Detailed Action
This office action is for US application number 18/459,904 evaluates the claims as filed on November 18, 2025.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 18, 2025 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 regarding the interpretation of “quick connect” and similar on pages 6-7 of Remarks dated November 18, 2025, Examiner notes that these arguments are a duplication of those provided in on pages 1-2 of Remarks dated August 12, 2025. Accordingly, such were responded to on pages 2-4 of the final office action dated August 27, 2025 and will not be repeated here.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that a search of the USPTO public search tool for the term “quick connect” provides 39,000+ search results, which is compelling evidence that the term is definite as well as well-known and broad acceptance of the term (Remarks p. 8), Examiner agrees that the term “quick connect” is well-known and broadly accepted and notes that such has never been asserted otherwise. As evidenced by Applicant’s search result of 39,000+ results, the term is broadly used and, if one were to look at any number of those results, one would find that such is used to describe the function of a vast array of structures with an indeterminate number of features and usability in varying applications. For example, even within Applicant’s instant application, the term is used to describe the function of the structures shown in Figs. 3-7 to be very, very different structures for achieving a quick connection per Applicant’s specification paragraph 30. Thus, the indefiniteness is, and has always been, due to the lack of structure defined for the claimed “quick connect” (as similar limitations). That is, Applicant’s original disclosure does not appear to define or adequately describe the structure of any of the claimed “quick connect” limitations nor has Applicant provided any explanation of how one might reasonably discern what structure is being claimed by such limitations. Thus, such have been appropriately determined to be indefinite due to an unclear scope.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the blade of Anderson in affixed to the shaft and there is no coupling to which the blade is connected (Remarks p. 8-9), Examiner notes that this argument is unclear as Applicant is using synonyms to assert a difference and does not appear to provide any alternate definitions of the terms. To be clear, Examiner is using the ordinary meaning consistent with the following definitions to interpret these terms” “to attach physically” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affix), “to become joined” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connect), and “something that joins or links two things together” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple). As shown in Anderson Fig. 4, the blade and shaft are connected/affixed/coupled. Thus, there is necessarily a coupling formed that connects/affixes/couples the two structures. Even a cursory review of Anderson shows that for the device to function, the blade and shaft must be coupled. Thus, this argument is unclear. Further, Examiner notes that such is not a feature of the combination of art that reads on the claimed invention, but is instead a feature noted to show analogous features of the art. That is, as detailed below and on at least page 17 of the final office action dated August 27, 2025, one would be motivated to modify/replace the coupling and the first connect as disclosed by Anderson with the quick connect and a first quick connect as taught by Sweitzer.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Examiner has mistakenly asserted that Sweitzer 30, 78 and 80 are a quick connect and instead 78 is female threading for receiving male threading 80 which is not a quick connection as such is one of the oldest and slowest mechanisms by which components may be releasably joined to one another (Remarks p. 10-11), Examiner notes that a quick is a relative term that has not been defined or limited by the claim. For example, a threaded connection is quicker to achieve than curing and adhesive or molding components together. Further, as no description or definition of the claimed quick connect has been provided, the scope is indefinite and thus enables only a very broad interpretation of the claim term, which has appropriately applied to both Applicant’s disclosure and the prior art. Thus, if Applicant desires a narrower interpretation, Examiner suggests providing a limitation to define the intended scope in a manner supported by Applicant’s original disclosure. Finally, Examiner notes that such is not a feature of the combination of art that reads on the claimed invention, but is instead a feature noted to show analogous features of the art. That is, as detailed below and on at least page 17 of the final office action dated August 27, 2025, one would be motivated to modify/replace the coupling and the first connect as disclosed by Anderson with the quick connect and a first quick connect as taught by Sweitzer.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that dictionary.com defines a shaft as “a long, comparatively straight handle serving….” and therefore Examiner erroneously interprets Giardiello’s first shaft portion as 15.5, 15 when 15.5 is a “coupling area” located on “tooth cup-shaped element 15” to which the end 10.2 of the shaft-like central body is welded and 15 is not shaft-like in shape and thus does not constitute a “first shaft portion” as claimed (Remarks p. 13), Examiner notes that Applicant’s provided definition of a shaft as “a long, comparatively straight handle” uses a relative term with no context to enable an accurate interpretation, is ambiguous as to what such is ‘compared’ to, and does such appear to reflect the BRI of the claimed “shaft portion” for which no structural features have been claimed. That is, it would be erroneous to interpret the claimed invention as having a shaft according to the provided definition as a shaft has not been claimed and the shaft disclosed by Applicant, as shown in Fig. 1, does not appear to be straight, has not been disclosed to be straight, and is claimed to have portions with offset longitudinal axes. Further, the provided definition appears to be overly narrow as commonly used in mechanical arts, which would generally consider Applicant’s 26 and 38 to each comprise a shaft as shown in Fig. 1. To address the interpretation of the art one must interpret the claim limitations under a BRI in light of Applicant’s disclosure; where doing so shows that Applicant has not claimed a shaft but has instead claimed a first “shaft portion” and a second “shaft portion”, where the claimed “shaft portion” either extends from one coupling or extends from another “shaft portion” and each have axes that are offset from one another. No other limitations are provided to limit the interpretation of the portion of a shaft. As shown in Giardiello Figs. 1-3, element 15.5 of 15 extends from a coupling and connects directly to an angled handle portion from which “shaft portion” 10.1 extends and thus reads on the claimed invention in a manner consistent with Applicant’s original disclosure. Accordingly, such has been appropriately interpreted. Finally, Examiner notes that such is not a feature of the combination of art that reads on the claimed invention, but is instead a feature noted to show analogous features of the art. That is, as detailed below and on at least page 17 of the final office action dated August 27, 2025, one would be 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. Thus, Examiner suggests that if a different claim scope is desired, then the claim language should be amended to reflect the desired scope in a manner supported by Applicant’s original disclosure.
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 comprising: a handle assembly; a quick connect coupling extending from the handle assembly; a blade having: a first quick connect for connecting with the quick connect coupling, and a second quick connect; and a guide configured to be received within an acetabular cup, the guide including a quick connect coupling for connecting with the second quick connect of the blade, a first handle having: a first shaft portion extending from the quick connect coupling; and a second shaft portion extending from the first shaft portion and having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from a longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion, the first quick connect extends coaxially with the second quick connect, the first quick connect extends from the blade in a first direction and the second quick connect extends from the blade in a second direction opposite the first direction of claim 1, 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 quick connect of claim 3, the blade has a tip substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of claim 4, the first handle further comprises a strike plate at its proximal end of claim 5, the first handle further comprises a strike plate at its proximal end and positioned directly above the blade of claim 6, the handle assembly further comprises: a second handle having a longitudinal axis substantially transverse to a longitudinal axis of the first handle, the second handle having: a T-handle at a first end of the second handle; and an enlarged gripping portion about a second end of the second handle opposite the first end of claim 7, the second handle includes a striking face of claim 8, the T-handle includes a first striking face and a second striking face opposite the first striking face of claim 9, the enlarged gripping portion includes a first striking face and a second striking face opposite the first striking face of claim 10, the blade includes a spear-point blade of claim 13, the blade is curved in both its longitudinal direction and in a widthwise extent transverse to the longitudinal direction of claim 14, the blade has an arc length of about 80 to 140 degrees of claim 15, the guide is substantially shaped as a truncated hemispherical dome of claim 16, the guide includes a plurality of spaced apart scallop-shaped recesses circumscribing the guide of claim 17, an acetabular cup extractor comprising: a blade that includes: a spear-point blade having a tip that is substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion, and wherein the blade is curved in both its longitudinal direction and in a widthwise extent transverse to the longitudinal direction, a first quick connect, and a second quick connect; a quick connect coupling for connecting with the first quick connect of the blade; a handle assembly that includes: a first handle having: a first shaft portion extending from the quick connect coupling, a second shaft portion extending from the first shaft portion and having a longitudinal axis laterally offset from a longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion, and a strike plate at its proximal end, and a second handle having a longitudinal axis substantially transverse to a longitudinal axis of the first handle, the second handle having: a T-handle at a first end of the second handle, and an enlarged gripping portion about a second end of the second handle opposite the first end, wherein the enlarged gripping portion includes a planar striking face; and a guide configured to be received within an acetabular cup, the guide including a quick connect coupling for connecting with the second quick connect of the blade, the first quick connect extends coaxially with the second quick connect, the first quick connect extends from the blade in a first direction and the second quick connect extends from the blade in a second direction opposite the first direction of claim 18, the guide is substantially shaped as a truncated hemispherical dome of claim 19, and the guide includes a plurality of spaced apart scallop-shaped recesses circumscribing the guide of claim 20.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a quick connect coupling” in claim 1 line 3, “a first quick connect” in claim 1 line 5, “a second quick connect” in claim 1 line 6, “a quick connect coupling” in claim 1 lines 7-8, “a first quick connect” in claim 18 line 7, “a second quick connect” in claim 18 line 8, “a quick connect coupling” in claim 18 line 9, and “a quick connect coupling” in claim 18 lines 20-21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 line 9 should read “a handle assembly [[the]]that includes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 13-20 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 “a quick connect coupling” in claim 1 line 3, “a first quick connect” in claim 1 line 5, “a second quick connect” in claim 1 line 6, “a quick connect coupling” in claim 1 lines 7-8 and the scope as there appears to be no definition in the original disclosure to enable one to determine the intended scope and equivalents thereof. Examiner is interpreting these terms broadly and suggests amending in a manner supported by the original disclosure to clarify and/or not invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112f.
Claim(s) 7 is/are unclear with regards to “a longitudinal axis of the first handle” in lines 3-4 and if this is intended to refer to an undescribed a longitudinal axis of the first handle that is in addition to the longitudinal axes of the first handle recited in claim 1 lines 11-12 as claimed or if such is intended to refer to the “a longitudinal axis” of the second shaft portion of the first handle of claim 1 lines 11-12 or “a longitudinal axis” of the first shaft portion of the first handle of claim 1 line 12. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “[[a]]the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the first handle, the second handle”.
Claim(s) 7 is/are unclear with regards to “an enlarged gripping portion about a second end of the second handle” in line 6 and the intended meaning of “about” for Applicant’s specific disclosure that ““About” as used herein when referring to a measurable value such as an amount, a temporal duration, and the like, is meant to encompass variations of ±20%, ±10%, ±5%, ±1%, or ±0.1% from the specified value, as such variations are appropriate” (¶26) or the ordinary meaning of the “about”. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “an enlarged gripping portion at a second end of the second handle”.
Claim(s) 18 is/are unclear with regards to “a first quick connect” in claim 18 line 7, “a second quick connect” in claim 18 line 8, “a quick connect coupling” in claim 18 line 9, and “a quick connect coupling” in claim 18 lines 20-21 and the scope as there appears to be no definition in the original disclosure to enable one to determine the intended scope and equivalents thereof. Examiner is interpreting these terms broadly and suggests amending in a manner supported by the original disclosure to clarify and/or not invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112f.
Claim(s) 18 is/are unclear with regards to “a longitudinal axis of the first handle” in lines 15-16 and if this is intended to refer to an undescribed a longitudinal axis of the first handle that is in addition to the longitudinal axes of the first handle recited in lines 12-13 as claimed or if such is intended to refer to the “a longitudinal axis” of the second shaft portion of the first handle of lines 12-13 or “a longitudinal axis” of the first shaft portion of the first handle of line 13. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “[[a]]the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion of the first handle, the second handle”.
Claim(s) 18 is/are unclear with regards to “an enlarged gripping portion about a second end of the second handle” in line 18 and the intended meaning of “about” for Applicant’s specific disclosure that ““About” as used herein when referring to a measurable value such as an amount, a temporal duration, and the like, is meant to encompass variations of ±20%, ±10%, ±5%, ±1%, or ±0.1% from the specified value, as such variations are appropriate” (¶26) or the ordinary meaning of the “about”. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “an enlarged gripping portion at a second end of the second handle”.
Claim(s) 3-10, 13-17, 19, and 20 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, 3-10, and 13-20 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, 3-6, 13, and 16, Anderson discloses an acetabular cup extractor (400, Figs. 1-5) comprising: a handle assembly (404, 112, Fig. 4); a coupling (112 portion coupling of 406 to 112, Fig. 4) extending from the handle assembly (Fig. 4); a blade (406) having: a first connect (406 portion coupling 406 to 112) capable of connecting with the coupling (Fig. 4), and a second quick connect (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 quick connect coupling (106, 116, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶s 26 and 34) capable of connecting with the second quick connect of the blade (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 coupling (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 connect extends coaxially with the second quick connect in a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4), and wherein the first connect extends from the blade in a first direction (Fig. 4) and the second quick connect extends from the blade in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 4). As to claim 5, Anderson discloses that the first handle comprises a strike plate (416, Fig. 4, ¶31) at its proximal end (Fig. 4). As to claim 13, Anderson discloses that the blade includes a spear-point blade (Fig. 4). As to claim 16, Anderson discloses that the guide is substantially shaped as a hemispherical dome (Fig. 4).
Anderson is silent to the coupling being a quick connect coupling and the first connect being a first quick connect and the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion being laterally offset from the longitudinal axis of the first shaft portion. 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 connect. As to claim 4, Anderson is silent to the blade has a tip substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion. As to claim 6, Anderson is silent to the first handle further comprises a strike plate at its proximal end and positioned directly above the blade.
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 quick connect coupling (52, Figs. 1 and 4-6) extending from the handle assembly (Figs. 1 and 6); a blade (26) having: a first quick connect (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 quick connect coupling (Figs. 1 and 6), and a second quick connect (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 quick connect coupling (80, Figs. 16 and 17, ¶s 79 and 81) capable of connecting with the second quick connect of the blade (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 quick connect coupling (Figs. 1 and 6); and a second shaft portion (12) extending from the first shaft portion (Figs. 1 and 6), and wherein the first quick connect extends from the blade in a first direction (Fig. 1) and the second quick connect extends in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 1).
Giardiello teaches a similar acetabular cup extractor (100, Figs. 1-3, ¶20), comprising: a handle assembly (15, 10, 3, 5, Fig. 1); a coupling (15.1) extending from the handle assembly (Fig. 1); a blade (6, Fig. 1, ¶26) having: a first connect (11.1, 9.1, Figs. 1-3, ¶26) capable of connecting with the quick connect coupling (Figs. 1-3, ¶26), and a second connect (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 connect coupling (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27) capable of connecting with the second connect of the blade (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 coupling (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 connect (Fig. 1). As to claim 4, Giardiello teaches that the blade has a tip (right-most end as shown in Figs. 1 and 3, Figs. 1 and 3) substantially in-line with the longitudinal axis of the second shaft portion (Figs. 1 and 3). As to claim 5, Giardiello teaches that the first handle further comprises a strike plate (4, Fig. 1, ¶20) at its proximal end (Fig. 1). As to claim 6, Giardiello teaches that the first handle further comprises a strike plate (4, Fig. 1, ¶20) at its proximal end (Fig. 1) and positioned directly above the blade (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 coupling and the first connect as disclosed by Anderson with the quick connect and a first quick connect 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 claims 7-10, 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 9, the combination of Anderson, Sweitzer, and Giardiello is silent to the second handle includes a 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 first handle (Fig. 1) along a second shaft portion (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 9, Sweitzer further teaches that the second handle includes a striking face (39, 41, 50, upper surface of 42 as shown in Fig. 1, 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 claims 18 and 19, 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 connect (406 portion coupling 406 to 112, Fig. 4), and a second quick connect (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 coupling (112 portion coupling of 406 to 112, Fig. 4) capable of connecting with the first connect of the blade (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 coupling (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 quick connect coupling (106, 116, Figs. 1 and 4, ¶s 26 and 34) capable of connecting with the second quick connect of the blade (Figs. 1 and 4, ¶34), wherein the first connect extends coaxially with the second quick connect in a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4), and wherein the first connect extends from the blade in a first direction (Fig. 4) and the second quick connect extends from the blade in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 4). As to claim 19, Anderson discloses that the guide is substantially shaped as a hemispherical dome (Fig. 4).
Anderson is silent to the tip is substantially 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 first connect being a first quick connect; the coupling being a quick connect coupling; 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.
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 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 quick connect (upper portion as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, i.e. 64 and 56 of Fig. 7, Figs. 6 and 7), and a second quick connect (30, 78, Figs. 12-14, ¶s 58, 79, and 81); a quick connect coupling (52, Figs. 1 and 4-6) capable of connecting with the first quick connect of the blade (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 quick connect coupling (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 a 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 quick connect coupling (80, Figs. 16 and 17, ¶s 79 and 81) capable of connecting with the second quick connect of the blade (Figs. 1-3 and 15-18, ¶s 79 and 81), wherein the first quick connect extends from the blade in a first direction (Fig. 1) and the second quick connect extends in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 1).
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 substantially in-line with a longitudinal axis of a second shaft portion (10.1, Figs. 1 and 3), a first connect (11.1, 9.1, Figs. 1-3, ¶26), and a second connect (right end of 9.1 as shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 3); a coupling (15.1) capable of connecting with the first connect of the blade (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 coupling (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 a 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 connect coupling (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶27) capable of connecting with the second connect of the blade (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 coupling and the first connect as disclosed by Anderson with the quick connect and a first quick connect 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.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 6-4.
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 or telephone the Examiner.
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