Detailed Action
This office action is for US application number 18/057,253 evaluates the claims as filed on January 8, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections in this office action have been amended to address the amended claims. Examiner asserts that Sweitzer in view of Steele teach all the newly-amended limitations and are capable of performing the functions as claimed. Examiner directs Applicant to the rejection below for a more in-depth description of the limitations.
With regards to Applicant’s argument regarding the amended limitations regarding the relative orientation of the sliding that the slidable locks are capable of relative to the gripping direction or a longitudinal axis (Remarks p. 8-12), Examiner notes that such is disclosed by Sweitzer as detail in the rejections below.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that claims 29 and 36 are supported by at least original claim 5 (Remarks p. 12), Examiner notes that original claim 5 provides the opposite interaction of claims 29 and 36 and is silent to that of claims 29 and 36. Further, the specification and drawings are silent to such a reversal of parts. Thus, Examiner suggests cancelling claims 29 and 36.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/204,385 and 62/991,940, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application No. 17/204,385 and 62/991,940 fail to provide adequate support “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of claims 29 and 36.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
As to claim 29, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of lines 1-3. That is, such has not been described in the specification, shown in the drawings and was not originally claimed. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of lines 1-3. Examiner suggests cancelling this claim.
As to claim 36, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of lines 1-3. That is, such has not been described in the specification, shown in the drawings and was not originally claimed. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of lines 1-3. Examiner suggests cancelling this claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of claim 29 lines 1-3 and “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of claim 36 lines 1-3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 29, the “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of lines 1-3 appears to be new matter. That is, such has not been described in the specification, shown in the drawings and was not originally claimed. Thus, “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of lines 1-3 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests cancelling this claim.
As to claim 36, the “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of lines 1-3 appears to be new matter. That is, such has not been described in the specification, shown in the drawings and was not originally claimed. Thus, “the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail” of lines 1-3 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests cancelling this claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 25-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 is/are unclear with regards to “the first and the second jaws” in claim 1 line 9 as well as later recitations of “the first jaw” and “the second jaw” claim 1 lines 13, 15, 16, and 18, claim 3 lines 3, 4, 5, 5, and 8, claim 5 line 2, claim 6 line 2, and claim 7 line 2 and if these are intended to refer to the functionally recited first jaw of claim 1 line 4 and second jaw of claim 1 line 7 or the positively recited first jaw of claim 1 line 7 and the second jaw of claim 1 line 7. Examiner is interpreting the recitation of claim 1 line 9 as well as the later recitations as referring to the positively recited first and second jaws of claim 1 line 7, and suggests amending as, “a first arm having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end configured for attachment to an extraction device
Claim(s) 3 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock on the first arm and on the link” in lines 1-2 and how the slidable lock of the jaw as recited in claim 1 line 9 can now be reasonably construed as being on the first arm and the link or if such in intended to refer to the functionally recited “corresponding slidable lock” of the first arm and the link as recited in claim 1 line 10. This is further unclear as “slidable lock” appears to be used to refer to distinctly different structures; where paragraph 128 defines the slidable lock 214, 240 as a stop that is distally extending ledges on the first arm and the link and paragraph 129 defines the slidable lock 214, 240 as a female dovetail on the first arm and link, but paragraph 128 provides no structure for the slidable lock 236, 238 and paragraph 129 defines the slidable lock 236, 238 as a male dovetail on the first and second jaws. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the “corresponding slidable lock” of the first arm and the link, and suggests amending to clarify. That is, Examiner suggests using consistent terms throughout the claims to refer to clearly defined or interpretable elements based on the original disclosure.
Claim(s) 3 is/are unclear with regards to “each transverse to the gripping direction of the first and the second jaw” in lines 4-5 and the missing word between “each” and “transverse”. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “each flat transverse to the gripping direction of the first and the second jaw”.
Claim(s) 3 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 6 as the jaws are claimed to include the slidable lock in claim 1 line 9. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to a feature of the first arm and link, and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 3 is/are unclear with regards to “towards a respective lateral side thereof” in line 7 and the missing words prior to “towards” or if such is intended to be part of the prior phrase. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “from a respective medial side of the first arm and of the link[[,]] and towards a respective lateral side thereof”.
