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 Amendment
The amendment filed March 24th, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-10, 12-15,18-23 and 25-26 remain pending in the application and are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed have been March 24th, 2026 fully considered but are not persuasive or are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Applicant has asserted that the claim objection, In re claim 22, had been amended to make the objection moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees and has found the same language, “to be receive” to persist in claim 22.
Applicant argues that Laughlin et.al. fails to discloses the limitations of claim 22. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and asserts that Laughlin discloses each and every feature of claim 22 as amended. Support can be found in 35. U.S.C. 102 Rejections, In re claim 22. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30 in Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [00108], “the lower end of the second actuator 12 is wider than a upper end of the second actuator 14” should read “the lower end of the second actuator 14 is wider than a upper end of the second actuator 14”to align with Fig. 15.
Paragraph [00135] discusses a Figure 28 with parts 1400, 1402, and 1404; however, paragraph [00141] appears to correctly describe the method of the figure while labeling the correct components.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
In re claim 22, “a mode selector configured to be receive a user input” on line 7, should read “a mode selector configured to receive a user input”.
Claims 25 and 26 have the same issue on lines 8 and 6, respectively, see above Claim Objections, In re claim 22.
Claim Interpretation
In re claim 18, the limitation “changing a configuration of the first actuator and second actuator such that the first actuator is configured to be hand-actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in the rearward direction toward the bone and the second actuator is configured to be hand- actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in the forward direction away from the bone” is interpreted to occur conditionally on the previous limitation “actuating at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator during the releasable coupling of the handpiece to the power source” as best understood in light of the specification. In other words, it is interpreted as “changing a configuration of the first actuator and second actuator such that the first actuator is configured to be hand-actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in the rearward direction toward the bone and the second actuator is configured to be hand- actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in the forward direction away from the bone if at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator was actuated during the releasable coupling of the handpiece to the power source”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laughlin (US 20220008087).
In re claim 22, Laughlin discloses surgical device (Fig. 25D), comprising:
a handpiece (2501, [0116]) configured to be held by a hand of a user (apparent), the handpiece being configured to drive impacting of bone ([0014, 0016]: “placing bone anchors”), and
the handpiece including:
an actuator (2502) configured to be hand-actuated ([0116]: “one pull level”; configured to be pulled) and thereby cause the impacting to be in one of a forward direction toward the bone and a rearward direction away from the bone ([0116]: “The pull lever may be used for actuating an impacting or advancement mechanism”),
a motor ([0016]: “electromechanical conversion”) operatively coupled to the actuator ([0016-0019, 0120]),and
a mode selector (2505) configured to be receive a user input ([0116]: “toggle switch”; configured to be toggled by user) that selects whether the impacting caused by the actuation of the actuator is in the forward direction or the rearward direction ([0116]: “the toggle switch may be used to change the mode from advance to retract based on its position”), the user input comprising
(i) a first user input to the mode selector that selects a first mode of operation corresponding to the motor moving in a first direction configured to cause the impacting to be in the forward direction toward the bone ([0116]: “the toggle switch may be used to change the mode from advance to retract based on its position”) and
(ii) a second user input to the mode selector that selects a second mode of operation corresponding to the motor moving in a second direction configured to cause the impacting to be in the rearward direction toward the bone ([0073, 0116]: “the toggle switch may be used to change the mode from advance to retract based on its position”) the second direction being opposite to the first direction (note: retracting is opposite direction of advancing distally).
In re claim 23, Laughlin discloses wherein the handpiece includes
a body (upper part of 2501)and
a handle extending from the body (upper part of 2501),
the handle being configured to be held by the hand ([0116]; apparent);
one of the actuator and the mode selector is on the handle (Fig. 25D: actuator is on handle); and
the other of the actuator and the mode selector is on the body (Fig. 25D: mode selector is on upper body; [0116]).
In re claim 25, Laughlin discloses surgical assembly [0116], comprising:
a surgical device (Fig. 25D) comprising
a handpiece (Fig. 25D: 2501) configured to be held by a hand of a user ([0116]: handpiece is described as a handle; apparent),
the handpiece being configured to drive impacting of bone ([0014, 0016]: “placing bone anchors”), and
the handpiece including:
an actuator (2502) configured to be hand-actuated ([0116]: “one pull level”; apparent) and thereby cause the impacting to be in one of a forward direction toward the bone and a rearward direction away from the bone ([0116]: “The pull lever may be used for actuating an impacting or advancement mechanism”); and
a mode selector (2505) configured to be receive a user input that selects whether the impacting caused by the actuation of the actuator is in the forward direction or the rearward direction ([0116]: “the toggle switch may be used to change the mode from advance to retract based on its position”); and
a surgical implement configured to couple to the handpiece ([0116-0117, 0026]: “The carriage is coupled to a cutting implement”),
the actuation of the actuator, with the surgical implement coupled to the handpiece, being configured to cause the surgical implement to be driven in one of the forward direction or the rearward direction based on the user input to the mode selector ([0116]: “pull lever may be utilized for advancing a cutting implement distally or retracting it proximally”).
In re claim 26, see above 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection, In re claim 25.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slocum (US 20220226033) in view of Carusillo (US 20210052285).
In re claim 14, Slocum discloses surgical device (Fig. 9A and Fig. 9B; [0077]), comprising:
a handpiece (Fig. 9B: 900; [0083]) configured to be held by a hand (apparent),
the handpiece being configured to drive impacting of bone [0003, 0076, 0083],
the handpiece being coupled to a power source [0050, 0098],
the handpiece including:
a first actuator (946A) configured to be hand-actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in a forward direction toward the bone ([0083]: “a surgeon can press one of triggers (e.g., the trigger 946A) to cause the linear electric surgical hammer impact tool 900 to generate an impact force (sometimes called a driving force) needed to drive a tool forward”), and
a second actuator (946B) configured to be hand-actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in a rearward direction away from the bone ([0083]: “Pressing the other trigger (e.g., the trigger 946B) can cause the linear electric surgical hammer impact tool 900 to generate an impact force (sometimes called a retraction force) to extract the tool from bone”),
the first and second actuators being configured to be actuated independently of one another [0083].
Slocum lacks:
the handpiece being non-removably coupled to a power source.
Carusillo discloses a device that, like the surgical device disclosed by Slocum, is a surgical device for use in orthopedic surgery [0002] by penetrating tissue or bone [0039] comprises a handpiece (62) including a two actuators (Fig. 5: two arrows stemming from 80; [0024]). In addition, Carusillo discloses wherein the handpiece comprises an internal non-removable battery and/or has a tethered connection to a power supply ([0073]; i.e. non-removably coupled to a power source).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stimulation device disclosed by Slocum to provide wherein a handpiece is non-removably coupled to a power source as taught by Carusillo because it would allow for wireless charging which is less expensive for the user, and an internal battery is provided with more protection, decreasing chances of damage or improper replacement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 18-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant's amendments overcome the previously presented rejections and continued search and examination did not present any new rejections for the indicated allowable claims. The closest prior art is noted below.
In re claim 1, Slocum (US 20220226033) is considered to be the closest prior art. Slocum teaches a surgical impact tool for impacting the bone with a first and second actuator where one actuator causes forward impaction when actuated and the other causes retraction, where the actuators are actuated independent of one another (Fig. 9A and Fig. 9B). Slocum fails to teach wherein if at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator is actuated during the releasable coupling of the handpiece to the power source, a configuration of the first actuator and second actuator is configured to be changed such that the first actuator is configured to be hand-actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in the rearward direction toward the bone and the second actuator is configured to be hand-actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in the forward direction away from the bone.
Ostrom (US 9624089) discloses a method for changing the mode of a device by pressing and holding a button (i.e. an actuator) while connecting a power source (Col. 15, ln. 64-67).
Examiner asserts it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Slocum to provide wherein if at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator is actuated during the releasable coupling of the handpiece to the power source, a configuration of the first actuator and second actuator is configured to be changed such that the first actuator is configured to be hand-actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in the rearward direction toward the bone and the second actuator is configured to be hand-actuated and thereby cause the impacting to be in the forward direction away from the bone.
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 1). Substantially, the same reasoning applies.
In re claim 18, see above (In re claim 1). Substantially, the same reasoning applies.
Claims 2-10, 12-13, and 19-21 recite the same allowable subject matter as their respective parent claims.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALLE M WELCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm..
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, David E Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/HALLE MARGARET WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights