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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 22, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed December 22, 2025. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Examiner’s Note
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Serokosz et al. (US 2019/0110785), herein referred to as Serokosz.
Regarding claim 1, Serokosz discloses a retractor (10) (figures 1-4) comprising a first blade assembly (16) comprising a first blade (20) and a first rack (24+26+28+30) (defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as “a framework, stand, or grating on or in which articles are placed”), a first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a) configured to (i.e. capable of) translate the first blade (20) along a first translation direction (¶44), a first lock handle (38, 44) configured to (i.e. capable of) limit translation along a direction opposite the first translation direction (¶46), and a second blade assembly (18) comprising a second blade (22) and a second rack (another elements 24+26+28+30), wherein the first rack (24+26+28+30) and the second rack (another elements 24+26+28+30) are aligned to translate along a common axis (14a) (figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Serokosz discloses further comprising a second actuator (another elements 34, 34a, 36, 36a) configured to (i.e. capable of) translate the second blade (22) along a second translation direction (¶44).
Regarding claim 3, Serokosz discloses wherein the first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a) and the second actuator (another elements 34, 34a, 36, 36a) are configured to (i.e. capable of) be rotated in the same direction to open the retractor (10).
Regarding claim 4, Serokosz discloses wherein the first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a) and the second actuator (another elements 34, 34a, 36, 36a) are configured to (i.e. capable of) be rotated independently (¶46 and figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Serokosz discloses further comprising a second lock handle (another elements 38, 44) configured to (i.e. capable of) limit translation along a direction opposite the second translation direction (¶46 and figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Serokosz discloses wherein the first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a) comprises a pinion (34, 34a, 36, 36a).
Regarding claim 9, Serokosz discloses wherein the first lock handle (38, 44) is biased (via element 42) to engage a pawl (38) with the first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a).
Regarding claim 10, Serokosz discloses wherein the first lock handle (38, 44) pivots (via element 40) relative to the first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a).
Regarding claim 11, Serokosz discloses wherein the first lock handle (38, 44) comprises a pawl (38) configured to (i.e. capable of) directly engage the first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a) (figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Serokosz discloses wherein the first lock handle (38, 44) is configured to (i.e. capable of) limit the first blade (20) from closing (¶46), while allowing the first blade (20) to open along the first translation direction (¶46).
Regarding claim 13, Serokosz discloses wherein the first blade (20) and the second blade (22) are configured to (i.e. capable of) move in opposite directions to open the retractor (10) (¶43, ¶44).
Regarding claim 14, Serokosz discloses wherein the first blade (20) and the second blade (22) are configured to (i.e. capable of) nest when the retractor (10) is in a closed position (¶43, ¶44).
Regarding claim 15, Serokosz discloses a method of using a retractor (10) (¶2), comprising providing a retractor (10) comprising a first blade assembly (16) comprising a first blade (20) and a first rack (24+26+28+30) (defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as “a framework, stand, or grating on or in which articles are placed”), a first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a), a first lock handle (38, 44), and second blade assembly (18) comprising a second blade (22) and a second rack (another 24+26+28+30), wherein the first rack (24+26+28+30) and the second rack (another 24+26+28+30) are aligned to translate along a common axis (14a) (figure 4), and translating the first blade (20) (¶46) along a first translation direction (¶46) with the first actuator (34, 34a, 36, 36a), wherein the first lock handle (38, 44) limits translation (¶46) along a direction opposite the first translation direction (¶46).
Regarding claim 16, Serokosz discloses further comprising translating the second blade (22) along a second translation direction (¶46) with a second actuator (another elements 34, 34a, 36, 36a).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serokosz et al. (US 2019/0110785) in view of Ortiz et al. (US 2019/0083081), herein referred to as Ortiz.
Regarding claim 7, Serokosz’s retractor discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising a probe assembly comprising a first probe and a second probe.
However, Ortiz teaches a probe assembly (500) (figures 21A, 21B) comprising a first probe (510) and a second probe (505).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Serokosz’s retractor with a probe assembly comprising a first probe and a second probe as taught by Ortiz, since such a modification can allow the surgeon to easily and quickly insert a retractor without cutting an incision all the way to the surgery site prior to inserting the retractor into the desired location to access the surgery site (¶147).
Regarding claim 8, Serokosz’s retractor discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising a shim comprising an alignment feature, wherein at least one blade comprises a corresponding alignment feature.
However, Ortiz teaches a shim (535) comprising an alignment feature (540) (¶124), wherein at least one blade (46) comprises a corresponding alignment feature (48) (¶125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Serokosz’s retractor with a shim comprising an alignment feature, wherein at least one blade comprises a corresponding alignment feature as taught by Ortiz, since a shim would retain the retractor at an anchorable location (¶128).
Regarding claim 17, Serokosz’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising inserting a first probe and a second probe toward an anatomical location.
However, Ortiz teaches inserting a first probe (510) and a second probe (505) toward an anatomical location (figures 21A, 21B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Serokosz’s method with the step of inserting a first probe and a second probe toward an anatomical location as taught by Ortiz, since such a modification can allow the surgeon to easily and quickly insert a retractor without cutting an incision all the way to the surgery site prior to inserting the retractor into the desired location to access the surgery site (¶147).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Serokosz’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising inserting the second blade of the retractor over the first probe and the second probe.
However, Ortiz teaches inserting a blade (46) of a retractor (10) over the first probe (510) and the second probe (505) (¶139, ¶154, and figure 21C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Serokosz’s method having the second blade with the step of inserting the blade of the retractor over the first probe and the second probe as taught by Ortiz, since such a modification would guide the blade toward an anatomical location.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Serokosz’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising removing the second probe and inserting a shim.
However, Ortiz teaches removing the second probe (505) and inserting a shim (535) (¶140 and figure 21D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Serokosz’s method with the step of removing the second probe and inserting a shim as taught by Ortiz, since such a modification would retain the retractor at an anchorable location (¶128)
Regarding claim 20, the modified Serokosz’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising removing the first probe.
However, Ortiz teaches further comprising removing the first probe (510) (¶147 and claim 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Serokosz’s method with the step of removing the first probe as taught by Ortiz, since such a modification would allow the surgeon to remove the probe as necessary for patient specific surgeries.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the reference Predick has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SI MING KU whose telephone number is (571)270-5450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-6pm.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at (571)272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/SI MING KU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775