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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 (Fig 3b) in the reply filed on 8/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejections in view of Cival.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Richards does not disclose that it is “configured to be introduced into a patient” because it used outside the body. The examiner notes that the claims are directed to a device and not a method of use. The device of Richards is capable of being introduced into a patient or at least partially introduced into a patient in the manner being claimed. The manner in which a device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). MPEP 2144 (II).
In response to applicant's argument that the Richards fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a singular rib) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that the examiner modified the reinterpreted Richards accordingly in view of applicant’s amendments. Applicant is welcomed to contact the examiner if they have any questions.
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 1-2, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Richards US 2023/025561, which claims priority to US Provisional 63/104,569 (hereinafter ‘569) which is relied upon for the rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, Richards ‘569 discloses a retraction device (Fig 1) for minimally invasive surgery (paragraph 4 able to be used in minimally invasive surgery) comprising:
a plurality of links (as seen in Fig 1, two are highlighted in Fig 2 below, where the links share similar configurations) pivotally connected to each other (as seen in Fig 3, paragraph 4) forming a chain of links having opposing ends (as seen in Fig 1, see Fig below); and
a connection mechanism (as seen in Fig 5-6, paragraph 7, the connection mechanism forms a male/female connection, which is a substantial equivalent to the structure disclosed in the application) positioned at each of the opposing ends with a locking rib axially located on one of the opposing ends (not shown but described as a “spline like feature” paragraph 7, the spline would be located axially along one of the ends while the other end has a socket, see also rejection for claim 7 below) and configured to connect the opposing ends and cause the plurality of links to form the retraction device (paragraph 5, 7, Fig 1, 5-6);
wherein the plurality of links are introduced into a patient (examiner notes that the claim is drawn to a device and not a method of use and the links are able to be at least partially introduced into a patient, see Response to Arguments above) in a substantially linear configuration prior to engagement of the connection mechanism (Fig below, paragraph 5, 7 where the links are capable of being introduced in a substantially linear configuration as shown in Fig 2-3, and then the ends are able to be coupled together via the connection mechanism to form a circle as shown in Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Richards ‘569 discloses at least one of the plurality of links further comprises a slit for receiving and securing at least one of a suture or a retraction hook (see Fig below where the slit can receive a suture or retraction hook, paragraph 15-16, where the slit is located on a “turret” and it is noted that the other links can have their own “turret” having a slit).
PNG
media_image2.png
454
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Richards ‘569 discloses the connection mechanism comprises a socket at one of the opposing ends (see Fig below) and a press fit end (see Fig below) having the locking rib (not shown but described as a “spline like feature” paragraph 7) such that when the locking rib engages the socket, the opposing ends are secured together (paragraph 7).
PNG
media_image3.png
622
919
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richards US 2023/025561, which claims priority to US Provisional 63/104,569 (hereinafter ‘569) which is relied upon for the rejection.
Regarding Claim 9, Richards ‘569 discloses a retraction device (Fig 1, 15e) for use inside a patient during minimally invasive surgery (paragraph 4 able to be used in minimally invasive surgery), the retraction device comprising:
at least two links (as seen in Fig 1, two are highlighted in Fig 2 below, where the links share similar configurations) connected to each other and having opposing ends (see Fig below, Fig 1) with a locking rib axially located on one of the opposing ends (see Fig below where the rib has a dimension along a longitudinal axis and located on one of the ends, while the other end has a bore, see also rejection for claim 15 below), each of the at least two links having at least one slit configured to receive and secure a suture or a retraction hook (see Fig below where the slit can receive a suture or retraction hook, paragraph 15-16, where the slit is located on a “turret” and where the other links can have their own “turret” having a slit),
wherein the at least two links can be laparoscopically introduced into a patient in a substantially linear configuration (Fig below, paragraph 5, 7 where the links are capable of being introduced in a substantially linear configuration as shown in Fig 2-3, and then the ends are able to be coupled together via the connection mechanism to form a circle as shown in Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
454
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
412
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Richards ‘569 discloses a connection mechanism (as seen in Fig 5, paragraph 6, the connection mechanism forms a male/female connection, which is a substantial equivalent to the structure disclosed in the application) positioned at each of the opposing ends (Fig 5, paragraph 6, see also Fig 1) and configured to connect the opposing ends and cause the at least two of links to form the retraction device (paragraph 5-6, Fig 1, 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
382
459
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards US 2023/025561, which claims priority to US Provisional 63/104,569 (hereinafter ‘569) in view of Cohn WO 0124709.
Richards discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where other links can have slits (as seen in Fig 15e, see Fig above in claim 2) but does not disclose the slit has a variable size and at least two links of the plurality of links have slits of a different size with respect to each other.
Cohn discloses a retractor (#300, Fig 13-14) made up of links (#344, #346, Fig 13), the links having slits (#330, #332, #334, #336) for receiving and securing at least one of a suture or a retraction hook (as seen in Fig 16, , page 13 lines 20-24, last paragraph of page 15), the slit has a variable size (Fig 14 where all the slits are “V” shaped, having an open wider end and an opposite narrowed end) and at least two links of the plurality of links have slits of a different size (“different widths” page 13 lines 20-24) with respect to each other to accommodate implements of different sizes (page 13 lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slits of Richards to have a variable size, where at least two links of the plurality of links have slits of a different size with respect to each other in view of Cohn above so that the slits can accommodate implements such as cords/sutures, retractor hooks of different sizes.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards US 2023/025561, which claims priority to US Provisional 63/104,569 (hereinafter ‘569) in view of Melsheimer US 2014/0194698.
Richards ‘569 discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the plurality of links define a frame that form a ring (Fig 1) but does not disclose at least one of the plurality of links comprises a textured surface to assist in handling and manipulation of the retraction device during use.
Melsheimer discloses a retractor (abstract) comprising a frame in the form of a ring (#100, Fig 1, 3, paragraph 10) that can come in different configurations (Fig 22), where the frame can include an outer textured surface (#2204, Fig 22) that allows to resist movement of the frame against tissue (paragraph 37, 84). Due to the textured surface, it would also be capable of assisting in handling and manipulation of the retraction device during use as the textured surface also provides a gripping surface to a user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the outer surface of the at least one of the links of Richards ‘569 to include a textured surface because it resists movement of the link against tissue. With the modification, the textured surface would also be capable of assisting in handling and manipulation of the retraction device during use as the textured surface would also provides a gripping surface to a user.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards US 2023/025561, which claims priority to US Provisional 63/104,569 (hereinafter ‘569) in view of Melsheimer US 2014/0194698.
Richards ‘569 discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the plurality of links define a frame that form a ring (Fig 1) but does not disclose at least one of the plurality of links comprises a textured surface to assist in handling and manipulation of the retraction device during use.
Melsheimer discloses a retractor (abstract) comprising a frame in the form of a ring (#100, Fig 1, 3, paragraph 10) that can come in different configurations (Fig 22), where the frame can include an outer textured surface (#2204, Fig 22) that allows to resist movement of the frame against tissue (paragraph 37, 84). Due to the textured surface, it would also be capable of assisting in handling and manipulation of the retraction device during use as the textured surface also provides a gripping surface to a user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the outer surface of the at least one of thew links of Richards ‘569 to include a textured surface because it resists movement of the link against tissue. With the modification, the textured surface would also be capable of assisting in handling and manipulation of the retraction device during use as the textured surface would also provides a gripping surface to a user.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards US 2023/025561, which claims priority to US Provisional 63/104,569 (hereinafter ‘569, which is relied upon for the rejection) in view of Gallo US 2022/0151601.
Regarding Claim 15, Richards ‘569 discloses n the connection mechanism comprises a bore at one of the opposing ends (see Fig below) and a press fit end (see Fig below) having a locking rib (see Fig below) disposed around the same (Fig 5) such that when the locking rib is inserted through the bore, the ends are secured together (paragraph 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
521
696
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Richard’s ‘569 does not disclose the bore includes a socket such that when the locking rib engages the socket, the ends are secured together.
Gallo discloses a retractor (Fig 1a) comprised of a plurality of links (#200), a connection mechanism (see Fig below) positioned at each of the opposing ends and configured to connect opposing ends of the links (Fig 1a, 3a-3b), wherein the connection mechanism comprises bore with a socket (see Fig below) at one of the opposing ends and a shaft having a locking rib disposed around the same such that when the locking rib engages the socket, the ends are secured together (see Fig below, paragraph 25) and where the locking rib does not protrude out from the opposing ends such that the locking rib is generally flush with the links (as seen in Fig 3b below).
PNG
media_image7.png
805
656
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bore of Richards ‘569 (see annotated Fig above) to include a socket, such that the locking rib engages the socket in view of Gallo above because this allows the locking rib to not protrude out from the links, where the locking rib can be generally flush with the links. The examiner notes that since the locking rib would be generally flush with the links, this will help prevent the locking rib from potentially snagging against the skin or drapery during use.
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 JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5032. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 6pm EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights