DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim comprises repeated text “ second portion of the second portion of the second arm ” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,322,578 (Houle et al.). Houle discloses a locking mechanism (86) in Fig. 4A comprising: a latch ( 88a ) coupled to a portion of a first member (36) ; and a catch ( 88b ) coupled to a portion of a second member (36) , the latch (88a) having a latch undercut feature (see beam 90 forming an undercut shape) and the catch having a catch undercut feature (see 92 forming an undercut shape ) , wherein when the first member and the second member are in a first locked position (see description of first and second members “arms” 36 locked in inward position ; Fig. 2C ) , the latch undercut feature is in contact with the catch undercut feature such that the latch undercut feature lockingly engages the catch undercut feature (column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3); and when the first member and second member are in a second unlocked position (arms pivoted away from one another as in Fig. 2A) , the latch undercut feature (88A) is not in contact with the catch undercut feature (88B) such that the latch undercut feature does not engage the catch undercut feature (column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). Regarding claim 14 , Figure 5B more clearly shows a latch structure, wherein the latch (286) includes a latch arm that extends along a latch axis from a first end to a second end, and the latch undercut feature is disposed at the first end of latch arm, and the second end of the latch arm is fixedly secured to the portion of the first member ( 2 36) such that the first end of the latch arm is a free and the latch undercut feature is displaceable in a direction normal to the latch axis (see marked up drawing below) . Regarding claim 1 5, when the first member and the second member (36) are in the first locked position, the catch undercut feature displaces the latch undercut feature at the first end of the latch arm in a first direction relative to the second end of the latch arm, wherein the first direction is normal to the latch axis (see description of deflected position at column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). Regarding claim 16 , wherein when the first member and the second member are in the second unlocked position, the latch undercut feature at the first end of the latch arm is not displaced relative to the second end of the latch arm (see description of undeflected position at column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). Regarding claim 17 , when the first member and the second member (36) are displaced from the first locked position to the second unlocked position, the latch undercut feature is displaced out of contact with the catch undercut feature such that the latch undercut feature at the first end of the latch arm displaces in a second direction relative to the second end of the latch arm, wherein the second direction is normal to the latch axis and opposite to the first direction (see description of returning to undeflected position from a deflected position at (see description of deflected position at column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim (s) 1 -1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2007/0213597 (Wooster) in view of US 6,322,578 (Houle et al.). Wooster discloses a surgical equipment holder, comprising: a first arm ( 5A or 5B ) ; a second arm ( 4 ) coupled to the first arm and selectively pivotable relative to the first arm (via clamping ball 11A [0055]-0057]) ; a lever (14 or 14B) is displaceable between a first locked position and a second unlocked position, wherein in the first locked position, the second arm ( 4 ) is not pivotable relative to the first arm, and in the second unlocked position, the second arm is pivotable relative to the first arm (Fig. 3A-3E; [0087]). Wooster fails to disclose a locking mechanism that maintains the lever (14A or 14B) in the locked position (downward position). Houle discloses a locking mechanism that maintains two relatively pivotable components in a locked condition by engagement of cooperating latch and catch undercut features. Houle discloses a locking mechanism (86) in Fig. 4A comprising a latch (88a) coupled to a first member (36) and a catch (88b) coupled to a second member (36) , wherein each of the latch and catch define an undercut structure. Houle teaches that engagement of the two undercut features maintains the first member and the second member in a first locked position (Fig. 2C) (column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). In an unlocked position (the first and second members moved away from one another), the undercuts are out of contact (column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). Since Wooster is directed towards locking a desired position of the relatively moveable arms, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to incorporate the locking mechanism taught by Houle with an arm and a lever of Wooster, in order to aid in more effectively preventing unintentional movement of the frame to maintain a desired position of an instrument during a surgical procedure. The modification would result in a latch coupled to a first one of the lever or the first arm and a catch coupled to a portion of a second one of the lever or the second arm, the latch having a latch undercut feature and the catch having a catch undercut feature, wherein when the lever is in the first locked position, the latch undercut feature is in contact with the catch undercut feature such that the latch undercut feature lockingly engages the catch undercut feature, and when the lever is in the second unlocked position, the latch undercut feature is not in contact with the catch undercut feature such that the latch undercut feature does not engage the catch undercut feature. Regarding claim 2, Wooster discloses the lever (14A) pivots towards second arm (4) to translate the lever from the first unlocked position (upwards in Fig 3C) to the second locked position (downwards in Fig 3C) . Regarding claim 3, Figure 5B of Houle more clearly shows a latch structure, wherein the latch (286) includes a latch arm that extends along a latch axis from a first end to a second end, and the latch undercut feature is disposed at the first end of latch arm, and the second end of the latch arm is fixedly secured to the portion of the first member (236) such that the first end of the latch arm is a free and the latch undercut feature is displaceable in a direction normal to the latch axis. (see marked up drawing above) Regarding claim 4 , Houle teaches that in a locked position, the catch undercut feature displaces the latch undercut feature at the first end of the latch arm in a first direction relative to the second end of the latch arm, wherein the first direction is normal to the latch axis ( see description of deflected position at column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). Regarding claim 5, Houle teaches that in an unlocked position, the latch undercut feature at the first end of the latch arm is not displaced relative to the second end of the latch arm (see description of undeflected position at column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). Regarding claim 6 , Houle teaches that when the lever is displaced from the first locked position to the second unlocked position, the latch undercut feature is displaced out of contact with the catch undercut feature such that the latch undercut feature at the first end of the latch arm displaces in a second direction relative to the second end of the latch arm, wherein the second direction is normal to the latch axis and opposite to the first direction (see description of returning to undeflected position from a deflected position at (see description of deflected position at column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 3). Regarding claim 7 , Wooster discloses the second arm ( 4 ) is elongated and extends from a proximal end ( at component 3 in Fig. 1A ) to a distal end ( at component 33 ) , and the first arm ( 5A/5B ) is elongated and extends from a proximal end at ( at component 33 ) to a distal end ( free end ) , and the proximal end of the first arm (5A or 5b) is pivotably coupled to the distal end of the second arm (4) (at location 33; see Figure 1A) . Regarding claim 8, it would have been further obvious to configure the latch taught by Houle to be coupled to a first portion (free end) of the lever (14) and the catch to be co upled to a first portion of the second arm (4 ), since the lever is moved adjacent the second arm in the locked position (Fig. 1C). Regarding claim 9, the lever (14A or 14B) of Wooster has a second portion pivotably coupled to the second arm (4) (via joint 13). Regarding claim 10 second portion of the second arm (4) is disposed at the distal end of the second arm (at components 13/33). Regarding claim 1 1 , it would have been further obvious to position the catch adjacent to the proximal end of the second arm , or whatever location is expedient, to align the catch with the latch of the lever to achieve locking engagement . Claim (s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wooster in view of Houle et al., and further in view of USPAP 2014/0208514 (Schuerch, Jr.). Wooster discloses the first arm has an end effector, such as a clamp 7B disposed thereon , and teaches different instruments held by clamp 7A [0046] . Wooster and Houle fail to disclose when the lever is in the first locked position, an end effector is fixed relative to the distal end of the first arm, and when the lever is in the second unlocked position, the end effector is pivotable relative to the distal end of the first arm. Schuerch teaches the concept of a repositioning instrument support arm wherein the position of an end effector (17) [0023] can be locked and unlocked with the same actuation mechanism that locks/unlocks a relative position of two arms (15A/B) (see description of actuation lever 35 at [0028]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to configure an end effector of modified Wooster to be locked/unlocked by the lever of modified Wooster, as taught by Schuerch, as the modification provides a selectively moveable instrument support arm that allows two joints to be locked and unlocked with the same actuator. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SARAH WEBB ALEMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5749 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M, Tu, Th, Fr 9am - 3pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melanie Tyson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-9062 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SARAH W ALEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774