Claim(s) 3 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 8 as the jaws are claimed to include the slidable lock in claim 1 line 9. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to a feature of the first arm and link, and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 4 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 1 and if such is intended to refer to the “slidable lock” of claim 1 line 9 or the “corresponding slidable lock” of claim 1 line 10 that is referred to as “the slidable lock” in other dependent claims. Examiner is interpreting this as referring broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 25 is/are unclear with regards to “a link communicating with the first arm and the second arm” in line 5 and the intended interpretation of “communicating” as ordinary definitions do not appear to be applicable to Applicant’s disclosed link and the term has not been used or defined in the specification to provide an alternate definition. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to “connecting” or attaching or the like and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 26 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock on the first arm and on the link” in lines 1-2 and how the slidable lock of the jaw as recited in claim 25 line 9 can now be reasonably construed as being on the first arm and the link or if such in intended to refer to the functionally recited “corresponding slidable lock” of the first arm and the link as recited in claim 25 line 10. This is further unclear as “slidable lock” appears to be used to refer to distinctly different structures; where paragraph 128 defines the slidable lock 214, 240 as a stop that is distally extending ledges on the first arm and the link and paragraph 129 defines the slidable lock 214, 240 as a female dovetail on the first arm and link, but paragraph 128 provides no structure for the slidable lock 236, 238 and paragraph 129 defines the slidable lock 236, 238 as a male dovetail on the first and second jaws. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the “corresponding slidable lock” of the first arm and the link, and suggests amending to clarify. That is, Examiner suggests using consistent terms throughout the claims to refer to clearly defined or interpretable elements based on the original disclosure.
Claim(s) 26 is/are unclear with regards to “each parallel to the longitudinal axis thereof” in line 4 and the missing word between “each” and “parallel” as well as the intended interpretation of “thereof” as no antecedence is provided for a longitudinal axis of the flats. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “each flat parallel to the longitudinal axis thereof” and is interpreting “thereof” as broadly referring to the jaws and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 26 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 6 as the jaws are claimed to include the slidable lock in claim 25 line 9. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to a feature of the first arm and link, and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 26 is/are unclear with regards to “towards a respective lateral side thereof” in line 7 and the missing words prior to “towards” or if such is intended to be part of the prior phrase. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “from a respective medial side of the first arm and of the link[[,]] and towards a respective lateral side thereof”.
Claim(s) 26 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 8 as the jaws are claimed to include the slidable lock in claim 25 line 9. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to a feature of the first arm and link, and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 27 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 1 and if such is intended to refer to the “slidable lock” of claim 25 line 9 or the “corresponding slidable lock” of claim 25 line 10 that is referred to as “the slidable lock” in other dependent claims. Examiner is interpreting this as referring broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 32 is/are unclear with regards to “a link communicating with the first arm and the second arm” in line 5 and the intended interpretation of “communicating” as ordinary definitions do not appear to be applicable to Applicant’s disclosed link and the term has not been used or defined in the specification to provide an alternate definition. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to “connecting” or attaching or the like and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 33 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock on the first arm and on the link” in lines 1-2 and how the slidable lock of the jaw as recited in claim 32 line 9 can now be reasonably construed as being on the first arm and the link or if such in intended to refer to the functionally recited “corresponding slidable lock” of the first arm and the link as recited in claim 32 line 10. This is further unclear as “slidable lock” appears to be used to refer to distinctly different structures; where paragraph 128 defines the slidable lock 214, 240 as a stop that is distally extending ledges on the first arm and the link and paragraph 129 defines the slidable lock 214, 240 as a female dovetail on the first arm and link, but paragraph 128 provides no structure for the slidable lock 236, 238 and paragraph 129 defines the slidable lock 236, 238 as a male dovetail on the first and second jaws. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the “corresponding slidable lock” of the first arm and the link, and suggests amending to clarify. That is, Examiner suggests using consistent terms throughout the claims to refer to clearly defined or interpretable elements based on the original disclosure.
Claim(s) 33 is/are unclear with regards to “each parallel to the longitudinal axis thereof” in line 4 and the missing word between “each” and “parallel” as well as the intended interpretation of “thereof” as no antecedence is provided for a longitudinal axis of the flats. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “each flat parallel to the longitudinal axis thereof” and is interpreting “thereof” as broadly referring to the jaws and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 33 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 6 as the jaws are claimed to include the slidable lock in claim 32 line 9. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to a feature of the first arm and link, and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 33 is/are unclear with regards to “towards a respective lateral side thereof” in line 7 and the missing words prior to “towards” or if such is intended to be part of the prior phrase. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “from a respective medial side of the first arm and of the link[[,]] and towards a respective lateral side thereof”.
Claim(s) 33 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 8 as the jaws are claimed to include the slidable lock in claim 32 line 9. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to a feature of the first arm and link, and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 34 is/are unclear with regards to “the slidable lock” in line 1 and if such is intended to refer to the “slidable lock” of claim 32 line 9 or the “corresponding slidable lock” of claim 32 line 10 that is referred to as “the slidable lock” in other dependent claims. Examiner is interpreting this as referring broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 28-31 and 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, and 25-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweitzer (US 2016/0270929).
As to claim 1, Sweitzer discloses a surgical extractor (20, Figs. 1-8D, ¶46; where ¶46 discloses that Figs. 5-8D the same as Figs. 1-4 except that the jaws are replaceable) comprising: a second arm (22) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 2); a first arm (21) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 2), the proximal end capable of attachment to an extraction device (Fig. 2); a link (see illustration of Fig. 2, Fig. 2) pivotably connected to the first and to the second arms (via pins 26 and 34, Fig. 1, ¶28), the link having a distal end; and a first jaw (24C) capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the first arm (via pin 42 and screw 41, Figs. 6A and 6B, ¶50) and a second jaw (24D) capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the link (via pin 44 and screw 43, Figs. 6A and 6B, ¶50), wherein the first and the second jaws each include a lock (42, 44, Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) capable of sliding (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) capable of slidingly engaging a corresponding slidable lock (“corresponding holes” of ¶51 in which 42, 44 are received and abutting surfaces of the link and first arm (see labeled “stop” on the illustration of Fig. 6B) as best shown in Fig. 7, Fig. 7) on the first arm and on the link, respectively (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51), wherein the slidable lock of the first jaw and the corresponding slidable lock on the first arm slide relative to one another in a direction substantially parallel to a gripping direction of the first jaw (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51, where ¶51 discloses that screw 41 is loosened and removed and then jaws are removed and replaced and then secured with the screw), and wherein the slidable lock of the second jaw and the corresponding slidable lock on the link slide relative to one another in a direction substantially parallel to a gripping direction of the second jaw (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51, where ¶51 discloses that screw 43 is loosened and removed and then jaws are removed and replaced and then secured with the screw).
As to claim 3, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock on the first arm and on the link each include a stop (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Figs. 6A and 6B), each stop being a distally extending ledge transverse to the gripping direction of the first and the second jaw (Fig. 6B), each stop being capable of engaging with a respective flat on the first jaw and on the second jaw (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Figs. 6A and 6B), each flat transverse to the gripping direction of the first and the second jaw (as defined, Figs. 6A and 6B), wherein the first and the second jaws are each capable of being inserted into the slidable lock from a respective medial side of the first arm and of the link and towards a respective lateral side thereof (Figs. 6A and 6B), whereby the stop and the flat abut to limit a length of insertion of a respective first and second jaw into the slidable lock (Fig. 6A).
As to claim 6, Sweitzer discloses a detent (41) carried by the first jaw (Figs. 6A-7) or a detent (43) carried by the second jaw (Figs. 6A-7).
As to claim 7, Sweitzer discloses a gripping face of a bite portion of at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw comprises a projection (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Fig. 6B) which stands proud of the gripping face (Fig. 6B) and is capable of engaging a slot of an object (Figs. 4-6B) or a lip-like projection (see “Lip/Projection” on the illustration of Fig. 6B, Fig. 6B) which stands proud of the gripping face (Fig. 6B) and is capable of engaging a distal face of an object (Figs. 4-6B).
PNG
media_image1.png
595
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
740
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 25, Sweitzer discloses a surgical extractor (20, Figs. 1-8D, ¶46; where ¶46 discloses that Figs. 5-8D the same as Figs. 1-4 except that the jaws are replaceable) comprising: a first arm (21) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 2) capable of attachment to a first jaw (24C); a second arm (22) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 2); and a link (see illustration of Fig. 2, Fig. 2) connected to the first arm and the second arm (via pins 26 and 34, Fig. 1, ¶28), the link having a distal end capable of attachment to a second jaw (24D); wherein and the first jaw that the first arm is capable of attaching to is capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the first arm (via pin 42 and screw 41, Figs. 6A and 6B, ¶50) and the second jaw that the link is capable of attaching to is capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the link (via pin 44 and screw 43, Figs. 6A and 6B, ¶50), wherein the first and the second jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to each include a lock (42, 44, Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) capable of sliding (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) capable of slidingly engaging a corresponding slidable lock (“corresponding holes” of ¶51 in which 42, 44 are received and abutting surfaces of the link and first arm (see labeled “stop” on the illustration of Fig. 6B) as best shown in Fig. 7, Fig. 7) on the first arm and on the link, respectively (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51), wherein the slidable lock of the first jaw that the first arm is capable of attaching to and the corresponding slidable lock on the first arm slide relative to one another in a direction substantially transverse to a longitudinal axis of the first jaw (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51, where ¶51 discloses that screw 41 is loosened and removed and then jaws are removed and replaced and then secured with the screw), and wherein the slidable lock of the second jaw that the link is capable of attaching to and the corresponding slidable lock on the link slide relative to one another in a direction substantially transverse to a longitudinal axis of the second jaw (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51, where ¶51 discloses that screw 43 is loosened and removed and then jaws are removed and replaced and then secured with the screw).
As to claim 26, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock on the first arm and on the link each include a stop (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Figs. 6A and 6B), each stop being a distally extending ledge respectively parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first and the second jaw that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to (Fig. 6B), each stop being capable of engaging with a respective flat on the first jaw and on the second jaw that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Figs. 6A and 6B), each flat parallel to the longitudinal axis thereof (as defined, Figs. 6A and 6B), wherein the first and the second jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to are each capable of being inserted into the slidable lock from a respective medial side of the first arm and of the link and towards a respective lateral side thereof (Figs. 6A and 6B), whereby the stop and the flat abut to limit a length of insertion of a respective first and second jaw that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to into the slidable lock (Fig. 6A).
As to claim 27, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock of the jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to is a dovetail (if one so chooses to connect such a jaw).
As to claim 28, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to is a male dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock that the slidable lock is capable of slidingly engaging on each of the first arm and the link is a female dovetail (if one so chooses to connect such a jaw with such a lock).
As to claim 29, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock that the slidable lock is capable of slidingly engaging on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail (if one so chooses to connect such a jaw with such a lock).
As to claim 30, Sweitzer discloses a detent (41) carried by the first jaw that the first arm is capable of attaching to (Figs. 6A-7) or a detent (43) carried by the second jaw that the link is capable of attaching to (Figs. 6A-7).
As to claim 31, Sweitzer discloses a gripping face of a bite portion of at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to comprises a projection (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Fig. 6B) which stands proud of the gripping face (Fig. 6B) and is capable of engaging a slot of an object (Figs. 4-6B) or a lip-like projection (see “Lip/Projection” on the illustration of Fig. 6B, Fig. 6B) which stands proud of the gripping face (Fig. 6B) and is capable of engaging a distal face of an object (Figs. 4-6B).
As to claim 32, Sweitzer discloses a surgical extractor (20, Figs. 1-8D, ¶46; where ¶46 discloses that Figs. 5-8D the same as Figs. 1-4 except that the jaws are replaceable) comprising: a first arm (21) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 2) capable of attachment to a first jaw (24C); a second arm (22) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 2); and a link (see illustration of Fig. 2, Fig. 2) connected to the first arm and the second arm (via pins 26 and 34, Fig. 1, ¶28), the link having a distal end capable of attachment to a second jaw (24D); wherein and the first jaw that the first arm is capable of attaching to is capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the first arm (via pin 42 and screw 41, Figs. 6A and 6B, ¶50) and the second jaw that the link is capable of attaching to is capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the link (via pin 44 and screw 43, Figs. 6A and 6B, ¶50), wherein the first and the second jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to each include a lock (42, 44, Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) capable of sliding (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) capable of slidingly engaging a corresponding slidable lock (“corresponding holes” of ¶51 in which 42, 44 are received and abutting surfaces of the link and first arm (see labeled “stop” on the illustration of Fig. 6B) as best shown in Fig. 7, Fig. 7) on the first arm and on the link, respectively (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51), wherein the slidable lock of the first jaw that the first arm is capable of attaching to and the corresponding slidable lock on the first arm slide relative to one another in a direction substantially transverse to a longitudinal axis of the first arm (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51, where ¶51 discloses that screw 41 is loosened and removed and then jaws are removed and replaced and then secured with the screw), and wherein the slidable lock of the second jaw that the link is capable of attaching to and the corresponding slidable lock on the link slide relative to one another in a direction substantially transverse to a longitudinal axis of the link (Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51, where ¶51 discloses that screw 43 is loosened and removed and then jaws are removed and replaced and then secured with the screw).
As to claim 33, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock on the first arm and on the link each include a stop (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Figs. 6A and 6B), each stop being a distally extending ledge respectively parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first arm and of the link (Fig. 6B), each stop being capable of engaging with a respective flat on the first jaw and on the second jaw that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Figs. 6A and 6B), each flat parallel to the longitudinal axis thereof (as defined, Figs. 6A and 6B), wherein the first and the second jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to are each capable of being inserted into the slidable lock from a respective medial side of the first arm and of the link and towards a respective lateral side thereof (Figs. 6A and 6B), whereby the stop and the flat abut to limit a length of insertion of a respective first and second jaw that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to into the slidable lock (Fig. 6A).
As to claim 34, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock of the jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to is a dovetail (if one so chooses to connect such a jaw).
As to claim 35, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to is a male dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock that the slidable lock is capable of slidingly engaging on each of the first arm and the link is a female dovetail (if one so chooses to connect such a jaw with such a lock).
As to claim 36, Sweitzer discloses that the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to is a female dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock that the slidable lock is capable of slidingly engaging on each of the first arm and the link is a male dovetail (if one so chooses to connect such a jaw with such a lock).
As to claim 37, Sweitzer discloses a detent (41) carried by the first jaw that the first arm is capable of attaching to (Figs. 6A-7) or a detent (43) carried by the second jaw that the link is capable of attaching to (Figs. 6A-7).
As to claim 38, Sweitzer discloses a gripping face of a bite portion of at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw that the first arm and link are capable of attaching to comprises a projection (see illustration of Fig. 6B, Fig. 6B) which stands proud of the gripping face (Fig. 6B) and is capable of engaging a slot of an object (Figs. 4-6B) or a lip-like projection (see “Lip/Projection” on the illustration of Fig. 6B, Fig. 6B) which stands proud of the gripping face (Fig. 6B) and is capable of engaging a distal face of an object (Figs. 4-6B).
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 of this title, 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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweitzer in view of Steele et al. (US 2011/0296963, hereinafter “Steele”).
As to claim 4, Sweitzer discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as the slidable lock each of the first and the second jaws and corresponding hole of the slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link being oblong (Fig. 7).
Sweitzer is silent to the slidable lock is a dovetail.
Steele teaches a similar extractor (110, Figs. 1, and 3-5, ¶21) capable of use in surgery (¶21 discloses pliers) comprising: a second arm (26 of 14) having a proximal end (Fig. 1) and a distal end (Figs. 3-5); a first arm (22, 24 of 12, Fig. 1 and 2, ¶s 21 and 13) having a proximal end (Fig. 1) and a distal end (Figs. 3-5), the proximal end capable of attachment to an extraction device (Fig. 1); a link (portion comprising 34 and 32 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1, ¶13) capable of pivoting connected to the first arm (Fig. 1, ¶13), the link having a distal end (Fig. 1); and a first jaw (224, Figs. 3-5, ¶22-25) capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the first arm (Figs. 3-5, ¶22-25) and a second jaw (222, Figs. 3-5, ¶22-25) capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the link (Figs. 3-5, ¶22-25); wherein the first and second jaws each include a lock (230s, Figs. 3-5, ¶s 23-24) capable of sliding (Figs. 3-5, ¶s 23-25) capable of slidingly engaging a corresponding slidable lock (208, 206, Figs. 3-5, ¶s 23-24) on the first arm and link, respectively (Figs. 3-5, ¶s 23-24); wherein the slidable lock is a dovetail (Figs. 3-5, ¶24) and the corresponding slidable is a dovetail (Figs. 3-5, ¶22).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the oblong lock of each jaw and the corresponding holes portion of the lock of each of the first arm and link as disclosed by Sweitzer to include a dovetail as taught by Steele in order to provide a known shape of a slidable connection (Steele Fig. 4, ¶25; Sweitzer Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) between jaws and arms/links (Steel Figs. 1 and 3-5; Sweitzer Figs. 6B and 7). That is, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the oblong lock of each jaw and the corresponding holes portion of the lock of each of the first arm and link as disclosed by Sweitzer to each include a dovetail shape as taught by Steele, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a known shape of a slidable connection (Steele Fig. 4, ¶25; Sweitzer Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) between jaws and arms/links (Steel Figs. 1 and 3-5; Sweitzer Figs. 6B and 7).
As to claim 5, Sweitzer discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as the slidable lock each of the first and the second jaws and corresponding hole of the slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link being oblong (Fig. 7).
Sweitzer is silent to the slidable lock on each of the first and the second jaws is a male dovetail and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a female dovetail.
Steele teaches a similar extractor (110, Figs. 1, and 3-5, ¶21) capable of use in surgery (¶21 discloses pliers) comprising: a second arm (26 of 14) having a proximal end (Fig. 1) and a distal end (Figs. 3-5); a first arm (22, 24 of 12, Fig. 1 and 2, ¶s 21 and 13) having a proximal end (Fig. 1) and a distal end (Figs. 3-5), the proximal end capable of attachment to an extraction device (Fig. 1); a link (portion comprising 34 and 32 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1, ¶13) capable of pivoting connected to the first arm (Fig. 1, ¶13), the link having a distal end (Fig. 1); and a first jaw (224, Figs. 3-5, ¶22-25) capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the first arm (Figs. 3-5, ¶22-25) and a second jaw (222, Figs. 3-5, ¶22-25) capable of releasing and attaching to the distal end of the link (Figs. 3-5, ¶22-25); wherein the first and second jaws each include a lock (230s, Figs. 3-5, ¶s 23-24) capable of sliding (Figs. 3-5, ¶s 23-25) capable of slidingly engaging a corresponding slidable lock (208, 206, Figs. 3-5, ¶s 23-24) on the first arm and link, respectively (Figs. 3-5, ¶s 23-24); wherein the slidable lock on each of the first and second jaws is a male dovetail (Figs. 3-5, ¶24) and the corresponding slidable lock on each of the first arm and the link is a female dovetail (Figs. 3-5, ¶22).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the oblong lock of each jaw and the corresponding holes portion of the lock of each of the first arm and link as disclosed by Sweitzer to include a male dovetail on the lock of each jaw and a female dovetail in the corresponding holes portion of the lock of each of the first arm and link as taught by Steele in order to provide a known shape of a slidable connection (Steele Fig. 4, ¶25; Sweitzer Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) between jaws and arms/links (Steel Figs. 1 and 3-5; Sweitzer Figs. 6B and 7). That is, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the oblong lock of each jaw and the corresponding holes portion of the lock of each of the first arm and link as disclosed by Sweitzer to each include a dovetail shape as taught by Steele, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a known shape of a slidable connection (Steele Fig. 4, ¶25; Sweitzer Figs. 6B and 7, ¶s 50 and 51) between jaws and arms/links (Steel Figs. 1 and 3-5; Sweitzer Figs. 6B and 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 6-4.
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 or telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on (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.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775