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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 17 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Detweiler et al. (US 2021/0177471).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5,9-10, 12, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Detweiler et al. (US 2021/0177471).
Regarding claim 1, Detweiler et al. discloses plate holding forceps for one-hand use (Forceps device shown in FIG 6, [0039-0040]), wherein the forceps are configured to press a bone plate (14) to bone ([0040]), the forceps comprising: a clamp portion (Portion distal of pivot pin shown in FIG 6), including a first jaw (Top jaw shown in FIG 7, including screw guide 50) and second jaw (bottom jaw shown but not labeled in FIG 6-7) movable towards and away from each other (The jaws open and close via manipulation of the forceps handles/finger loops), wherein at least the first jaw includes a through-bore (56 forms a through bore, FIG 7. [0039] discloses “the stem 56 may be substantially similar to the stem 42 as discussed above”. Stem 42 shows through bore 48, FIG 5, [0037]) configured to be aligned with a hole of a bone plate engaged by the plate holding forceps (TFIG 5 shows the alignment of through bore 48 with the hole of bone plate 14, FIG 5); and an adjustment portion (Portion proximal of the pivot pin, FIG 6) configured to adjust a distance between the jaws (By manipulation of handles by a user), wherein the adjustment portion includes a first handle part (Left finger loop of FIG 6) and a second handle part (Right finger loop of FIG 6) manually movable with the fingers of one hand relative to each other (handle parts are positioned such that they can be contacted by a single hand with fingers of a single hand inserted into the rings of eighter handle member) and configured to thereby adjust the distance between the jaws (By moving the handle members towards or away from each other), wherein the through-bore comprises an inner funnel shape (FIG 5 shows the tapered funnel shape of 48 which defines the bore), which open in a direction opposite to the second jaw (FIG s 6-7 best show the through bore opening in a direction opposite the section jaw, although it does not show the embodiment of FIG 5 being used with the forceps, it is understood that 42 would be positioned relative to the jaws int eh same manner as 56, [0039] “It should be appreciated that the stem 56 may be substantially similar to the stem 42 as discussed above”), such that the through bore becomes narrower in a direction towards the second jaw (FIG 5, [0037] discloses “The stem 42 may also include an internal through-bore or cavity 48 that has a necked down inner diameter. Hence, the internal cavity 48 tapers inwardly”).
Regarding claim 5, Detweiler et al. discloses a variable visual indication indicating a parameter that depends on the actual distance between the jaws (The angle of the straight arms extending from the finger loops of the adjustment portion, FIG 6, can be considered an indicator of the distance between the jaws because the distance moved of the handle members represents distance created between the jaws).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Detweiler et al. discloses the first jaw is laterally spaced apart from the first and second handle parts (FIG 6 shows the first jaw is positioned laterally inward relative to the finger loops) by a distance defined by a lateral extension of a first step portion (See annotated FIG 6 below, the lateral extension formed at least partially by the first step portion defines the offset) and the second jaw is laterally spaced apart from the handle parts by a corresponding second step portion (See annotated FIG 6 below, the lateral extension formed by the second step portion at least partially defines the offset), wherein both step portions engage in a guiding manner (They engage in a guiding manner by guiding the position of the jaws and are in contact as shown in FIG 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Detweiler et al. discloses a guiding protrusion (top portion of 42, FIG 5, is interpreted as a guiding protrusion because the screw enters this region and in guided to the bone plate), which protrudes from the first jaw in a direction opposite to the second jaw (See FIG 6 as the protrusion section extends opposed to the second jaw), and wherein the through-bore extends through the guiding protrusion (FIG 5).
Regarding claim 13, Detweiler et al. discloses the first jaw comprises a U-shaped cross-section, which is open towards the second jaw (See annotated FIG 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Detweiler et al. discloses the first handle part and the second handle part are two longitudinal parts slidably connected by their lateral sides (See annotated FIG 6 above which denotes two slidably connected longitudinal parts of the handle parts).
Regarding claim 16, Detweiler et al. discloses the relative movement distance between the first handle part and the second handle part corresponds to the relative movement distance between the jaws (Because the handle parts and the jaws are mechanically constrained around the pivot pin).
