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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the amendment filed 01/26/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0354113 (Spenciner), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0108875 (Kunkel et al.) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2003/0153926 (Schmieding et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Spenciner discloses as shown in Figures 1, 2 a cannula capable of use in arthroscopic surgery, said cannula comprising; a cannula tube (elongate shaft 14, see paragraph [0026]), said cannula tube having a proximal end, a distal end, and a lumen extending therethrough, and a distal tip on the distal end, said distal tip configured for insertion through an incision into an arthroscopic workspace, proximate a joint in a patient; a plurality of flaps (petals 16p, see paragraph [0030]) disposed on the distal end of the tube, proximate the distal tip, said flaps extending radially outwardly from an outer surface of tube, said flap resiliently foldable in a proximal direction when constrained while passing through the incision, to lie against the outer surface of the tube, and resiliently biased to return to a radially outwardly extending position when unconstrained; see paragraph [0030]; and wherein each flap is characterized by a root portion proximate the outer surface of the cannula, a radially outward portion radially outward of the root, and a proximal face and a distal face, wherein said root portion spans a first circumferential arc (generally indicated as A) and the radially outward portion spans a second circumferential arc larger (generally indicated as B) than the first circumferential arc. See annotated Figure 2 (provided below):
PNG
media_image1.png
347
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Spenciner fails to disclose a releasable clip separate from and not permanently attached to the cannula tube, the clip being configured for a friction fit on the cannula tube such that the clip is selectively attachable to and detachable from the cannula tube, having a surface dimensioned to engage the cannula outer surface and is capable of preventing movement of tissue between the clip in conjunction with the flaps in the radially outwardly extending position when unconstrained and disposed within arthroscopic workspace, and wherein the clip and flaps are positioned relative to each other such that the tissue is retained between the clip and the flaps.
Kunkel et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar cannula as shown in Figure 13a, where the cannula includes a releasable clip (plate 520, see paragraph [0055]) configured for a friction fit on the tube, dimensioned to engage the cannula outer surface and is capable of preventing movement of tissue between the clip in conjunction with flaps in the radially outwardly extending position when unconstrained and disposed within arthroscopic workspace, and wherein the clip and flaps are positioned relative to each other such that the tissue is capable of being retained between the clip and the flaps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cannula disclosed by Spenciner to include the clip taught by Kunkel et al. in order to configure the cannula to facilitate gripping tissue with the flaps.
To be clear, the Office interprets the plate disclosed as releasable because it is releasable from engagement with the skin.
Schmiedling et al., from the same filed of endeavor teaches teaches a similar cannula as shown in Figure 7, that includes a releasable clip (retention clip 70, see paragraph [0034]) separate from and not permanently attached to the cannula tube, the clip being configured for a friction fit on the cannula tube such that the clip is selectively attachable to and detachable from the cannula tube for the purpose of adjusting the position relative to the cannula shaft and the patient’s skin quickly. See paragraph [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cannula disclosed by Spenciner in view of Kunkel et al. such that was separate from and not permanently attached to the cannula tube, the clip being configured for a friction fit on the cannula tube such that the clip is selectively attachable to and detachable from the cannula tube in order to adjust the position relative to the cannula shaft and the patient’s skin quickly.
Regarding claims 11, Spenciner discloses wherein said flap is further characterized by a tip portion (generally indicated as C), wherein the tip portion is radially outward of the radially outward portion, wherein said tip portion spans a third circumferential arc, said third circumferential arc is smaller than the second circumferential arc, wherein said flap is further characterized by a tip portion (generally indicated as D), wherein the tip portion is radially outward of the radially outward portion, wherein said tip portion spans a third circumferential arc, said third circumferential arc is smaller than the second circumferential arc.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Spenciner discloses as shown in Figures 1, 2 a cannula capable of use in arthroscopic surgery, said cannula comprising; a cannula tube, said cannula tube (elongate shaft 14, see paragraph [0026]) having a proximal end, a distal end, and a lumen extending therethrough, and a distal tip on the distal end, said distal tip configured for insertion through an incision into an arthroscopic workspace, proximate a joint in a patient; a plurality of flaps (petals 16p, see paragraph [0030]) disposed on the distal end of the tube, proximate the distal tip, said flaps extending radially outwardly from an outer surface of tube, said flap resiliently foldable in a proximal direction when constrained while passing through the incision, to lie against the outer surface of the tube, and resiliently biased to return to a radially outwardly extending position when unconstrained; see paragraph [0030] and wherein each flap is characterized by a root portion proximate the outer surface of the cannula, a radially outward portion radially outward of the root, and a proximal face and a distal face, wherein, in the root portion, each flap has a first thickness, and in the radially outward portion each flap has a second thickness.
Spenciner is silent about the second thickness being greater than the first thickness.
However, Spenciner contemplates the thickness of the flaps varying. See paragraph [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a size of the second thickness such that it was greater than the first thickness because it would only require ethe simple substitution of one alterative for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Spenciner discloses wherein said root portion spans a first circumferential arc (generally indicated as A) and the radially outward portion spans a second circumferential arc larger (generally indicated as B) than the first circumferential arc. See annotated Figure 2 (provided below):
PNG
media_image1.png
347
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6, 7 Spenciner discloses wherein said flap is further characterized by a tip portion (generally indicated as C), wherein the tip portion is radially outward of the radially outward portion, wherein said tip portion spans a third circumferential arc, said third circumferential arc is smaller than the second circumferential arc, wherein said flap is further characterized by a tip portion (generally indicated as D), wherein the tip portion is radially outward of the radially outward portion, wherein said tip portion spans a third circumferential arc, said third circumferential arc is smaller than the second circumferential arc.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments filed 01/26/2026, see pages 5-8, have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is 571-270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 – 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
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.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771