DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on March 26, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 29, and 32 are currently 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 .
Response to Amendment
Concerning the amendments to claims 4, 18, 20, and 26 in the Applicant’s Response filed on March 26, 2026 to address the issues of indefiniteness, the amendments have obviated the necessity of the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Concerning the “Remarks” on pages 8-19 of the Applicant’s Response filed on March 26, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant first argues against the rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Measamer on pages 8-12. The applicant first argues that the Measamer reference does not teach the limitations of “an actuating member… arranged to be operably moveable… in a substantially linear manner between first and second positions”, arguing that the control of the Measamer reference teaches an actuation that includes a lever pivot, which suggests rotational motion about a pivot, therein failing to teach linear motion. However, the examiner asserts that the limitation recites “a substantially linear manner”, wherein the bounds of “substantially” have not been specifically defined. Thus, even though the lever may on whole pivot about a pivot point 79, the movement of the lever arm may be defined as moving up to down, in a substantially linear manner even though it may include a rotational aspect. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that embodiments in the instant invention itself include a lever arm (Drawings; Figure 12a; 82) that pivots about a pivot point (Drawings; Figure 12a: 83), and yet the lever is still described as being moveable in a substantially linear manner given the lever arm is pressed down in a linear downward motion. The same can be said of the lever arm for the Measamer reference. A user may press downward in a linear motion on the lever arm resulting in a resultant downward linear motion of the lever arm. Therefore, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Measamer reference stand.
The applicant then argues against the rejection of the claims as being anticipated by the Abri reference on pages 12-15. The applicant first argues that the Abri reference does not specifically teach the limitation of the actuating member being “moveable by a single finger of said hand”, arguing that the Abri reference teaches that both a finger and a thumb are necessary to actuate the device. However, the examiner asserts that only the lever arm 22 has been interpreted as the actuating member, wherein although the lever arm 38 may need to be moveable with a thumb, the lever arm 22 which defines the actuation member may be moveable with a single finger. Furthermore, the examiner notes that this limitation is an intended use limitation, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, there are many different ways of operating the instrument of Abri to only require movement of the actuating member by a single finger of said hand even if it is not the manner as intended (i.e. lever 38 is moved with a single finger from one hand and lever 22 is moved with a single finger from another hand or the instrument is pushed against a table and lever 22 is pressed down with a single finger). The operation of the lever with a single finger does not result in a structural difference and thus does not hold patentable weight given the actuating member of the Abri reference is capable in differing scenarios of being operated with a single finger.
The applicant then argues that the Abri reference does not teach the limitation of being “formed as a single unitary part”, arguing that the Abri reference teaches a series of levers and linkages and not a unitary part. However, the examiner asserts that the applicant has too narrowly interpreted the limitation of “a single unitary part”. The term “unitary” may be defined as “of or relating to a unit” <thefreedictionary.com/unit> while the term “part” may be defined as a “segment of a whole” <thefreedictionary.com/part>, wherein the term “unitary part” may thus be broadly interpreted as a single unit defining a segment of a whole, wherein the levers and linkages of the Scott-Russell linkage mechanism of Abri may be defined as a single unit, which defines a segment of the whole device 10. Therefore, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abri stand.
The applicant lastly argues against the rejections of the claims as being anticipated by the Zimmerman reference on pages 16-19. The applicant first argues that the Zimmerman reference does not teach the limitation of “an actuating member… arranged to be operably moveable… in a substantially linear manner between first and second positions” in the same way as discussed in the argument against the Measamer reference detailed above. The same argument used above is applicable for the Zimmerman reference. The limitation recites “a substantially linear manner”, wherein the bounds of “substantially” have not been specifically defined. Thus, even though the lever may on whole pivot about a pivot point, the movement of the lever arm may be defined as moving up to down, in a substantially linear manner even though it may include a rotational aspect. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that embodiments in the instant invention itself include a lever arm (Drawings; Figure 12a; 82) that pivots about a pivot point (Drawings; Figure 12a: 83), and yet the lever is still described as being moveable in a substantially linear manner given the lever arm is pressed down in a linear downward motion. The same can be said of the lever arm for the Zimmerman reference. A user may press downward in a linear motion on the lever arm resulting in a resultant downward linear motion of the lever arm.
The applicant then argues that the transmission guide member or rigid pulley of the Zimmerman reference does not “provide a mechanical advantage” as claimed, arguing that the rigid pulley does not teach nested pulleys which provide a torque advantage. However, the examiner asserts that the applicant has too narrowly interpreted the limitation of “mechanical advantage”. The applicant assumes that the term “mechanical advantage” must relate to a torque advantage provided via nested pulleys. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, a mechanical advantage may be any advantage provided to the mechanical operation of the device, wherein the rigid pulley of the Zimmerman reference acts as a guiding member to provide smoother, uninhibited operation of the drive cable, which is an advantage to the mechanical operation of the device compared to operation of the device without the rigid pulley. Therefore, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmerman stand.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 18, 24, 29, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Measamer et al. (US 2007/0225754, hereinafter Measamer).
Concerning claim 1, the Measamer et al. prior art reference teaches an actuator handle for a hand-held surgical tool (Figures 1-13; 12), the actuator handle comprising: a body part adapted to be gripped by a user’s hand (Figure 1; 17), the body having an end effector mounted thereon (Figure 1; 14); an actuating member alongside the body part and arranged to be operably moveable by a single finger of the said hand (Figure 1; 18), in a substantially linear manner between first (Figure 4) and second positions (Figure 6) relative to the body part (given the bounds of ‘substantially linear’ have not been specifically defined), for actuating the end effector in use; and one or more coupling components (Figure 4; 30) coupled to the actuating member, for transmitting motive force from the actuating member to the end effector upon movement of the actuating member between the first and second positions by the user in use ([¶ 0027]), wherein the first position is outward relative to the body part (Figure 4) and the second position is inward relative to the body part (Figure 6).
Concerning claim 18, the Measamer reference teaches the one or more coupling components includes a cable that is arranged to move axially, in a reciprocating manner with the actuating member between the first and second positions, for actuating the end effector (Figure 4; 30 | [¶ 0027]).
Concerning claim 24, the Measamer reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 1, wherein the actuating member comprises a rotary lever arm (Figure 1; 18).
Concerning claim 29, the Measamer reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism for reversibly locking the configuration of the end effector (Figure 4; 54 | [¶ 0031]).
Concerning claim 32, the Measamer reference teaches a hand-held surgical tool comprising an actuator handle according to claim 1 (Figure 1; 10), and an end effector attached to the body part of the actuator handle (Figure 1; 14).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abri et al. (US 2016/0113637, hereinafter Abri).
Concerning claim 1, the Abri et al. prior art reference teaches an actuator handle for a hand-held surgical tool (Figures 1-6; 12), the actuator handle comprising: a body part adapted to be gripped by a user’s hand (Figure 5; 60), the body having an end effector mounted thereon (Figure 5; 78); an actuating member alongside the body part and arranged to be operably moveable by a single finger of the said hand (Figure 5; 22), in a substantially linear manner between first and second positions (Figures 3 & 4) relative to the body part (given the bounds of ‘substantially linear’ have not been specifically defined), for actuating the end effector in use; and one or more coupling components (Figure 6; 86) coupled to the actuating member, for transmitting motive force from the actuating member to the end effector upon movement of the actuating member between the first and second positions by the user in use ([¶ 0100]), wherein the first position is outward relative to the body part and the second position is inward relative to the body part (Figure 4).
Concerning claim 4, the Abri reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 1, wherein the actuating member comprises a lever arm (Figure 5; 22); wherein the one or more coupling components include linkages that, together with the actuating member, form a Scott-Russell linkage mechanism (Figure 1) arranged to provide reciprocating motion of a connection point within said linkage mechanism in response to movement of the actuating member between the first and second positions, to which connection point the end effector is coupled in use; and wherein at least a principal part of the Scott-Russell linkage mechanism forms a grippable part of the body part (Figure 1; 60).
Concerning claim 10, the Abri reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 4, wherein a first intermediate linkage is arranged to couple a pivot end of the actuating member to the principal part (Figure 1; d1).
Concerning claim 14, the Abri reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 4, wherein a second intermediate linkage is arranged to couple a point partway along the length of the actuating member to the principal part (Figure 1; d3).
Concerning claim 16, the Abri reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 4, wherein substantially the entire actuation mechanism, including the actuating member and the rest of the Scott-Russell linkage mechanism, is formed as a single unitary part (Figure 5; each part forms a unitary device of 10).
Concerning claim 17, the Abri reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 4, having a skeletal structure with no outer casing to the Scott-Russell linkage mechanism (Figure 5; 12).
Concerning claim 18, the Abri reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 1, wherein the one or more coupling components includes a cable or rod that is arranged to move axially, in a reciprocating manner with operation of the actuating member between the first and second positions, for actuating the end effector ([¶ 0100]).
Concerning claim 20, the Abri reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 18, wherein the one or more coupling components include linkages that, together with the actuating member, form a Scott-Russell linkage mechanism arranged to provide reciprocating motion of a connection point within said linkage mechanism in response to movement of the actuating member between the first and second positions, to which the connection point the end effector is coupled in use; and wherein the cable or rod is coupled to said connection point (Figure 6; 86 | [¶ 0100]).
Claim(s) 1, 18, 22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmerman et al. (US 2017/0097035, hereinafter Zimmerman).
Concerning claim 1, the Zimmerman et al. prior art reference teaches an actuator handle for a hand-held surgical tool (Figures 1-3C; 103), the actuator handle comprising: a body part adapted to be gripped by a user’s hand (Figure 1; 101), the body having an end effector mounted thereon (Figure 1; 117); an actuating member alongside the body part and arranged to be operably moveable by a single finger of the said hand (Figure 1; 107), in a substantially linear manner between first and second positions ([¶ 0026]) relative to the body part (given the bounds of ‘substantially linear’ have not been specifically defined), for actuating the end effector in use; and one or more coupling components (Figure 1; 111) coupled to the actuating member, for transmitting motive force from the actuating member to the end effector upon movement of the actuating member between the first and second positions by the user in use ([¶ 0026]), wherein the first position is outward relative to the body part and the second position is inward relative to the body part (Figure 4).
Concerning claim 18, the Zimmerman reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 1, wherein the one or more coupling components include a cable (Figure 1; 111) that is arranged to move axially, in a reciprocating manner with operation of the actuating member between the first and second positions for actuating the end effector ([¶ 0026]).
Concerning claim 22, the Zimmerman reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 1, wherein the actuating member may comprise a push button (Figure 3; 305).
Concerning claim 26, the Zimmerman reference teaches the actuator handle according to claim 18, wherein the one or more coupling components is a cable which passes around a pulley mechanism to provide mechanical advantage between the actuating member and the end effector (Figure 1; 109).
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 MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights