show how it could be used as a sleeve extractor. The hypothetical sleeve and tool/end effector are very simple structures and require no speculation as to how they would interact with the device. For the above reasons, the previous grounds of rejection are respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am – 6:00 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston at (571) 272-7134. 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/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.
/THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights