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 .
Examiner’s Note
The examined claim set herein is the claim set filed 07/14/2024. It is noted that this is the most recent claim set of record. The drawings considered are attached to the certified copy of foreign priority filed 07/27/2023, as published in publication US 20240389992 A1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-13 use the phrase “CHARACTERIZED BY THE FACT THAT” which is permitted but not recommended. It adds no special legal effect beyond simply reciting the limitations, and it can introduce ambiguity or awkwardness that may later be used against clarity or claim scope. It is suggested that the phrase “CHARACTERIZED BY THE FACT THAT” recited in claims 1-13 be replaced with clearer, more conventional phrasing such as
-- wherein --. 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 4 and 11 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 4 recites the limitation "facing a stroke of each movable finger” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No movable finger has been introduced prior to this recitation. Furthermore, it is unclear what “facing a stroke” is intended to mean. For examination purposes, the office will interpret this claim to read, -- the retractor further comprising a movable finger --.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the longitudinal edges” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No longitudinal edges have been introduced prior to this recitation. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted to read, -- at least upper parts of longitudinal edges formed on the blade --.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michaeli et al. (US 20110208006 A1) (hereon referred to as Michaeli).
Regarding claim 1, Michaeli teaches surgical retractor (see Fig. 2C) comprising:
a frame (12) having a central opening (12a),
arms (all arms 15) which are movable in translation (configured to translate via grooves 12b, see Paras. [0441-0442]), and
a blade (all blades 21) associated with each arm, the arms (15) having two ends (15d, 15b):
a first arm end (15b) engaging with the frame (12) for guiding and driving purposes and a second arm end (15d) operating in the central opening (12a),
the blades (21) having two ends (15d, 15b):
a first blade end (21g) connected to the second end of an arm (15) and a second blade end (21h) intended to engage with the tissue of the patient,
characterized by the fact that the retractor comprises two independent wheel portions (17h, 17g) guided in rotation by the frame (12) and engaging with different arms (15) to propose independent movements (note that the gears indirectly engage arms 15, causing translation within grooves 12b. See Para. [0519]).
Regarding claim 2, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the two wheel portions (17h, 17g) are not coaxial (see Fig. 15a).
Regarding claim 3, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that each wheel portion (17h, 17g) is equipped with a movable control finger (17a) projecting outside of the frame (12), finger movable by the user (see Fig. and 16d Para. [0519]).
Regarding claim 4, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 3, characterized by the fact that a fixed finger (17b) is fixed to the frame (12), the retractor further comprising a movable finger (17a).
Regarding claim 5, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the retractor comprises a means (17c) for holding each wheel portion in position, adopting the behaviour of a pawl (see Para. [0519]).
Regarding claim 6, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the first end of the blades (21) is preformed so as to house a functional module (21r).
Regarding claim 7, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 6, characterized by the fact that the first end of the blades (21) is preformed with at least one orifice (opening wherein cable 21s sits) opening onto the internal surface of the blade (see Fig. 14e and Para. [00512]).
Regarding claim 8, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the wheel portions (17h, 17g) are gearwheel portions (see Para. [0519]).
Regarding claim 10, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the connection between the first end of the blades (21g) and the second end of the arms (15d) enables an inclination (see Para. [0444], noting that the configuration enables angling of the two components relative to each other, thereby creating an incline).
Regarding claim 11, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that at least upper parts (portion shown in Fig. 13c) of longitudinal edges (21wa, see Para. [0497]) formed on the blades (21) have complementary interlocking profiles optimizing the connection together once in contact (see Fig. 13c and Para. [0497]).
Regarding claim 12, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the blades (21) are made of a radiotransparent material (see Para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Michaeli teaches the retractor according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the blades are made of titanium and the thickness of the blades (21) is refined in order to make the blades radiotransparent (note that it is known in the art that titanium has poor radioopacity; also see the thin nature of the blades described in Para. [0485], wherien the width of d13 is disclosed to be 0.4mm).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the combined subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 9 are not taught by any reference or obvious combination thereof. In particular, the recitation, “… and is provided with an oblong longitudinal lumen performed on a side of the rack, this rack engages with a pinion of a small coaxial diameter and integral in rotation with a pinion of a larger diameter pivotingly mounted on the frame and engaging with a gearwheel portion” as per claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY J LANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/H.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773