Regarding claim 17, Detweiler et al. discloses a plate holding forceps system comprising: at least one plate holding forceps for one-hand use (Forceps device shown in FIG 6, [0039-0040]), wherein the forceps are configured to press a bone plate (14) to bone ([0040]), the forceps comprising: a clamp portion (Portion distal of pivot pin shown in FIG 6), including a first jaw (Top jaw shown in FIG 7, including screw guide 50) and second jaw (bottom jaw shown but not labeled in FIG 6-7) movable towards and away from each other (The jaws open and close via manipulation of the forceps handles/finger loops), wherein at least the first jaw includes a through-bore (56 forms a through bore, FIG 7. [0039] discloses “the stem 56 may be substantially similar to the stem 42 as discussed above”. Stem 42 shows through bore 48, FIG 5, [0037]) configured to be aligned with a hole of a bone plate engaged by the plate holding forceps (TFIG 5 shows the alignment of through bore 48 with the hole of bone plate 14, FIG 5); and an adjustment portion (Portion proximal of the pivot pin, FIG 6) configured to adjust a distance between the jaws (By manipulation of handles by a user), wherein the adjustment portion includes a first handle part (Left finger loop of FIG 6) and a second handle part (Right finger loop of FIG 6) manually movable with the fingers of one hand relative to each other (handle parts are positioned such that they can be contacted by a single hand with fingers of a single hand inserted into the rings of eighter handle member) and configured to thereby adjust the distance between the jaws (By moving the handle members towards or away from each other); and the bone plate (14) configured to be clamped by the clamp portion (FIG 5-7 show the bone plate in use with the system), wherein the through-bore comprises an inner funnel shape (FIG 5 shows the tapered funnel shape of 48 which defines the bore), which open in a direction opposite to the second jaw (FIG s 6-7 best show the through bore opening in a direction opposite the section jaw, although it does not show the embodiment of FIG 5 being used with the forceps, it is understood that 42 would be positioned relative to the jaws int eh same manner as 56, [0039] “It should be appreciated that the stem 56 may be substantially similar to the stem 42 as discussed above”), such that the through bore becomes narrower in a direction towards the second jaw (FIG 5, [0037] discloses “The stem 42 may also include an internal through-bore or cavity 48 that has a necked down inner diameter. Hence, the internal cavity 48 tapers inwardly”).
Regarding claim 18, Detweiler et al. discloses the first handle part and the second handle part are two longitudinal parts slidably connected by their lateral sides (See annotated FIG 6 above which denotes two slidably connected longitudinal parts of the handle parts).
Regarding claim 19, Detweiler et al. discloses the relative movement distance between the first handle part and the second handle part corresponds to the relative movement distance between the jaws (Because the handle parts and the jaws are mechanically constrained around the pivot pin).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler et al. (US 2021/0177471) in view of Arata et al. (US 4,844,068).
Regarding claims 2-4, Detweiler et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Detweiler et al. shows lateral projection from each of the handle parts in FIG 6 but is silent regarding specifics of the forceps including a ratchet mechanism having an active state, in which the jaws can be moved towards but not away from each other, and an inactive state, in which the jaws can be moved at least away from each other, wherein the ratchet mechanism is located closer to the adjustment portion than to the clamp portion and configured to be manually operated with the same hand that operates the adjustment portion, and wherein the ratchet mechanism comprises a manually operable switch configured to move the ratchet mechanism into the inactive state.
