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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the currently filed drawings provided on January 25th, 2024 are not black and white line drawings. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. Applicant is reminded to provide black and white line drawings. The drawings submitted on January 25th, 2024 and again on June 16th, 2026 are not line drawings. The heavily shaded area of these non-line drawings make it difficult to ascertain many aspects of Applicant’s invention.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikinsky et al. (US 2018/0132920) in view of Richter et al. (US 11,599,328).
Regarding claim 1, Vikinsky et al. disclose a guidewire-capturing instrument, comprising a handle (14, figures 1A-2) comprising a central aperture (20) extending in an axial direction therethrough (figure 2), wherein the central aperture is centered about a central axis extending in the axial direction (figure 2); a wire housing (26) having a wire aperture (figure 2) extending in the axial direction therethrough, the wire aperture being sized and shaped to receive a guidewire (24); the wire housing at least partially contained within the central aperture and selectively movable in the axial direction within the central aperture from a first position to a second position (¶37-38, ¶40-42); and a clutch (28 “set screw” ¶33) connected to the handle and selectively movable between an engaged position (“locked in place” ¶33) and a disengaged position (prior to being “locked in place” ¶33), the engaged position corresponding to a threaded engagement between the wire housing and the clutch (¶33), and the disengaged position corresponding to free axial movement of the wire housing within the central aperture between the first position and the second position (¶37-41). Vikinsky et al. fail to expressly teach or disclose the clutch is a button that protrudes from the handle and configured to be biased against a clutch spring disposed under the clutch to toggle the clutch from the engaged position to the disengaged position and rather teaches the use of a set screw.
Richter et al. disclose a clutch in the form of a button (712, figures 94A-96) that protrudes from the handle (702) and configured to be biased against a clutch spring (e.g. 726) disposed under the clutch (figures 94B-94C) to toggle the clutch from the engaged position to the disengaged position (column 30, lines 9-24). As it is a known alternative mechanism for toggling from a locked to unlocked configuration.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the clutch of Vikinsky et al. to be a button that protrudes from the handle and configured to be biased against a clutch spring disposed under the clutch to toggle the clutch from the engaged position to the disengaged position instead of the use of a set screw as it is a known alternative mechanism for toggling from a locked to unlocked configuration. Regarding claim 2, Vikinsky et al. disclose a collar (34) at least partially contained within the central aperture (figures 1A-2), the collar extending circumferentially around at least a portion of the wire housing (figure 2), and the collar being rotationally coupled to the wire housing such that rotation of the collar about the central axis corresponds with rotation of the wire housing about the central axis (¶38). Regarding claim 3, Vikinsky et al. disclose the collar limits axial movement of the wire housing to define the first position and the second position (¶37, ¶39-41). Regarding claim 4, Vikinsky et al. disclose the collar comprises a slot (opening that houses 32) extending in the axial direction with an abutment (abutment occurs where parts 32 and 34 engage/disengage with rotation in the first direction) between the wire housing and a first end of the slot defining the first position and an abutment (abutment occurs where parts 32 and 34 engage/disengage with rotation in the second direction) between the wire housing and a second end of the slot defining the second position (¶39-41, figure 2). Regarding claim 5, Vikinsky et al. disclose a surface (outside surface of 34)of an end of the collar is sized and shaped to support engagement with a wrench (the surface is capable due to it’s textured, undulating surface).
Regarding claim 8, Vikinsky et al. disclose the wire aperture is sized and shaped to receive a k-wire (24, figure 2, ¶33).
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US 2024/0090932) in view of Richter et al. (US 11,599,328). Regarding claim 1, Foley et al. disclose a guidewire-capturing instrument, comprising a handle (20, figure 4) comprising a central aperture (23) extending in an axial direction therethrough (figure 4), wherein the central aperture is centered about a central axis extending in the axial direction (figure 4); a wire housing (29, figure 5A) having a wire aperture (34) extending in the axial direction therethrough, the wire aperture being sized and shaped to receive a guidewire (75); the wire housing at least partially contained within the central aperture and selectively movable in the axial direction (via 24 and 30) within the central aperture from a first position to a second position (¶24); and a clutch (35) connected to the handle and selectively movable between an engaged position (“locked” ¶22) and a disengaged position (“unlock” ¶22), the engaged position corresponding to a threaded engagement between the wire housing and the clutch (¶21), and the disengaged position corresponding to free axial movement of the wire housing within the central aperture between the first position and the second position (¶22).
Foley et al. fail to expressly teach or disclose the clutch is a button that protrudes from the handle and configured to be biased against a clutch spring disposed under the clutch to toggle the clutch from the engaged position to the disengaged position and rather teaches the use of a locking knob.
Richter et al. disclose a clutch in the form of a button (712, figures 94A-96) that protrudes from the handle (702) and configured to be biased against a clutch spring (e.g. 726) disposed under the clutch (figures 94B-94C) to toggle the clutch from the engaged position to the disengaged position (column 30, lines 9-24). As it is a known alternative mechanism for toggling from a locked to unlocked configuration.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the clutch of Foley et al. to be a button that protrudes from the handle and configured to be biased against a clutch spring disposed under the clutch to toggle the clutch from the engaged position to the disengaged position instead of the use of a locking knob as it is a known alternative mechanism for toggling from a locked to unlocked configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Foley et al. disclose a driver housing (9, figure 4) at least partially contained within the central aperture (figure 4) and having a driver aperture (figure 4) extending in the axial direction therethrough, the driver aperture being centered about the central axis and being sized and shaped to receive an end of a pedicle screwdriver (if one so chooses), wherein the driver housing is rotationally coupled to the handle (¶20), and rotation of the handle about the central axis corresponds to rotation of the driver housing about the central axis; and the driver aperture and the wire aperture combine to form a continuous open channel extending the length of the guidewire capturing instrument (figure 4). Regarding claim 7, Foley et al. disclose a lock (27) incorporated into the wire housing and passing at least partially through the wire aperture, the lock positioned to selectively resist axial movement of the guidewire in the axial direction and rotation of the guidewire about the central axis (¶21-22).
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 MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights