Detailed Action
This is the final office action for US application number 18/459,904. Claims are evaluated as filed on April 23, 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 April 23, 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 asserts that Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello teach all the newly-amended limitations and are capable of performing the functions as claimed. Examiner directs Applicant to the rejection below for a more in-depth description of the limitations.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach all of the claim limitations listed as bulleted items (Remarks p. 11-14), Examiner notes that no reasoning has been provided for the assertion that these differentiate from the teachings and obvious variations of the teachings of the prior art. In summary, Anderson discloses an extractor system with a guide that is releasably attached to a blade for extracting an implant, Sweitzer teaches releasably coupling the shaft to the blade, and Giardiello teaches providing an intermediate shaft portion that is at a non-parallel angle to laterally offset portions of the shaft. With regards to the details of the releasable coupling mechanism, such are disclosed by Anderson and Sweitzer that closely resembles that originally disclosed in the instant application. With regards to the angled intermediate shaft portion, Giardiello has been cited herein but Examiner notes that providing such a portion is well known, particularly for inserting the implants that the art cited herein is used to remove, for the reasons taught by Giardiello. Thus, Examiner suggests identification of a feature that is disclosed to differ from the cited art and amending the claims accordingly.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that support can be found for added claims 22 and 26 in paragraphs 45-46, claims 23 and 25 in paragraph 31 and Figs. 3, 5, 7, and 11, claims 24 and 27 in paragraphs 40-43 and Figs. 3-11, and claim 29 in paragraphs 31, 45, and 46 and Figs. 1, 3, 6, and 11 (Remarks p. 15), as detailed in the specification objections and new matter rejections below, review of these paragraphs showed no mention of a central axis of the strike plate that is coaxial with the shaft, parallel axes of the first and second shaft portions, with/without threaded engagement, and a non-parallel angle of an intermediate shaft portion. Further, the drawings provide no indication of scale or specific alignment or linearities to support such claim limitations.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 29/856578, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application No. 29/856578 fails to provide adequate support for an acetabular cup extractor as detailed in claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-28 or acetabular cup extraction system as detailed in claim 29.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
As to claim 1, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for the first and the second coupling members are configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement “without rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction” of claim 1 lines 20-22. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the first and the second coupling members are not configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement with rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding the first and the second coupling members configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement without rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of the first and the second coupling members are configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement with rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the first and the second coupling members that are configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement “without rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction” of claim 1 lines 20-22. Examiner suggests amending as “the first and the second coupling members are configured to axially receive and releasably engage[[,]] by axial advancement
As to claim 4, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “the blade has a tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being in-line. Original claims 4 and 18 provide that the tip is substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion as does paragraph 31. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “the blade has a tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2. Examiner suggests amending as “the blade has a tip located substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion”.
As to claim 18, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “blade having a tip located in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion” of lines 2-3. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being in-line. Original claims 4 and 18 provide that the tip is substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion as does paragraph 31. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “blade having a tip located in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion” of lines 2-3. Examiner suggests amending as “blade having a tip located substantially in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion” of lines 2-3
As to claim 22, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being coaxial. Fig. 1 does show a strike plate with a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, where one could draw or imagine a central axis that appears to be generally or substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “the handle assembly further includes a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2. Examiner suggests amending as “the handle assembly further includes a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion.”.
As to claim 23, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion” of lines 1-2. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being parallel. Fig. 1 does show the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion and the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion as appearing to be generally or substantially parallel. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion” of lines 1-2. Examiner suggests amending as “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion.”.
As to claim 24, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion “without threaded engagement” in claim 24 lines 1-3. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure not configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure not configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion “without threaded engagement” in claim 24 lines 1-3.
As to claim 25, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion” of lines 1-2. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being parallel. Fig. 1 does show the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion and the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion as appearing to be generally or substantially parallel. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion” of lines 1-2. Examiner suggests amending as “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion.”.
As to claim 26, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being coaxial. Fig. 1 does show a strike plate with a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, where one could draw or imagine a central axis that appears to be generally or substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “the handle assembly further includes a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2. Examiner suggests amending as “the handle assembly further includes a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion.”.
As to claim 27, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion “without threaded engagement” in claim 27 lines 1-3. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure not configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure not configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion “without threaded engagement” in claim 27 lines 1-3.
As to claim 29, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “the first shaft portion having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from, and parallel to, a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 8-10. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being parallel. Fig. 1 does show the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion and the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion as appearing to be generally or substantially parallel. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “the first shaft portion having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from, and parallel to, a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 8-10. Examiner suggests amending as “the first shaft portion having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from, and substantially parallel to, a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion;”.
As to claim 29, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis at “a non-parallel angle to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions;” in lines 10-11. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the intermediate portion have a longitudinal axis at an angle that is not parallel to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis at an angle that is not parallel to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of that the intermediate portion have a longitudinal axis at an angle that is parallel to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis at “a non-parallel angle to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions;” in lines 10-11.
As to claim 29, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “a strike plate located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion, having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 12-15. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being coaxial. Fig. 1 does show a strike plate with a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, where one could draw or imagine a central axis that appears to be generally or substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “a strike plate located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion, having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 12-15. Examiner suggests amending as “a strike plate located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion, having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion;”.
As to claim 29, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for the blade “has a distal tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 16-17. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being in-line. Original claims 4 and 18 provide that the tip is substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion as does paragraph 31. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the blade “has a distal tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 16-17. Examiner suggests amending as the blade “has a distal tip located substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 16-17.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 lines 2-3 should read “a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and the strike plate having a central axis”.
Claim 24 lines 1-2 should read “the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion without threaded engagement.”
Claim 26 lines 2-3 should read “a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and the strike plate having a central axis”.
Claim 27 lines 1-2 should read “the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion without threaded engagement.”
Claim 29 lines 3-4 should read “a blade extending from a distal portion of the handle assembly[[,]] and including a cutting edge”.
Claim 29 lines 16-17 should read “the first shaft portion; and the blade has a distal tip”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the first and the second coupling members are configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement “without rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction” of claim 1 lines 20-22 appears to be new matter. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the first and the second coupling members are not configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement with rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding the first and the second coupling members configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement without rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of the first and the second coupling members are configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement with rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the first and the second coupling members that are configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement “without rotation of, respective coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction” of claim 1 lines 20-22 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “the first and the second coupling members are configured to axially receive and releasably engage[[,]] by axial advancement
As to claim 4, “the blade has a tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being in-line. Original claims 4 and 18 provide that the tip is substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion as does paragraph 31. Thus, “the blade has a tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “the blade has a tip located substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion”.
As to claim 18, “blade having a tip located in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion” of lines 2-3 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being in-line. Original claims 4 and 18 provide that the tip is substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion as does paragraph 31. Thus, “blade having a tip located in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion” of lines 2-3 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “blade having a tip located substantially in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion” of lines 2-3.
As to claim 22, “a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being coaxial. Fig. 1 does show a strike plate with a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, where one could draw or imagine a central axis that appears to be generally or substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion. Thus, “the handle assembly further includes a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “the handle assembly further includes a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion.”.
As to claim 23, “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion” of lines 1-2 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being parallel. Fig. 1 does show the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion and the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion as appearing to be generally or substantially parallel. Thus, “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion” of lines 1-2 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion.”.
As to claim 24, the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion “without threaded engagement” in claim 24 lines 1-3 appears to be new matter. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure not configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure not configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion “without threaded engagement” in claim 24 lines 1-3 constitutes new matter.
As to claim 25, “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion” of lines 1-2 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being parallel. Fig. 1 does show the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion and the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion as appearing to be generally or substantially parallel. Thus, “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion” of lines 1-2 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion.”.
As to claim 26, “a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being coaxial. Fig. 1 does show a strike plate with a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, where one could draw or imagine a central axis that appears to be generally or substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion. Thus, “the handle assembly further includes a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 1-2 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “the handle assembly further includes a strike plate having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion.”.
As to claim 27, the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion “without threaded engagement” in claim 27 lines 1-3 appears to be new matter. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure not configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure not configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion with threaded engagement, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the first and the second coupling members include a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the respective coupling portion “without threaded engagement” in claim 27 lines 1-3 constitutes new matter.
As to claim 29, the blade “has a distal tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 16-17 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being in-line. Original claims 4 and 18 provide that the tip is substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion as does paragraph 31. Thus, the blade “has a distal tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 16-17 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as the blade “has a distal tip located substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 16-17.
As to claim 29, “the first shaft portion having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from, and parallel to, a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 8-10 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being parallel. Fig. 1 does show the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion and the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion as appearing to be generally or substantially parallel. Thus, “the first shaft portion having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from, and parallel to, a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 8-10 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “the first shaft portion having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from, and substantially parallel to, a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion;”.
As to claim 29, the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis at “a non-parallel angle to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions;” in lines 10-11 appears to be new matter. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the intermediate portion have a longitudinal axis at an angle that is not parallel to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis at an angle that is not parallel to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of that the intermediate portion have a longitudinal axis at an angle that is parallel to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis at “a non-parallel angle to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions;” in lines 10-11 constitutes new matter.