However, Arata et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor of surgical forceps (FIG 3) comprising a ratchet mechanism (34, FIG 3) having an active state, in which the jaws (42, 44) can be moved towards but not away from each other (When the ratchet teeth are engaged and only allow closing but not opening of the jaws, col 4 lines 16-18 disclose the ratchet 34 holds the closed instrument in place), and an inactive state, in which the jaws can be moved at least away from each other (When the handle members are separated such that the ratchet is not activated, the jaws can move free between open and closed positions), wherein the ratchet mechanism is located closer to the adjustment portion (Portion proximal of pivot 38 including handles 30 and 32) than to the clamp portion (See FIG 3) and configured to be manually operated with the same hand that operates the adjustment portion (The position of 34 is such that a single hand of a user can squeeze the handle members close together and therefore engage the ratchet with the same hand), wherein the ratchet mechanism comprises a manually operable switch configured to move the ratchet mechanism into the inactive state (Manually disengaging the ratchet by separating the teeth out of engagement with one another moves the ratchet mechanism into the inactive state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the lateral projections shown on the handle members of Detweiler et al. to comprise the ratchet mechanism taught by Arata et a., for the purpose of utilizing a commonly known structure for locking and holding the position of the first and second handle part relative to each other, thereby controlling the position of the first and second jaws with a single hand of the user.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler et al. (US 2021/0177471) in view of Hughett et al. (US 2020/0085492).
Regarding claims 6-8, Detweiler et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Detweiler et al. is silent regarding the adjustment portion is syringe-shaped with a plunger part, which includes the first handle part, and a barrel part, which includes the second handle part, wherein the plunger part includes a plunger flange portion and the barrel part includes a barrel flange portion, wherein the barrel flange portion optionally includes opposite lateral wings, which optionally are held in a rotatable manner on the barrel part and further optionally have a width in a plane parallel to the transverse cross-sectional plane of the barrel part less than the width of the largest cross-sectional profile of the barrel part, wherein the plunger and barrel flange portions remain within lateral boundaries of a circumferential section of a largest cross-sectional profile of the barrel part, and wherein the first handle part and the second handle part are two longitudinal parts slidably connected by their lateral sides.
However, Hughett et al. teaches a handle assembly (802, FIGs 17, 23, and 24, [0089]) for controlling the pivoting of one jaw (808) relative to another (810) wherein an adjustment portion is syringe-shaped (FIGs17, 23, and 24) with a plunger part (816, [0089]), which includes the first handle part (The gripping feature of 816, FIG 23, is interpreted as equivalent to a first handle part), and a barrel part (Outer housing of 802 shown in FIG 23), which includes the second handle part (This portion includes a gripable feature which is interpreted as a second handle part), the plunger part includes a plunger flange portion and the barrel part includes a barrel flange portion (See annotated FIG 23 below), wherein the barrel flange portion optionally includes (The following limitations are claimed as “optional” and therefore are not addressed in the rejection) opposite lateral wings, which optionally are held in a rotatable manner on the barrel part and further optionally have a width in a plane parallel to the transverse cross-sectional plane of the barrel part less than the width of the largest cross-sectional profile of the barrel part, the plunger and barrel flange portions remain within lateral boundaries of a circumferential section of a largest cross-sectional profile of the barrel part (See dashed lines on FIG 23 below which represent the largest cross sectional profile of the barrel part. Both flange portions remain within said lateral boundaries), and the first handle part and the second handle part are two longitudinal parts slidably connected by their lateral sides ([0105-0106] disclose plunger 816 is slidable relative to the barrel portion, and have longitudinal components as shown in FIG 23).
PNG
media_image3.png
472
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the adjustment portion of Detweiler with that taught by Hughett, for the purpose of substituting commonly known handle mechanisms thereby achieving the predictable result of allowing a single hand of a user to operate clamped opening and closing of one jaw relative to another at the distal end of the device (Hughett [0105]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler et al. (US 2021/0177471) in view of Ateshian et al. (US 2021/0298780).
Regarding claim 14, Detweiler et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Detweiler et al. is silent regarding at least one of the first and second jaws comprises a corrugated surface or a pointed surface.
However, Ateshian et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor for surgical forceps (100, FIG 1A) having a first and second jaw (130, 140, [0052]) wherein at least one of the first and second jaws comprises a corrugated surface or a pointed surface ([0061] discloses one or both of the tissue facing surfaces of the jaws can comprise serrated or knurled surface to allow for further grasping and secure engagement. Serrated or knurled is interpreted to meet the limitations of corrugated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tissue clamping surfaces of at least one of the first and second jaw to comprise a corrugated surface, as taught by Ateshian et al., for the purpose of increasing the secure gripping compatibilities of the jaws to grasp the bone and both plate therebetween.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771