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 .
Response to Amendment
As of the reply filed 8/21/2026, claims 4-9 and 13-18 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 10-12 remain cancelled. Claim 13 has been amended and claims 16-18 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that “claim 13 is amended to recite that the upper lateral panel and the lower lateral panel are each non-elastically deformable, and [that] this limitation is supported by the original specification and figures”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present specification offers no support for the upper and lower lateral panels being non-elastically deformable. The Applicant claims that support for this language can be found in PP [0035] of the present specification, but this paragraph in its entirety recites the following:
“The upper lateral panel 30 may be made from any suitable material, such as a flexible material. In some embodiments, the upper lateral panel 30 is configured to deform along an axis that is parallel to the upper body axis 18. In some embodiments, the upper lateral panel 30 may be made from a resilient material that may deform in a direction normal to the parallel to the upper body axis 18.”
Recitation that the lateral panels may be made from any suitable material, such as a flexible material, does not provide adequate support for the lateral panels comprising a non-elastically deformable material, particularly when the present Specification recites “as the first cannula subassembly 12 and the second cannula assembly 14 are displaced from the second position into or towards the first (or third) position, the lower lateral panel 50 and the upper lateral panel 30 are stretched, and act to oppose the separating, or outward, displacement directed parallel to the Z-axis of the reference coordinate system. When the force causing the separating or outward displacement is removed, the lower lateral panel 50 and the upper lateral panel 30 act to return the first cannula subassembly 12 and the second cannula assembly 14 to or towards the second position” (PP [0049], emphasis added). Since the present Specification fails to provide clear written description for the upper and lower lateral panels being non-elastically deformable, and furthermore describes elastic deformation in PP [0049], the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “none of the cited references [disclose] or suggest the upper lateral panel and the lower lateral panel are each non-elastically deformable” (see page 8 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Lauryssen et al. teaches that “[the s]heath 24 is generally formed of a flexible or elastic material” (PP [0030], emphasis added), this disclosure also recites “it is also contemplated that sheath 24 could be formed of a stretchable material that does not necessarily resiliently return to its initial, unstretched state” (PP [0029]), which describes inelastic deformation.
The Applicant argues that the combination as proposed “would render the cannula of Lauryssen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (see page 9 of Remarks) since Lauryssen explicitly discusses an embodiment that relies upon elastic deformation of the sheath 24 in order to return it to a non-stretched state, but the Examiner argues that the Lauryssen disclosure does not teach away from non-stretchable upper and lower lateral panels. The MPEP states that “a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed” (DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009), see MPEP 2145 X.D.1.), and the Examiner argues that Lauryssen et al. fails to discourage or discredit other alternatives. Lauryssen et al. generally teaches that the panels are “generally formed of a flexible or elastic material” and discusses that the device is “stretchable from an initial configuration upon the application of sufficient force and resiliently returnable to the initial configuration upon release of the force” (PP [0029]), but this is not a criticism of non-stretchable alternatives. Applicant’s argument that “by explicitly articulating the several benefits of using the resilient sheath 24, a person of ordinary skill “would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken” by instead using an upper lateral panel and a lower lateral panel that are each non-stretchable” (see page 11 of Remarks) is not persuasive because Lauryssen et al. does not actively discourage away from such a modification, and in fact explicitly contemplates “that sheath 24 could be formed of a stretchable material that does not necessarily resiliently return to its initial, unstretched state” (PP [0029]).
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments regarding new claim 16 that “because all of the embodiments of the finger piece means 22 (asserted to be the protrusions of claim 13) are threaded to engage a lock nut 23 to expand the trochar and maintain the trochar in a desired position, Kim fails to teach that the protrusion have an external surface that is not threaded” (see page 12 of Remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 11 of Kim et al. provides an alternate embodiment of that of Figs. 1-2 where the protrusions (22) have an alternate lock arrangement “mounted on each finger piece 22 to lock the trochar in adjusted position. The lock arrangement comprises a nut 48 threaded to tubular element 50 so that the nut can be tightened up to clamp the respective finger piece 22 fixedly to guide ring 16 in any adjusted position of the finger piece” (col. 4, lines 17-23). Fig. 11 shows a compatible alternate embodiment where the protrusions (22) are not threaded, since only the nut (48) and tubular element (50) are threaded.
Regarding claims 17-18 and in view of the embodiment of Fig. 11, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that “the lock nut 23 must correspond to the enlarged end portion of each protrusion” (see pages 12-13 of Remarks) and argues that the enlarged end portion of the protrusion is the unmarked wide end as shown in the annotated Fig. 11 below. Since the length of each protrusion (22) does not change, Kim et al. reads on the newly added claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
241
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4-9 and 13-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the upper lateral panel and the lower lateral panel are each non-elastically deformable” (see bottom of page 4), however there is no support for this limitation in the present specification.
Applicant cites to PP [0035] and [0043] of the originally-filed Specification for support, which recite the following:
PP [0035]: “The upper lateral panel 30 may be made from any suitable material, such as a flexible material. In some embodiments, the upper lateral panel 30 is configured to deform along an axis that is parallel to the upper body axis 18. In some embodiments, the upper lateral panel 30 may be made from a resilient material that may deform in a direction normal to the parallel to the upper body axis 18.”
PP [0043]: “The lower lateral panel50 may be made from any suitable material, such as a flexible material. In some embodiments, the lower lateral panel 50 is configured to deform along an axis that is parallel to the lower body axis 40. In some embodiments, the lower lateral panel 50 may be made from a resilient material that may deform in a direction normal to the parallel to the lower body axis 40.”
Neither of these paragraphs provide support for the upper lateral panel and the lower lateral panel to be non-elastically deformable as they simply discuss the deformability of the panels without specifying whether said deformation is elastic or inelastic. Additionally, the Specification further explicitly states that “as the first cannula subassembly 12 and the second cannula assembly 14 are displaced from the second position into or towards the first (or third) position, the lower lateral panel 50 and the upper lateral panel 30 are stretched, and act to oppose the separating, or outward, displacement directed parallel to the Z-axis of the reference coordinate system. When the force causing the separating or outward displacement is removed, the lower lateral panel 50 and the upper lateral panel 30 act to return the first cannula subassembly 12 and the second cannula assembly 14 to or towards the second position” (PP [0049], emphasis added), which describes elastic deformation.
Applicant additionally cites to Figs. 2A-B, 8A, and 8C, however these figures do not provide adequate support for the upper and lower lateral panels to be non-elastically deformable as they merely show the lateral panels, and the device as a whole, in an expanded state.
Claims 4-9 and 14-15 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of independent claim 13.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the first protrusion of the upper lateral panel, the first protrusion of the lower lateral panel, the second protrusion of the upper lateral panel, and the second protrusion of the lower lateral panel each have an external surface that is not threaded”, however there is no support for the underlined limitation in the present specification. The MPEP states that “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure” and that “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion” (see MPEP 2173.05(i)). The present Specification does not mention the protrusions being threaded or not being threaded, and therefore fails to support this claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauryssen et al. (US PGPub 2012/0130161 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US Patent No. 3,789,852).
Please note that due to Applicant’s amendments to make claims 4-9 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 13, the following rejections appear out of order to maintain the dependency order of each claim and improve readability.
With respect to claim 13, Lauryssen et al. discloses an expandable cannula assembly (10 in Fig. 3) comprising:
a first cannula subassembly (20 and right panel of 24 in Fig. 4) comprising:
an upper body member (20) that extends along an upper body axis from a first end to a second end (see 20 extend along axis in Fig. 3), the upper body member (20) having a first body edge portion (flat downturned right edge of 20 which engages 18, see Fig. 4 versus Fig. 2) that extends parallel to and offset from the upper body axis (see Figs. 3-4);
an upper lateral panel (right panel of 24) having a first panel edge (edge of right panel of 24 that couples to 20, see Fig. 4) that is coupled to the upper body member (20) at or adjacent to the first body edge portion (flat downturned right edge of 20 which engages 18, see Fig. 4 versus Fig. 2, PP [0030]: “sheath 24 can be attached or affixed to one or more portions of the exterior surfaces of elongate members 18, 20”) of the upper body member (20); and
a second cannula subassembly (18 and left panel of 24 in Fig. 4) comprising:
a lower body member (18) that extends along a lower body axis from a first end to a second end (see 18 extend along axis in Fig. 3), the lower body member (18) having a first body edge portion (flat upturned left edge of 18 which engages 20, see Fig. 4 versus Fig. 2) that extends parallel to and offset from the lower body axis (see Figs. 3-4);
a lower lateral panel (left panel of 24) having a first panel edge (edge of left panel of 24 that couples to 18, see Fig. 4) that is coupled to the lower body member (18) at or adjacent to the first body edge portion (flat upturned left edge of 18 which engages 20, see Fig. 4 versus Fig. 2, see PP [0030] cited above) of the lower body member (18); and
wherein the first cannula subassembly (20 and right panel of 24 in Fig. 4) and the second cannula subassembly (18 and left panel of 24) are displaceable between a first position and a second position (see Figs. 2 versus 4), wherein in the first position, the first cannula subassembly (20 and right panel of 24) and the second cannula subassembly (18 and left panel of 24) have a first cross-sectional assembly shape and in the second position, the first cannula subassembly (20 and right panel of 24) and the second cannula subassembly (18 and left panel of 24) have a second cross-sectional assembly shape that is different than the first cross-sectional assembly shape (see different cross-sectional shapes in Figs. 2 and 4), and wherein the upper lateral panel and the lower lateral panel are each non-elastically deformable (PP [0029]: “it is also contemplated that sheath 24 could be formed of a stretchable material that does not necessarily resiliently return to its initial, unstretched state”, a stretchable material that does not return to its initial unstretched state undergoes plastic deformation which is not elastic deformation).
However, Lauryssen et al. fails to disclose wherein a first slot is disposed along a first portion of a surface of the upper body member, the first slot of the upper body member extending along a first slot axis from a first end to a second end, and wherein a second slot is disposed along a second portion of the surface of the upper body member, the second slot of the upper body member extending along a second slot axis from a first end to a second end;
wherein a first protrusion is disposed on a first portion of a surface of the upper lateral panel and a second protrusion is disposed on a second portion of the surface of the upper lateral panel;
wherein a first slot is disposed along a first portion of a surface of the lower body member, the first slot of the lower body member extending along a first slot axis from a first end to a second end;
the first slot of the lower body member extending along a first slot axis from a first end to a second end, and wherein a second slot is disposed along a second portion of the surface of the lower body member, the second slot of the lower body member extending along a second slot axis from a first end to a second end; and
a second protrusion is disposed on a second portion of a surface of the lower lateral panel,
wherein the first protrusion of the upper lateral panel is slidably disposed within the first slot of the lower body member, the first protrusion of the lower lateral panel is slidably disposed within the first slot of the upper body member, the second protrusion of the upper lateral panel is slidably disposed within the second slot of the lower body member, and the second protrusion of the lower lateral panel is slidably disposed within the second slot of the upper body member.
In the same field of expandable cannulas (abstract), Kim et al. teaches an expandable sheath (see Figs. 1-2) comprising two panels (24), first mating features comprising protrusions (22, see also Figs. 3-4), and second mating features comprising slots (the slots defined by the overlap of 40 and 20), the slots (defined by the overlap of 40 and 20) each extending from a first end to a second end (see Figs. 3-4), wherein the mating features operatively engage the two panels such each protrusion is displaceable relative to the respective slot (see Figs. 3-4, the pin 22 moves relative to the slot defined by 40 and 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Lauryssen et al. device to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. and include the mating features as claimed between the upper lateral panel and the upper body, as well as the lower lateral panel and the lower body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because doing so would have involved applying a known technique (the mating features as taught by Kim et al. in order to yield an expandable sheath) to a similar device (the expandable cannula of Lauryssen et al.) in a way that would have yielded predictable results, particularly since Lauryssen et al. contemplates that “other means for affixing sheath 24 to elongate members 18, 20 are also possible” (PP [0030]).
However, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further fails to disclose wherein a second slot is disposed along a second portion of the surface of the upper body member, the second slot of the upper body member extending along a second slot axis from a first end to a second end;
wherein a second protrusion is disposed on a second portion of the surface of the upper lateral panel;
and wherein a second slot is disposed along a second portion of the surface of the lower body member, the second slot of the lower body member extending along a second slot axis from a first end to a second end;
a second protrusion is disposed on a second portion of a surface of the lower lateral panel,
wherein the second protrusion of the upper lateral panel is slidably disposed within the second slot of the lower body member, and the second protrusion of the lower lateral panel is slidably disposed within the second slot of the upper body member.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified the combination of Lauryssen et al. and Kim et al. to incorporate the secondary mating features as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification since it has been held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.). Additionally, Lauryssen et al. already contemplates that “sheath 24 can be attached or affixed to one or more portions of the exterior surfaces of elongate members 18, 20” (PP [0030]), therefore duplicating the mating features as taught by Kim et al. would have been obvious in order to “assist in maintaining alignment” (see PP [0030]) of the upper and lower body portions.
Regarding claim 4, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses the upper lateral panel further (right panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) comprising a second panel edge (edge of right panel of 24 that couples to 18, see Fig. 4), wherein each of the first panel edge (edge of right panel of 24 that couples to 20) and the second panel edge (edge of right panel of 24 that couples to 18) of the upper lateral panel (right panel of 24) extend parallel to and offset from the upper body axis (see Figs. 3-4), and
the lower lateral panel (left panel of 24 in Fig. 4) further comprising a second panel edge (edge of left panel of 24 that couples to 20), wherein each of the first panel edge (edge of left panel of 24 that couples to 18) and the second panel edge (edge of left panel of 24 that couples to 20) of the lower lateral panel (left panel of 24 in Fig. 4) extend parallel to and offset from the upper body axis (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the upper lateral panel (right panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) is configured to deform along an axis that is parallel to the upper body axis (PP [0029]: “it is also contemplated that sheath 24 could be formed of a stretchable material that does not necessarily resiliently return to its initial, unstretched state”), and the lower lateral panel (left panel of 24 in Fig. 4) is configured to deform along an axis that is parallel to the lower body axis (see PP [0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the upper body member (20 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) includes a second body edge portion (flat downturned left edge of 20 which engages 18, see Fig. 4 versus Fig. 2) that extends parallel to and offset from the upper body axis (see Figs. 3-4), and wherein the lower body member (18) includes a second body edge portion (flat upturned right edge of 18 which engages 20, see Fig. 4 versus Fig. 2) that extends parallel to and offset from the lower body axis (see Figs. 3-4),
wherein in the second position (see Fig. 2 of Lauryssen et al., see also Fig. 3 of Kim et al.), the first body edge portion (flat downturned right edge of 20 which engages 18 in Figs. 2 and 4 of Lauryssen et al.) of the upper body member (20 in Fig. 2 of Lauryssen et al.) is disposed at or adjacent to the second body edge portion (flat upturned right edge of 18 which engages 20) of the lower body member (18) and the second body edge portion (flat downturned left edge of 20 which engages 18) of the upper body member (20) is disposed at or adjacent to the first body edge portion (flat upturned left edge of 18 which engages 20) of the lower body member (18, see Fig. 4, 18 and 20 are adjacent to one another), and
wherein in the first position (see Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al., see also Fig. 4 of Kim et al.), the first body edge portion (flat downturned right edge of 20 which engages 18 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) of the upper body member (20) is disposed offset from the second body edge portion (flat upturned right edge of 18 which engages 20) of the lower body member (18) and the second body edge portion (flat downturned left edge of 20 which engages 18) of the upper body member (20) is disposed offset from the first body edge portion (flat upturned left edge of 18 which engages 20) of the lower body member (18, see Fig. 4, 18 and 20 are offset).
Regarding claim 7, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein when the first cannula subassembly (20 and right panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) and the second cannula subassembly (18 and left panel of 24) displace from the first position (see Fig. 4) to the second position (see Fig. 2), the upper body member (20) displaces in a direction normal to the upper body axis or the lower body member (18) displaces in a direction normal to the lower body axis (see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the upper body member (20 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) has a cross-sectional shape that is a segment of a first circle (see Figs. 3-4, 20 is hemispherical) and the lower body member (18) has a cross-sectional shape that is a segment of a second circle (see Figs. 3-4, 18 is hemispherical), and in the second position (see Fig. 2), the second cross-sectional assembly shape is a circular cross-sectional shape (18 and 20 abut one another to form a circular shape, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein in the first position (see Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.), the cross-sectional shape of the upper body member (20) and the upper lateral panel (right panel of 24) and the cross-sectional shape of the lower body member (18) and the lower lateral panel (left panel of 24) cooperate to form a first cross-sectional assembly shape that is an ovular cross-sectional shape (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 14, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein:
(a) when the first cannula subassembly (20 and right panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) and the second cannula [sub]assembly (18 and left panel of 24) are in the first position (see Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al., see also Fig. 4 of Kim et al.), the first protrusion (40 in Fig. 4 of Kim et al.) of the upper lateral panel (right panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) is disposed at or adjacent to the first end of the first slot (40 in Fig. 4 of Kim et al.) of the lower body member (18 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al., the combination as proposed would yield this by placing the slot on the lower body member and allowing the protrusion to translate in the slot) and the first protrusion (22 in Fig. 4 of Kim et al.) of the lower lateral panel (left panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) is disposed at or adjacent to the first end of the first slot (40 in Fig. 4 of Kim et al.) of the upper body member (20 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al., the combination as proposed would yield this by placing the slot on the upper body member and allowing the protrusion to translate in the slot), and
(b) when the first cannula subassembly (20 and right panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) and the second cannula [sub]assembly (18 and left panel of 24) are in the second position (see Fig. 2 of Lauryssen et al., see also Fig. 3 of Kim et al.), the first protrusion (40 in Fig. 3 of Kim et al.) of the upper lateral panel (left panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) is disposed at or adjacent to the second end of the first slot (40 in Fig. 3 of Kim et al.) of the lower body member (18 in Fig. 2 of Lauryssen et al., the combination as proposed would yield this by placing the slot on the lower body member and allowing the protrusion to translate in the slot) and the first protrusion (22 in Fig. 3 of Kim et al.) of the lower lateral panel (left panel of 24 in Fig. 4 of Lauryssen et al.) is disposed at or adjacent to the second end of the first slot (40 in Fig. 3 of Kim et al.) of the upper body member (20 in Fig. 2 of Lauryssen et al., the combination as proposed would yield this by placing the slot on the lower body member and allowing the protrusion to translate in the slot).
Regarding claim 15, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein:
(a) when the first cannula subassembly and the second cannula subassembly are in the second position, the second protrusion of the upper lateral panel is disposed at or adjacent to the second end of the second slot of the lower body member and the second protrusion of the lower lateral panel is disposed at or adjacent to the second end of the second slot of the upper body member (see above rejection for claim 13, the combination as proposed would yield this limitation as claimed, see Figs. 3-4 of Kim et al.), and
(b) when the first cannula subassembly and the second cannula subassembly are in the first position, the second protrusion of the upper lateral panel is disposed at or adjacent to the first end of the second slot of the lower body member and the second protrusion of the lower lateral panel is disposed at or adjacent to the first end of the second slot of the upper body member (see above rejection for claim 13, the combination as proposed would yield this limitation as claimed, see Figs. 3-4 of Kim et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the first protrusion (22 in Fig. 3 of Kim et al.) of the upper lateral panel, the first protrusion of the lower lateral panel, the second protrusion of the upper lateral panel, and the second protrusion of the lower lateral panel (see above rejection for claim 13 where the panels 24 of Lauryssen et al. are combined with the expansion feature of Kim et al.) each have an external surface that is not threaded (see Fig. 11, col. 4, lines 17-23: “mounted on each finger piece 22 to lock the trochar in adjusted position. The lock arrangement comprises a nut 48 threaded to tubular element 50 so that the nut can be tightened up to clamp the respective finger piece 22 fixedly to guide ring 16 in any adjusted position of the finger piece”, this alternate lock arrangement provides a protrusion/finger piece 22 with no threads, since 50 and 48 are threaded instead).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lauryssen et al. as modified by Kim et al. further discloses wherein the first protrusion (22 in Figs. 3 and 11 of Kim et al.) of the upper lateral panel, the first protrusion of the lower lateral panel, the second protrusion of the upper lateral panel, and the second protrusion of the lower lateral panel each have an enlarged end portion (see annotated Fig. 11 below), and an axial distance between a bottom end of each of the first protrusion, the second protrusion, the third protrusion, and the fourth protrusion and the enlarged end portion of each of the first protrusion, the second protrusion, the third protrusion, and the fourth protrusion (see above rejection for claim 13 where the panels 24 of Lauryssen et al. are combined with a plurality of the expansion feature of Kim et al.) is constant in the first position and the second position (the length of 22 does not change).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Bridget E. Rabaglia whose telephone number is (571)272-2908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/BRIDGET E. RABAGLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
