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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of claim 18, “an access offset” comprises a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6, 10-15, and 19-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "one lever arm member…the opposite lever arm member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the depends upon claim 2, rather than depending upon claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
In Claims 10-15 and 19-20, the preamble recites “A torque indicator device”; however, there is no indicator recited in the body of the claims. Thus, the term indicator causes ambiguity as to the intent and scope of the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first wire" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Claim 11 states “the torque component is comprises of multiple wires, however, this limitation is ambiguous because it is unclear if the claim is attempting to state, e.g., “wherein the wire of the torque component is comprised of multiple wires having a first lever arm member at one end of the wire and a second lever arm member at an opposite end of the wire; the first wire being at an angle relative to an axis of the second lever arm of the torque component”, or, that the torque component is comprised of multiple wires in addition to the “a wire” in claim 10. Therefore, this claim is an omnibus type claim due to the ambiguity of the claimed limitation.
Claim 12 contains the trademark/trade name Nitinol. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/ trade name is used to identify/describe a composition of a torque component and, accordingly, the identification/ description is indefinite.
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, 9, and 19-20 as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,241,751 B2 to (Nino et al.).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, (Nino et al.) disclose “A cannulated torque-limiting device with one or more lumen therein which may mate with an additional operational tool” (Abstract). The device of (Nino et al.) includes a torque limiter, Re. Claim 1, comprising: a distal component (distal end of driver 100 which includes cylindrical body 6, a clutch assembly including upper shank 800, lower shank 700, & etc. see the drawings); a handle (a generally T-shaped handle (not labeled) but evident in the drawings); a torsion component (coil spring 22 which, by nature, inherently involves torsion in its material wire when under compression or tension) connecting the distal component and the handle; the torsion component 22 having a predetermined torque profile (e.g., Col. 2, lines 11-27, lines 42-44; Col. 7, lines 60-67 and Col. 8, lines 1-7); the distal component and the handle being rotatable relative to each other subject to resistance from the predetermined torque profile of the torsion component; wherein the predetermined torque profile has a plateau (see, e.g., Col. 8, lines 38-43); and, Re. Claim 9, further comprising a lumen extending through the distal component and the handle (Col. 9, lines 18-23: “According to one or more exemplary implementations, as shown in FIG. 9, driver 100 may be configured to interface with at least one other device. For example, as shown in FIG. 9, driver 100 may be a device that selectably fits, at least partially, within channel 210 of operation tool 200. Operation tool 200 is a body with a channel such as a lumen in a cannula.”; or, Col. 10, lines 60-67: “According to one or more exemplary implementations, as shown in FIGS. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, driver 100 and components thereof may have one or more lumens or form cannula and include one or more lumens providing access to a distally-located worksite from a proximal end of driver 100. Access may be provided through the one or more lumens disposed along a central axis of driver 100. Lumens may extend axially through at least one of nose cone 8, upper shank 800, lower shank 700, locking screw 26, cap 2, and tip 340. A plurality of lumens may form a pathway from a distal end of driver 100 to a proximal end of driver 100. A plurality of lumens may form a pathway from a distal end of driver 100 to a proximal end of driver 100 and extend axially through at least one of nose cone 8,”).
Regarding claims 19-20 as well as understood, the torque device of (Nino et al.) comprises a distal component; a handle component; a torsion component disposed between the distal component and the handle component; the torsion component having a preloaded torque (refer to the discussion of (Nino et al.) in reference to Claims 1 and 9 previously); wherein the torsion component (spring 22) is a coiled spring (not clearly stated, but evident in the drawings).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108544415 A to (ZHANG, Ying-wei)(the examiner is relying upon an English translation of the document that has been enclosed with this office action).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(ZHANG, Ying-wei) discloses, inter alia, a shape memory alloy-based torque spanner, (Abstract – English translation) having a torque limiter comprising: a distal component (a first SMA actuator 4, a second SMA actuator 5); a handle (handle 301 of housing 302); a torsion component connecting the distal component (4 or 5) and the handle; the torsion component having a predetermined torque profile (inherently based upon the material and physical properties of the SMA wires and connection pads 201, 202 and connecting plates 205); the distal component and the handle being rotatable relative to each other subject to resistance from the predetermined torque profile of the torsion component; wherein the predetermined torque profile has a plateau (inherently); wherein the torsion component is comprised of at least one wire (SMA wire); and, wherein torsion component is at least two wires (refer to the drawings).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, and 19 as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 599637 A to (Livermont).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, (Livermont) discloses a limited torque tool (with a torque limiting device), the torque limiting device of the torque limiting tool of (Livermont), Re. Claim 1, comprises: a distal component (stem 7 having a ferrule 9 secured thereto by a suitable pin; page 1 of 4, lines 87-92; Figs. 1-3; or, stem 21; page 2 of 4, lines 56-59; Fig. 5); a handle (handle structure which includes a sleeve 2 at the upper end of which is an enlargement forming a hollow head 3; page 1 of 4, lines 72-75; Figs. 1-3); a torsion component connecting the distal component (stem 21; Fig. 5) and the handle (hollow head 3; Fig. 5); the torsion component (spiral drive spring 23; page 2 of 4, lines 59-63) having a predetermined torque profile (inherently); the distal component (stem 21) and the handle 3 being rotatable relative to each other subject to resistance from the predetermined torque profile of the torsion component (page 2 of 4, lines 47-73); wherein the predetermined torque profile has a plateau (also inherent to the physical properties of the material structure of the torsion component 23); Re. Claim 2, wherein, the torsion component (spiral drive spring 23) is comprised of at least one wire (page 2 of 4, lines 63-66);
Re. Claim 4, wherein the torsion component 23 is a torsional
spring (a spiral spring (such as the spiral drive spring 23 of Livermont) inherently functions through torsion by storing and releasing rotational energy in the form of torque); and, Re. Claim 7, wherein the torsion component (spiral drive spring 23) is offset from an axis of rotation of the distal component and the handle (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 19, (Livermont) discloses a torque “indicator” device comprising: a distal component (stem 7; Figs. 1-3); a handle component (handle structure which includes a sleeve 2 at the upper end of which is an enlargement forming a hollow head 3; page 1 of 4, lines 72-75; Figs. 1-3); a torsion component disposed between the distal component and the handle component; the torsion component having a preloaded torque.
PNG
media_image2.png
358
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, and 19 as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,048,381 A to (Allen et al.).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 8, (Allen et al.) discloses a torque-indicating screwdriver having a torque limiter device, the torque limiter device of (Allen et al.), Re. Claim 1, comprising: a distal component (a slot in the inner end of the square-section plug 18 of shaft assembly 12; Col. 3, lines 51-55; Fig. 2); a handle (handle 14); a torsion component (torsion bar 34) connecting the distal component (the slot in the inner end of the square-section plug 18 of shaft assembly 12) and the handle 14 (via a part-cylindrical insert 40 which loosely fits inside the hollow interior of the handle 14); the torsion component 34 having a predetermined torque profile (inherently); the distal component and the handle being rotatable relative to each other subject to resistance from the predetermined torque profile of the torsion component; wherein the predetermined torque profile has a plateau (inherent to the physical properties of the material structure of the torsion bar 34); Re. Claim 4, the torsion component 34 is a torsional spring (“torsion bar 34 as illustrated comprises a strip of spring steel, but may alternatively comprise two such strips mounted back-to-back.” (emphasis added); Col. 3, lines 56-58); and, Re. Claim 8, wherein a marker (indicating means 28) is disposed on the handle and the distal component (see, e.g., Col. 4, lines 20-22; Col. 6, lines 14-28; Col. 7, lines 11-18 and 32-49; Figs. 1, 2 and 4-6).
Regarding claim 19, (Allen et al.) discloses a torque-indicating screwdriver having a torque indicator device comprising: a distal component (a slot in the inner end of the square-section plug 18 of shaft assembly 12; Col. 3, lines 51-55; Fig. 2); a handle component (a part-cylindrical insert 40 which loosely fits inside the hollow interior of the handle 14); a torsion component (torsion bar 34) disposed between the distal component (the slot in the inner end of the square-section plug 18 of shaft assembly 12) and the handle component 40; the torsion component 34 having a preloaded torque (inherent to the physical properties of the material structure of the torsion bar 34).
PNG
media_image3.png
380
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
318
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 8, and 19-20 as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0255734 A1 to (Casutt).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4 and 8, (Casutt) discloses a screw-driving tool for implant screws, the screw-driving tool having, inter alia, a torque limiter device (see, e.g., para. [0003]) of (Casutt), Re. Claim 1, comprising: a distal component (“the spiral 10 which is hollow in design and is in turn rigidly anchored in the head part 1 by a pressed-in cylindrical pin 7”; para. [0015]); a handle (elongate handle 2); a torsion component (spiral 10) connecting the distal component and the handle 2 (a foot part 13 – “The spiral ends at the other end in a foot part 13 which is rigidly connected to the elongate handle 2 via two pressed-in cylindrical pins 8.”; para. [0014], last sentence); the torsion component 10 having a predetermined torque profile (para. [0021], sentences 3-5 – “a pre-determined torque”); the distal component and the handle being rotatable relative to each other subject to resistance from the predetermined torque profile of the torsion component (para. [0021]); wherein the predetermined torque profile has a plateau (inherently based upon the physical properties of the material structure of spiral 10); Re. Claim 2, wherein the torsion component (spiral 10) is comprised of at least one “wire”; Re. Claim 4, wherein the torsion component (spiral 10) is a torsional spring (para. [0021], sentence 3 – “the hollow spiral used as the torsion spring for a pre-determined torque.”); and, Re. Claim 8, (Casutt) discloses a marker is disposed on the handle and the distal component (indicator 4 and indicator 12; Fig. 3; para. [0018]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, as well as understood, (Casutt) discloses a torque indicator device (the entire screw-driving tool), Re. Claim 19, comprising: a distal component (“the spiral 10 which is hollow in design and is in turn rigidly anchored in the head part 1 by a pressed-in cylindrical pin 7”; para. [0015]); a handle component (elongate handle 2); a torsion component (spiral 10) disposed between the distal component and the handle component; the torsion component having a preloaded torque (para. [0021], sentences 3-5 – “a pre-determined torque”); and, Re. Claim 20, wherein the torsion component 10 is a coiled spring (“screw-shaped spiral 10”; para. [0016], last sentence).
PNG
media_image5.png
174
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
188
233
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 8, and 19 as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 8438956 B1 to (Holmes et al.).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, (Holmes et al.) discloses a torque-indicating screwdriver 100 having a torque limiter device, the torque limiter device of (Holmes et al.), Re. Claim 1, comprises: a distal component (hub 160); a handle 110; a torsion component (one or more substantially flat torsion springs 130) connecting the distal component 160 and the handle 110; the torsion component (one or more substantially flat torsion springs 130) having a predetermined torque profile (inherently based upon the number of torsion springs, shape of the springs, and/or the physical properties of the chosen material, e.g., “flat springs 130 are preferably constructed from a flexible material, such as spring steel or spring stainless steel, which may absorb torsional forces, angularly deflecting elastically in response thereto, while not plastically bending or substantially deflecting in other directions.” – Col. 4, lines 4-8; see also, lines 9-14); the distal component (hub 160) and the handle 110 being rotatable relative to each other subject to resistance from the predetermined torque profile of the torsion component (torsion springs 130); wherein the predetermined torque profile has a plateau (inherently); Re. Claim 7, wherein the torsion component (torsion springs 130) is offset from an axis of rotation of the distal component and the handle (see, e.g., Fig. 1C); and, Re. Claim 8, wherein a marker is disposed on the handle and the distal component (e.g., Figs. 2A-2C; Col. 5, lines 18-51).
Regarding claim 19 as well as understood, (Holmes et al.) discloses a torque-indicating screwdriver 100 having a torque indicator device, the torque indicator device of (Holmes et al.) comprises: a distal component (hub 160); a handle component (cylindrical housing 120 is rigidly attached to handle 110); a torsion component (one or more substantially flat torsion springs 130) disposed between the distal component 160 and the handle component 120 (Col. 3, lines 59-67 through Col. 4 line 17); the torsion component having a preloaded torque (inherent to the physical properties of the material structure of the individual torsion spring 130, number of torsion springs 130, shape thereof, etc.).
PNG
media_image7.png
470
706
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 as well as understood, 7, 10 and 13-15 as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,186,785 B1 to (Rogers et al.).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 as well as understood, and 7, (Rogers et al.) disclose several embodiments of a torque limiter device for a ratchet wrench, the torque limiter device, Re. Claim 1, comprising: a distal component (rotor body 30); a handle 12; a torsion component (torsion spring 40) connecting the distal component 30 and the handle 12 (via a drive member 16 concentrically located within the housing 10 of handle 12; Col. 2, lines 61-64); the torsion component 40 having a predetermined torque profile (inherent to the physical properties of the material structure of the spring 40); the distal component 30 and the handle 10 being rotatable relative to each other subject to resistance from the predetermined torque profile of the torsion component (see, e.g., Col. 3, lines 51-Col. 4, line 26); wherein the predetermined torque profile has a plateau (inherently); Re. Claim 2, wherein the torsion component 40 is comprised of at least one wire (torsion spring 40 is a “wire” that has been bent into a coiled shape; Figs. 1, 2, 8a-8d; 16, and 17; Col. 3, lines 65-67); Re. Claim 4, wherein the torsion component 40 is a torsional spring (“A torsion spring 40”; Col. 3, line 51); Re. Claim 5, the torsion component 40 is comprised of lever arm members (ends 42 and 44, respectively) disposed at opposing ends of the torsion component 40 (Col. 3, lines 51-54); Re. Claim 6 as well as understood, one lever arm member is set at an angle relative to an axis of the opposite lever arm member (Col. 3, lines 59-65; e.g., “The ends 42 and 44 of this spring 40 need not be collinear, but can be relatively displaced around the axis of the housing 10 as shown in FIG. 8d. If the ends 42 and 44 of the spring 40 are so displaced, the first hub 36 can be correspondingly displaced around the axis to locate the hole 48 to accommodate the location of the end 44 which is engaged in that hole 48.”); and, Re. Claim 7, wherein the torsion component 40 is offset from an axis of rotation of the distal component 30 and the handle 10 (evident in Figs. 1, 2, and 17).
PNG
media_image8.png
418
466
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 13-15 as well as understood, (Rogers et al.) disclose a torque indicator ratchet wrench for dentistry, the torque indicator device of the ratchet wrench, Re. Claim 10, comprising: a distal component (rotor body 30); a handle 12; a torque component (torsion spring 40) connecting the distal component 30 and the handle 12 (via a drive member 16 concentrically located within the housing 10 of handle 12; Col. 2, lines 61-64); the torque component (torsion spring 40) being offset from a longitudinal axis of the distal component and the handle (evident in Figs. 1, 2, and 17); the torque component 40 comprised of a wire having a first lever arm member 42 at one end of the wire and a second lever arm member 44 at an opposite end of the wire; the first wire 42 being at an angle relative to an axis of the second lever arm 44 (Col. 3, lines 59-65; e.g., “The ends 42 and 44 of this spring 40 need not be collinear, but can be relatively displaced around the axis of the housing 10 as shown in FIG. 8d. If the ends 42 and 44 of the spring 40 are so displaced, the first hub 36 can be correspondingly displaced around the axis to locate the hole 48 to accommodate the location of the end 44 which is engaged in that hole 48.”); Re. Claim 13, wherein the torque component has a torque profile with a plateau limiting torque that is applied to the distal component (inherent to the physical properties of the material structure of the torsion spring 40); Re. Claim 14, wherein the second lever arm is situated in the handle 12 to be movable relative to an axis of the first lever arm (see Col. 4, lines 1-11); and, Re. Claim 15, wherein the first lever arm is secured in the distal component against movement relative to the first lever arm (see Col. 4, lines 1-11).
