Detailed Action
This is the final office action for US application number 18/437,966. Claims are evaluated as filed on February 19, 2026.
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 filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections in this office action have been amended to address the amended claims.
Examiner thanks Applicant for their detailed remarks and thorough response. Examiner notes that the objections and rejections contained below were either inadvertently omitted, as Applicant’s remarks indicate that some of them were amended, or clear as a result of the substantial amendments made in the response dated February 19, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 should read “A wire delivery device[[,]] suitable for use in removing bony ingrowth”.
Claim 1 line 29 should read “wherein the first length of cutting wire provides a medial cutting wire arc[[,’’ extending from”
Claim 1 lines 32-33 should read “wherein the second length of cutting wire provides a lateral cutting wire arc[[,]] extending from the open entrance”.
Claim 1 line 43 should read “whereby the medial and lateral cutting wire arcs can then be used to cut[[,]] by pushing”.
Claim 17 line 1 should read “or use in removing an implant[[,]] or a femoral implant,”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-22 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “the first end” in line 25 and if such is intended to refer to that of the second length of line 24 or that of the first length of line 21. Further, claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “the second end” in line 26 and if such is intended to refer to that of the second length of line 24 or that of the first length of line 21. Further Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein the first end of the second length is secured in the second wire receiving slot of the first elongate body and the second end of the second length is secured in the second wire receiving slot of the second elongate body;”.
Claim(s) 11 is/are unclear with regards to “for engaging with a second part of a wire loop and securing this part of a wire loop within the second wire guidance channel” in lines 21-22 and where it is disclosed that the second engagement protrusion is capable of engaging a wire loop and securing, as recited, a/another wire loop. Further, it is unclear if these wire loops are in addition to that of line 11. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to one wire loop as depicted in Fig. 2a-2d and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 11 is/are unclear with regards to “the wire loop” in lines 23 and 25 and if this is a reference to the positively recited wire loop of line 23 or the functionally recited loops of lines 11, 21, and 22. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the positively recited wire loop of line 23 and suggests amending to clarify, e.g. using a different term or adding an adjective to the recitation of the positively recited wire loop and references thereto.
Claim(s) 12 is/are unclear with regards to “the mouth portion” in line 1 and if such is intended to refer to the first mouth portion of claim 11 line 9, the second mouth portion of claim 11 line 19, or each of the first mouth portion of claim 11 line 9 and the second mouth portion of claim 11 line 19. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 12 is/are unclear with regards to “the engagement protrusion” line 2 and if such is intended to refer to the first engagement protrusion of claim 11 line 10, the second engagement protrusion of claim 11 line 20, or each of the first engagement protrusion of claim 11 line 10 and the second engagement protrusion of claim 11 line 20. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 14 is/are unclear with regards to “said wire loops” of line 2 as to which of the wire loops of claim 11 such is intended to refer as detailed above for claim 11 as well as “each being different sizes” in line 2 and to what each is intended to refer. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the positively recited wire loop of claim 11 as well as “each of the two or more wire loops being different sizes” or “wire loopsof different sizes”.
Claim(s) 16 is/are unclear with regards to “the wire loop” of line 1 as to which of the wire loops of claim 11 such is intended to refer as detailed above for claim 11. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the positively recited wire loop of claim 11 and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-10, 13, 15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
As to claim 13, providing a device with elongate bodies and a wire loop “in the form of a kit” in claim 1 does not appear to further define the invention and the limitations of lines 2-6 repeat the limitations of claim 11 lines 23-27 from which claim 13 depends. Thus, Examiner suggests cancelling claim 13 and amending claims 14 and 16 to depend from claim 11. Examiner further notes that claim 14 would need further amended to provide antecedence for the kit, such as “The device of claim [[13]]11 in the form of a kit, wherein the kit comprises two or more”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as suggested or consistent with the interpretation set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 15, and 17-22 are 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 if rewritten as suggested or consistent with the interpretation set forth in this Office action to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action for the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12, 14, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as suggested or consistent with the interpretation set forth in this Office action and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims if rewritten as suggested or consistent with the interpretation set forth in this Office action to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action for the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 6:30am-4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on 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 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.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775