As to claim 29, “a strike plate located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion, having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 12-15 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification is silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed, and the original drawings do not provide any indication of such being coaxial. Fig. 1 does show a strike plate with a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, where one could draw or imagine a central axis that appears to be generally or substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion. Thus, “a strike plate located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion, having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion” of lines 12-15 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “a strike plate located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion, having a striking surface aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and having a central axis substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion;”.
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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 25-29 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 “respective coupling portions” in line 21 and where support can be found for coupling portions that are in addition to the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion or to what structures this is intended to refer. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to ‘wherein the first and the second coupling members are configured to axially receive and releasably engage the first and second coupling portions by axial advancement without rotation to retain the blade in an axial direction’, and suggests amending as, “wherein the first and the second coupling members are configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement without rotation of, a respective coupling portion[[s]] of the first and second coupling portions to retain the blade in an axial direction”.
Claim(s) 29 is/are unclear with regards to “the guide extending from a distal end of the handle assembly, distal of the blade;” in lines 5-6 and how one can reasonably construe the disclosed guide as extending from the handle as well as the intent of the “, distal of the blade;”. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “the guide extending from a distal end of the
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 25-28 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2008/0195111) in view of Sweitzer (US 2019/0021879) and Giardiello et al. (US 2017/0202681, hereinafter “Giardiello”).
As to claims 1, 3, 27, and 28, Anderson discloses an acetabular cup extractor (400, Figs. 1-5) comprising: a handle assembly (404, 112, Fig. 4); a first coupling member (112 portion coupling 406 to 112, Fig. 4) extending from the handle assembly (Fig. 4); a blade (406) having: a first coupling portion (406 portion coupling 406 to 112) capable of connecting with the first coupling member (Fig. 4), and a second coupling portion (406 portion coupling 406 to 100, 408, 410, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶33; where ¶33 discloses that 408 includes a circular void in the shaft, a metal ball bearing, and a spring); and a guide (100, Figs. 1 and 4) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Figs. 4 and 5, ¶s 24 and 35), the guide including a second coupling member (106, 116, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶s 26 and 34) capable of connecting with the second coupling portion (Figs. 1 and 4, ¶34), wherein the handle assembly includes a first handle (112) having: a first shaft portion (right portion of 112 as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) extending from the first coupling member (as defined, Fig. 4); and a second shaft portion (left portion of 112 as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) extending from the first shaft portion (as defined, Fig. 4) and having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4); and a longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion (Fig. 4); wherein the first coupling portion extends coaxially with the second coupling portion along the longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion (Fig. 4), and wherein the first coupling portion extends from the blade in a first direction (Fig. 4) and the second quick coupling portion extends from the blade in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 4), and wherein the second coupling member is capable of axially receiving and releasably engaging, by axial advancement without rotation of, the second coupling portion (in as much as Applicant’s, see arrows on Fig. 1 indicating the axial movement of the show second connection, Fig. 1, ¶34 discloses that 100 slides onto the apparatus 101) capable of retaining the blade in an axial direction (to the guide via spring loaded latching member 114/408, Fig. 1, ¶s 26 and 34). As to claim 27, Anderson discloses that the second coupling member includes a mechanical locking structure (detent 116, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶26) capable of releasably securing a mating component of the second coupling portion (spring loaded latching member 114/408, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶26) without threaded engagement (in as much as Applicant’s, Figs. 1 and 4). As to claim 28, Anderson discloses that the second coupling portion includes a protruding portion (as defined, i.e. 408/114, 410/lower portion of 112 as shown in Figs. 1 and 4, Figs. 1 and 4), and the second coupling member includes a receptacle (106, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶34) capable of receiving the second coupling portion protruding portion (Figs. 1 and 4, ¶34).
Anderson is silent to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion being laterally offset from the longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion and wherein the first coupling member is configured to axially receive and releasably engage, by axial advancement without rotation of, the first coupling portion to retain the blade in an axial direction. As to claim 3, Anderson is silent to the second shaft portion is offset from the longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion a distance substantially equal to a distance a tip of the blade is offset from a longitudinal axis of the first coupling portion. As to claim 27, Anderson is silent to the first coupling member includes a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the first coupling portion without threaded engagement. As to claim 28, Anderson is silent to the first coupling portion including a protruding portion, and the first coupling member including a receptacle configured to receive the respective protruding portion.
Sweitzer teaches a similar acetabular cup extractor (10, Figs. 1-9, 12-18, 27, and 28) comprising: a handle assembly (12, 18, 20, Fig. 1); a first coupling member (52, Figs. 1 and 4-6) extending from the handle assembly (Figs. 1 and 6); a blade (26) having: a first coupling portion (upper portion as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, i.e. 64 and 56 of Fig. 7, Figs. 6 and 7) capable of connecting with the first coupling member (Figs. 1 and 6), and a second coupling portion (30, 78, Figs. 12-14, ¶s 58, 79, and 81); and a guide (32, 94) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Fig. 27, ¶s 58 and 94), the guide including a second coupling member (80, Figs. 16 and 17, ¶s 79 and 81) capable of connecting with the second coupling portion (Figs. 1-3 and 15-18, ¶s 79 and 81), wherein the handle assembly includes a first handle (12, 18, Fig. 1) having: a first shaft portion (18) extending from the first coupling member (Figs. 1 and 6); and a second shaft portion (12) extending from the first shaft portion (Figs. 1 and 6), and wherein the first coupling portion extends from the blade in a first direction (Fig. 1) and the second coupling portion extends in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 1), and wherein the first coupling member is capable of axially receiving and releasably engaging, by axial advancement without rotation of, the first coupling portion (in as much as Applicant’s, Figs. 4, 6, and 7; where the first coupling member 52 is shown with a receptacle of generally square cross-section in Fig. 4 and the first coupling portion’s portion 64 is shown in Fig. 7 has having a generally square cross-section) capable of retaining the blade in an axial direction (via engagement of detents 56 and 54, Fig. 6, ¶68). As to claim 27, Sweitzer teaches that the first coupling member includes a mechanical locking structure (54, 62, 60 in receptacle shown in 52 in Figs. 4 and 6, Figs. 4 and 6, ¶s 66 and 67) capable of releasably securing a mating component of the first coupling portion (56, Figs. 6 and 7, ¶s 66 and 67) without threaded engagement (in as much as Applicant’s, Figs. 4, 6, and 7). As to claim 28, Sweitzer teaches that the first coupling portion includes a protruding portion (as defined, i.e. 64 and 56/upper portion as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, Figs. 6 and 7), and the first coupling member includes a receptacle (Figs. 4 and 6) capable of receiving the first coupling portion protruding portion (Fig. 6).
Giardiello teaches a similar acetabular cup extractor (100, Figs. 1-3, ¶20), comprising: a handle assembly (15, 10, 3, 5, Fig. 1); a first coupling member (15.1) extending from the handle assembly (Fig. 1); a blade (6, Fig. 1, ¶26) having: a first coupling member (11.1, 9.1, Figs. 1-3, ¶26) capable of connecting with the first coupling member (Figs. 1-3, ¶26), and a second coupling portion (right end of 9.1 as shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 3); and a guide (13) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27), the guide including a second coupling member (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27) capable of connecting with the second coupling portion (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27); wherein the handle assembly includes a first handle (15, 10, 3) having: a first shaft portion (15.5, 15, Figs. 1-3) extending from the first coupling member (Figs. 1-3); and a second shaft portion (10.1) extending from the first shaft portion (Figs. 1-3, ¶20) and having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) laterally offset from a longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion (Fig. 1, ¶s 20 and 21) due to an angled handle portion (10.2, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶21). Giardiello further teaches that different angulation can be used (¶21) and that the handle’s larger section (4) is an impact area (Fig. 1, ¶20) for impacting the blade into the area surrounding the acetabular cup to be removed (¶27). As to claim 3, Giardiello teaches that the second shaft portion is offset from the longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion a distance substantially equal to a distance a tip of the blade is offset from a longitudinal axis of the first coupling portion (Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify/replace the first coupling member and the first coupling portion as disclosed by Anderson with the first coupling member and a first coupling portion as taught by Sweitzer in order to predictably provide a known alternate connection between the blade and the handle assembly (Sweitzer Figs. 1 and 4-6, ¶94) and enable selective removal of the blade from the handle assembly (Sweitzer ¶67). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the first handle as disclosed by Anderson by adding an angled handle portion such that the second shaft portion is laterally offset from the first shaft portion as taught by Giardiello in order to have the central axes not coincide (Giardiello ¶20) to enable the handle assembly to be kept at a maneuvering distance from the patient's body and to place in contact therewith only the parts of the extractor strictly necessary for the removal of the acetabular cup (Giardiello ¶27). In forming the combination, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the angled portion of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is at an appropriate angle to substantially align the longitudinal axis of the impaction surface with the blade bone-penetrating surface as taught by Giardiello, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for impacting the blade into the area surrounding the acetabular cup to be removed by (Giardiello ¶27) while enabling the handle assembly to be kept at a maneuvering distance from the patient's body and to place in contact therewith only the parts of the extractor strictly necessary for the removal of the acetabular cup (Giardiello ¶27), i.e. to align an impaction surface with the structure, i.e. the blade tip, to be impacted.
As to claim 4, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 1 but is silent to the blade has a tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion.
Giardiello further teaches that the blade has a tip (right-most end as shown in Figs. 1 and 3, Figs. 1 and 3) substantially located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the blade tip that is substantially located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32).
As to claim 26, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 4 as well as the handle assembly further includes a strike plate (416, Fig. 4, ¶31) having a striking surface (left-facing surface as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 4), and the strike plate having a central axis (horizontal as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) that appears to be coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 4).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the central axis is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the central axis that appears to be coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is coaxial, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion with and impact surface to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32).
As to claims 7, 8, and 10, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as that the handle assembly further comprises: a second handle (404) having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4) substantially transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 4).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the second handle having: a T-handle at a first end of the second handle; and an enlarged gripping portion at a second end of the second handle opposite the first end. As to claim 8, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the second handle includes a first striking face and a second striking face opposite the first striking face. As to claim 10, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the enlarged gripping portion includes a first striking face and a second striking face opposite the first striking face.
Sweitzer further teaches that the handle assembly further comprises: a second handle (20) having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) substantially transverse to a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the first handle (generally vertical and along the upper portion of 12 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1), the second handle having: a T-handle (38) at a first end of the second handle (Fig. 1); and an enlarged gripping portion (42) at a second end of the second handle opposite the first end (Fig. 1). As to claim 8, Sweitzer further teaches that the second handle includes a first striking face (39, Fig. 1) and a second striking (41, Fig. 1) face opposite the first striking face (Fig. 1). As to claim 10, Sweitzer further teaches that the enlarged gripping portion includes a first striking face (50, Fig. 1) and a second striking face (upper surface of 42 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1) opposite the first striking face (Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to replace the second handle as disclosed by the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello with the second handle as taught by Sweitzer in order to provide an additional gripping handle (Sweitzer ¶59) as well as an additional striking surfaces (Sweitzer ¶61) that can be used in addition to the first handle strike plate and for striking by a hammer or the like in order to extract the blade from bone surrounding the acetabular implant (Sweitzer ¶61).
As to claim 14, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as that the blade is curved in its longitudinal direction (Fig. 4).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the blade is curved in both its longitudinal direction and in a widthwise extent transverse to the longitudinal direction.
Sweitzer further teaches that the blade (26) is curved in both its longitudinal direction (Fig. 1) and in a widthwise extent transverse to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 8).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to specify the blade shape as disclosed by the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello to be the blade shape as taught by Sweitzer in order to predictably insert the blade into bone surrounding an acetabular implant (Sweitzer ¶64) and closely accommodate the outer shape of an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Sweitzer ¶71).
As to claim 15, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as that the blade is curved in its longitudinal direction (Fig. 4).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the blade has an arc length of about 80 to 140 degrees.
Sweitzer further teaches that the blade (26) has an arc length of about 80 to 140 degrees (¶73 discloses an arc length of 90 degrees).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to specify the blade shape as disclosed by the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello to be the blade shape as taught by Sweitzer in order to predictably insert the blade into bone surrounding an acetabular implant (Sweitzer ¶64) and closely accommodate the outer shape of an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Sweitzer ¶71).
As to claim 17, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as that the guide including a hemispherical dome (Fig. 4).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the guide includes a plurality of spaced apart recesses circumscribing the guide.
Sweitzer further teaches that the guide (32, 94) includes a hemispherical dome (94, Figs. 16 and 17) with a plurality of spaced apart recesses (96, Figs. 16 and 17) circumscribing the guide (Figs. 16 and 17).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the hemispherical dome as disclosed by the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello by adding a plurality of spaced apart recesses as taught by Sweitzer in order to aid in engaging a tool with the guide to securely connect the guide to the blade (Sweitzer ¶81), i.e. for easier gripping and handling during extractor assembly/disassembly.
As to claim 25, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 1 as well the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion (Giardiello Fig. 1).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion that is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion of the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is parallel, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion with and impact surface to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32).
As to claim 18, 21, and 24, Anderson discloses an acetabular cup extractor (400, Figs. 1-5) comprising: a blade (406) that includes: a spear-point blade (Fig. 4) having a tip (right-most end as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4), and wherein the blade is curved in its longitudinal direction (Fig. 4), a first coupling portion (406 portion coupling 406 to 112, Fig. 4), and a second coupling portion (406 portion coupling 406 to 100, 408, 410, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶33; where ¶33 discloses that 408 includes a circular void in the shaft, a metal ball bearing, and a spring); a first coupling member (112 portion coupling of 406 to 112, Fig. 4) capable of connecting with the first coupling portion (Fig. 4); a handle assembly (404, 112, Fig. 4) that includes: a first handle (112) having: a first shaft portion (right portion of 112 as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) extending from the first coupling member (as defined, Fig. 4); and a second shaft portion (left portion of 112 as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) extending from the first shaft portion (as defined, Fig. 4) and having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4); and a longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion (Fig. 4), and a strike plate (416, Fig. 4, ¶31) at its proximal end (Fig. 4), and a second handle (404) having a longitudinal axis substantially transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the first handle (Fig. 4); and a guide (100, Figs. 1 and 4) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Figs. 4 and 5, ¶s 24 and 35), the guide including a second coupling member (106, 116, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶s 26 and 34) capable of connecting with the second coupling portion (Figs. 1 and 4, ¶34), wherein the first coupling portion extends coaxially with the second coupling member in a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4), and wherein the first coupling portion extends from the blade in a first direction (Fig. 4) and the second coupling portion extends from the blade in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 4). As to claim 21, Anderson discloses that the second coupling portion includes a protruding portion (as defined, i.e. 408/114, 410/lower portion of 112 as shown in Figs. 1 and 4, Figs. 1 and 4), and the second coupling member includes a receptacle (106, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶34) capable of receiving the second coupling portion protruding portion (Figs. 1 and 4, ¶34). As to claim 24, Anderson discloses that the second coupling member includes a mechanical locking structure (detent 116, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶26) capable of releasably securing a mating component of the second coupling portion (spring loaded latching member 114/408, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶26) without threaded engagement (in as much as Applicant’s, Figs. 1 and 4).
Anderson is silent to the tip is located in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion, and wherein the blade is curved in both its longitudinal direction and in a widthwise extent transverse to the longitudinal direction; the second shaft portion extending from the first shaft portion and having the longitudinal axis laterally offset from the longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion, the second handle having: a T-handle at a first end of the second handle, and an enlarged gripping portion at a second end of the second handle opposite the first end, wherein the enlarged gripping portion includes a planar striking face. As to claim 21, Anderson is silent to the first coupling portion including a protruding portion, and the first coupling member including a receptacle configured to receive the respective protruding portion. As to claim 24, Anderson is silent to the first coupling member includes a mechanical locking structure configured to releasably secure a mating component of the first coupling portion without threaded engagement.
Sweitzer teaches a similar acetabular cup extractor (10, Figs. 1-9, 12-18, 27, and 28) comprising: a blade (26) that includes: a spear-point blade (Figs. 1, 7, and 8) having a tip (66) that is located substantially in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion (16, Fig. 1), and wherein the blade (26) is curved in both its longitudinal direction (Fig. 1) and in a widthwise extent transverse to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 8), a first coupling portion (upper portion as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, i.e. 64 and 56 of Fig. 7, Figs. 6 and 7), and a second coupling portion (30, 78, Figs. 12-14, ¶s 58, 79, and 81); a first coupling member (52, Figs. 1 and 4-6) capable of connecting with the first coupling portion (Figs. 1 and 6); a handle assembly (12, 18, 20, Fig. 1) that includes: a first handle (12, 18) having: a first shaft portion (18) extending from the first coupling member (Figs. 1 and 6), the second shaft portion extending from the first shaft portion (Figs. 1 and 6), and a strike plate (36, Fig. 1, ¶95) at its proximal end (Fig. 1), and a second handle (20) having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) substantially transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the first handle (Fig. 1), the second handle having: a T-handle (38) at a first end of the second handle (Fig. 1); and an enlarged gripping portion (42) at a second end of the second handle opposite the first end (Fig. 1), wherein the enlarged gripping portion includes a planar striking face (50, Fig. 1, ¶95); and a guide (32, 94) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Fig. 27, ¶s 58 and 94), the guide including a second coupling member (80, Figs. 16 and 17, ¶s 79 and 81) capable of connecting with the second coupling portion (Figs. 1-3 and 15-18, ¶s 79 and 81), wherein the first coupling portion extends from the blade in a first direction (Fig. 1) and the second coupling portion extends in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 1). As to claim 21, Sweitzer teaches that the first coupling portion includes a protruding portion (as defined, i.e. 64 and 56/upper portion as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, Figs. 6 and 7), and the first coupling member includes a receptacle (Figs. 4 and 6) capable of receiving the first coupling portion protruding portion (Fig. 6). As to claim 24, Sweitzer teaches that the first coupling member includes a mechanical locking structure (54, 62, 60 in receptacle shown in 52 in Figs. 4 and 6, Figs. 4 and 6, ¶s 66 and 67) capable of releasably securing a mating component of the first coupling portion (56, Figs. 6 and 7, ¶s 66 and 67) without threaded engagement (in as much as Applicant’s, Figs. 4, 6, and 7).
Giardiello teaches a similar acetabular cup extractor (100, Figs. 1-3, ¶20), comprising: a blade (6, Fig. 1, ¶26) that includes: a blade (Fig. 1) having a tip (right-most end as shown in Figs. 1 and 3, Figs. 1 and 3) that is located substantially in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion (10.1, Figs. 1 and 3), a first coupling portion; (11.1, 9.1, Figs. 1-3, ¶26), and a second coupling portion; (right end of 9.1 as shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 3); a first coupling member (15.1) capable of connecting with the first coupling portion (Figs. 1-3, ¶26); a handle assembly (15, 10, 3, 5, Fig. 1) that includes: a first handle (15, 10, 3) having: a first shaft portion (15.5, 15, Figs. 1-3) extending from the first coupling member (Figs. 1-3); and the second shaft portion (10.1) extending from the first shaft portion (Figs. 1-3, ¶20) and having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) laterally offset from a longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion (Fig. 1, ¶s 20 and 21) due to an angled handle portion (10.2, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶21), and a strike plate (4, Fig. 1, ¶20) at its proximal end (Fig. 1), and a second handle (5) having a longitudinal axis substantially transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the first handle (Fig. 1); and a guide (13) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27), the guide including a second coupling member (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27) capable of connecting with the second coupling portion (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27). Giardiello further teaches that different angulation can be used (¶21) and that the handle’s larger section (4) is an impact area (Fig. 1, ¶20) for impacting the blade into the area surrounding the acetabular cup to be removed (¶27).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to specify the blade shape as disclosed by Anderson to be the blade shape as taught by Sweitzer in order to predictably insert the blade into bone surrounding an acetabular implant (Sweitzer ¶64) and closely accommodate the outer shape of an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Sweitzer ¶71). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify/replace the first coupling member and the first coupling portion as disclosed by Anderson with the first coupling member and the first coupling portion as taught by Sweitzer in order to predictably provide a known alternate connection between the blade and the handle assembly (Sweitzer Figs. 1 and 4-6, ¶94) and enable selective removal of the blade from the handle assembly (Sweitzer ¶67). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to replace the second handle as disclosed by Anderson with the second handle as taught by Sweitzer in order to provide an additional gripping handle (Sweitzer ¶59) as well as an additional striking surfaces (Sweitzer ¶61) that can be used in addition to the first handle strike plate and for striking by a hammer or the like in order to extract the blade from bone surrounding the acetabular implant (Sweitzer ¶61). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the first handle as disclosed by Anderson by adding an angled handle portion such that the second shaft portion is laterally offset from the first shaft portion as taught by Giardiello in order to have the central axes not coincide (Giardiello ¶20) to enable the handle assembly to be kept at a maneuvering distance from the patient's body and to place in contact therewith only the parts of the extractor strictly necessary for the removal of the acetabular cup (Giardiello ¶27). In forming the combination, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the angled portion of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is at an appropriate angle to substantially align the longitudinal axis of the impaction surface with the blade bone-penetrating surface as taught by Giardiello, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for impacting the blade into the area surrounding the acetabular cup to be removed by (Giardiello ¶27) while enabling the handle assembly to be kept at a maneuvering distance from the patient's body and to place in contact therewith only the parts of the extractor strictly necessary for the removal of the acetabular cup (Giardiello ¶27), i.e. to align an impaction surface with the structure, i.e. the blade tip, to be impacted. Finally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the blade tip that is substantially located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32).
As to claim 20, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 18 as well as that the guide including a hemispherical dome (Fig. 4).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the guide includes a plurality of spaced apart recesses circumscribing the guide.
Sweitzer further teaches that the guide (32, 94) includes a hemispherical dome (94, Figs. 16 and 17) with a plurality of spaced apart recesses (96, Figs. 16 and 17) circumscribing the guide (Figs. 16 and 17).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the hemispherical dome as disclosed by the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello by adding a plurality of spaced apart recesses as taught by Sweitzer in order to aid in engaging a tool with the guide to securely connect the guide to the blade (Sweitzer ¶81), i.e. for easier gripping and handling during extractor assembly/disassembly.
As to claim 22, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 18 as well as the handle assembly further includes a strike plate (416, Fig. 4, ¶31) having a striking surface (left-facing surface as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 4), and the strike plate having a central axis (horizontal as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) that appears to be coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 4).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the central axis is coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the central axis that appears to be coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is coaxial, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion with and impact surface to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32).
As to claim 23, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello discloses the invention of claim 18 as well the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion (Giardiello Fig. 1).
The combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion is parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion that is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion of the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is parallel, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion with and impact surface to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32).
As to claim 29, Anderson discloses an acetabular cup extraction system (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a handle assembly (404, 112, Fig. 4); a blade (406) extending from a distal portion of the handle assembly (Fig. 4) and including a cutting edge (right-most end as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4), a guide (100, Figs. 1 and 4) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Figs. 4 and 5, ¶s 24 and 35), the guide extending from a distal end of the blade (Fig. 4); wherein the handle assembly includes: a first shaft portion (right portion of 112 as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) and a second shaft portion (left portion of 112 as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4); the first shaft portion connected to the second shaft portion by an intermediate shaft portion (central portion of 112 as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4); the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4); wherein the handle assembly further includes a strike plate (416, Fig. 4, ¶31) located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion (Fig. 4), having a striking surface (left surface as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 4), and having a central axis (horizontal as shown in Fig. 4, Fig. 4) that appears to be coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 4); the blade has a proximal end connected to the first shaft portion (Fig. 4).
Anderson is silent to the first shaft portion having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from, and parallel to, a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion; the intermediate portion having the longitudinal axis at a non-parallel angle to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions; the strike plate having a central axis coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion; and the blade has a distal tip located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion; and the blade proximal end is releasably connected to the first shaft portion.
Sweitzer teaches a similar acetabular cup extraction system (Figs. 1-9, 12-18, 27, and 28) comprising: a handle assembly (12, 18, 20, Fig. 1); a blade (26) extending from a distal portion of the handle assembly (Fig. 1) and including a cutting edge (Figs. 1, 2, 7, and 8); a guide (32, 94) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Fig. 27, ¶s 58 and 94), the guide extending from a distal end of the blade (Figs. 1, 2, 6, and 27); wherein the handle assembly includes a first shaft portion (18) and a second shaft portion (upper portion of 16 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1); the first shaft portion connected to the second shaft portion by an intermediate shaft portion (lower portion of 16 as shown in Fig. 1); the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1); wherein the handle assembly further includes a strike plate (36, Fig. 1, ¶95) located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion (Fig. 1), having a striking surface (upper surface as shown in Fig. 1) aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 1), and having a central axis substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 1); the blade has a proximal end releasably connected to the first shaft portion (Figs. 4-7).
Giardiello teaches a similar acetabular cup extraction system (Figs. 1-3, ¶20), comprising: a handle assembly (15, 10, 3, 5, Fig. 1); a blade (6, Fig. 1, ¶26) extending from a distal portion of the handle assembly (Fig. 1) and including a cutting edge (right-most end as shown in Figs. 1 and 3, Figs. 1 and 3); a guide (13) capable of being received within an acetabular cup (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27), the guide extending from a distal end of the blade (Figs. 1 and 3); wherein the handle assembly includes a first shaft portion (15.5, 15, Figs. 1-3) and a second shaft portion (10.1); the first shaft portion connected to the second shaft portion by an intermediate shaft portion (10.2, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶21); the first shaft portion having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from, and substantially parallel to, a longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 1); the intermediate portion having a longitudinal axis at a non-parallel angle to the longitudinal axes of the first and the second shaft portions (in as much as Applicant’s, Fig. 1); wherein the handle assembly further includes a strike plate (4, Fig. 1, ¶20) located at a proximal end of the second shaft portion (Fig. 1), having a striking surface (left facing surface as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1) aligned transverse to the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 1), and having a central axis substantially coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Fig. 1); the blade has a distal tip located substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Figs. 1 and 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to specify the blade shape as disclosed by Anderson to be the blade shape as taught by Sweitzer in order to predictably insert the blade into bone surrounding an acetabular implant (Sweitzer ¶64) and closely accommodate the outer shape of an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Sweitzer ¶71). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify/replace the blade proximal end connection to the first shaft portion as disclosed by Anderson to be releasably connected as taught by Sweitzer in order to predictably provide a known alternate connection between the blade and the handle assembly (Sweitzer Figs. 1 and 4-6, ¶94) and enable selective removal of the blade from the handle assembly (Sweitzer ¶67). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the first handle as disclosed by Anderson by adding an intermediate shaft portion such that the second shaft portion is laterally offset from the first shaft portion as taught by Giardiello in order to have the central axes not coincide (Giardiello ¶20) to enable the handle assembly to be kept at a maneuvering distance from the patient's body and to place in contact therewith only the parts of the extractor strictly necessary for the removal of the acetabular cup (Giardiello ¶27). In forming the combination, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the intermediate shaft portion of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is at an appropriate angle to substantially align the longitudinal axis of the impaction surface with the blade bone-penetrating surface as taught by Giardiello, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for impacting the blade into the area surrounding the acetabular cup to be removed by (Giardiello ¶27) while enabling the handle assembly to be kept at a maneuvering distance from the patient's body and to place in contact therewith only the parts of the extractor strictly necessary for the removal of the acetabular cup (Giardiello ¶27), i.e. to align an impaction surface with the structure, i.e. the blade tip, to be impacted. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the central axis that appears to be coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of Anderson is coaxial, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion with and impact surface to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion that is substantially parallel with the laterally offset longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion of the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is parallel, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion with and impact surface to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32). Finally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the blade tip that is substantially located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is located in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aligning a shaft portion to be struck by a striking tool (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶60) to drive the blade into a bone (Anderson ¶31; Sweitzer ¶95; Giardiello ¶s 27-30) and beneath an acetabular cup implant to be extracted (Anderson ¶35; Sweitzer ¶97; Giardiello ¶s 27 and 32).
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
Prosecution Insights