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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 12, as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Rogers et al.), as applied to, inter alia, claims 1 and above, as being obvious, as demonstrated in US 10,881,868 B2 to (Ollivier) and US 8,109,183 B2 to (Santamarina et al.).
Regarding claim 12, as well as understood, (Rogers et al.), as applied to, inter alia, claims 1 and 10 above, provides a torque limiter device having a torque indicator device according to the claim, except for stating that the torsion spring 40 (torque component) “is preferably made of the 303 Series Stainless Steel” (Col. 3, lines 65-66), rather than of NitinolTM.
However, assuming the applicant intends to interpret NitinolTM as a nickel-titanium shape-memory alloy (SMA) renowned for its unique superelasticity and shape-memory effect, where it returns to a pre-set shape upon heating, having properties such as biocompatibility, excellent corrosion resistance, and high fatigue resistance, such SMAs are well-known in the industry.
An example of the use of SMAs in a torque limiter (i.e., torque limiter 800) is demonstrated in (Ollivier) who cites that the torque limiter 800 “may be laser etched, or otherwise cut, from inox or Mp35N metal tubing, or nitinol tubing” Col. 20, lines 46-47.
Similarly, (Santamarina et al.) provides an impact resistant tool bit and tool bit holder having a damping mechanism, e.g. damping mechanism 50; damping mechanism 126; “damping mechanism 216 is illustrated as a torsional spring” (Col. 7, lines 31-32); or, “damping mechanism 216' could be manufactured from memory metal material, such as nitinol,” (Col. 7, lines 40-42). That “is made from a shape memory material, such as a nitinol alloy” (Col. 2, lines 8-10).
Therefore, in view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the torsion spring 40 (torque component) of (Rogers et al.), as applied to, inter alia, claim 10 above, by substituting the 303 Series Stainless Steel with a well-known a nickel-titanium shape-memory alloy (SMA), such as NitinolTM, as a suitable alternative metallurgical material, as demonstrated in (Ollivier) and (Santamarina et al.), on the basis of its particular characteristics and suitability for the intended use thereof.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified (Rogers et al.), as applied to claim 13 above, as being obvious.
Modified (Rogers et al.), as applied to claim 13 above, provides a device having a distal component (rotor body 30) connected to a super elastic torsion mechanism (torsion spring 40 (torque component) wherein the 303 Series Stainless Steel has been substituted with a well-known a nickel-titanium shape-memory alloy (SMA), such as NitinolTM, (demonstrated in (Ollivier) and (Santamarina et al.)); and, (Rogers et al.) demonstrates/teaches the steps of: applying torque to the distal component 30 by applying torque to the super elastic torsion mechanism (torsion spring 40 (torque component) wherein the 303 Series Stainless Steel has been substituted with a well-known a nickel-titanium shape-memory alloy (SMA), such as NitinolTM, (demonstrated in (Ollivier) and (Santamarina et al.)); and, continue applying torque to the distal component until torque plateaus (inherently) according to a torque profile of the super elastic torsion mechanism (see, e.g., Col. 4, lines 1-11; and Col. 6, lines 11-17), thus the method of claim 16 and 18 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: that the torque component is comprised of multiple wires wherein each wire has a first lever arm member at one end of the wire and a second lever arm member at an opposite endo the wire; the wire being at an angle relative to an axis of the second lever arm, has neither been disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as describing devices, components, and materials relevant to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (. 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.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/