DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I pertaining to claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 24 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office fails to provide evident to support the finding of a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s traversal is not persuasive. The claims are directed to three independent and distinct inventions. Invention I, Claims 1-12 are directed to a surgical device comprising a particle-jamming moldable handle structure. Invention II, claims 13-19 are directed to a method of molding and rigidizing a handle portion through application of molding force and evacuation of air to define handedness and grip style. Invention III, claim 20 is directed to a powered surgical device including an exposed user interface integrated through an opening formed in the jamming handle assembly.
These inventions solve different technical problems and require searching in different fields of art. The apparatus claims require searching structural surgical instrument and granular jamming handle art. The relevant CPC area for this search includes B25G 1/00. The method claims require searching forming and customization process art directed to defining ergonomic features and pressure-based transitions. The relevant CPC area for this search is B29C 39/00. The powered device claim requires searching powered surgical handpieces and user-interface integration art. The relevant CPC area for this search is A61B 17/00 and B25B 9/00 or B25G 1/00.
Moreover, the handle of Invention I may be formed using a technique other than that of Invention II, since claim 1 of Invention I does not require evacuation of air. Invention I may be formed from the application of pressure as in US Patent no. 6,148,483. Invention I also is a different tool than in Invention III. Invention I does not require a user interface to activate a control signal of a powered surgical device as in Invention III. Invention I may be a retractor.
Because these subject matters are classified in different subclasses and require different search strategies and fields of art, a serious search burden would result absent restriction. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGraff et al. (US Patent no. 6,148,483) in view of Bourne et al. (US Patent no. 7,294,110).
In regard to claim 1, DeGraff et al. disclose a device 10 (figure 2) comprising:
a support member 20 forming a connection interface (exterior surface of member 20, wherein this surface forms an interface comprising the connection interface which attaches to layer 18) extending from a portion of the device 10;
PNG
media_image1.png
194
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a moldable handle comprising: an interior liner 18 extending over at least a portion of the connection interface (as explained above);
an exterior engagement layer 22 in connection with the interior liner 18 and defining a grip surface (exterior surface of layer 22 which is configured to be grasped by a hand), wherein the interior liner 18 and the exterior engagement layer 22 form an enclosed cavity therebetween (space created between layers 22 and 18); and
a jamming material 12 disposed in the enclosed cavity (col 2 lines 13-29; material 12 is described as light curable moldable material, which is considered to comprise or be an alternative equivalent for holding shape memory upon application of pressure applied by a user’s grip).
The device 10 of DeGraff et al. allows for molding the engagement layer 22 to a custom grip mold of a user’s hand (col 1 lines 30-36).
DeGraff et al. does not describe the use of this grip on a medical device such as a surgical device. The recitation of surgical device as presently employed is considered to merely serve as a recitation of the intended use of the grip and does not substantially impart any limit on the structure to distinguish from non-surgical devices. Moreover, the recitation of surgical device is a preamble recitation which is interpreted to identify a field of use. Bourne et al. describes a medical instrument comprising a handle with gripping portions (see any of figures 1A,1B, 2A,2B, or 3). Bourne et al. teach that a medical device handle is required to be comfortable and reactively easy to grip, particularly when wet (col 1 lines 30-33). This is considered to suggest that that medical tool grip would benefit from a moldable grip such as in DeGraff et al. Therefore, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the grip/Handle of DeGraff et al. for use on a surgical tool since it is considered to comprise the application of a known element (DeGraff et al.) to a known device (surgical tool) to yield an improved grip that enhances user comfort and ease of the tool during complex procedures.
In regard to claim 2, DeGraff et al. teach that the jamming material is controlled between a jammed condition and a flexible condition in response to a variation in a pressure within the enclosed cavity (col 2 lines 17-20, material 12 conforms to shape os user’s grip upon user applied pressure).
In regard to claim 5, DeGraff et al. teach that the exterior engagement layer 22 is an impermeable, flexible membrane that conforms to a shape of the jamming material (col 3 lines 18-20).
In regard to claim 12, DeGraff et al. teach a retention plate that engages a distal end portion of the support member, wherein the retention plate retains the moldable handle on the support member between a body of the surgical device and the retention plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
187
185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGraff et al. (US Patent no. 6,148,483) in view of Bourne et al. (US Patent no. 7,294,110), further in view of Bird et al. (GB 2493147).
In regard to claim 6, DeGraff et al. in view of Bourn et al. substantially describe the invention as claimed, however does not teach that the interior liner comprises a rigid shell comprising a receiving opening complementary to an exterior profile of the support member. Bird et al. depict in figure 5 and moldable hand grip. Figures 1and 2 depict the handle comprising a rigid inner liner A and receiving opening J (page 9). The rigid shell A and opening J permit for easy removal of the handle from the device. DeGraff et al. suggests removability of the handle is advantageous for cleaning purposes. It is therefore considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify liner 18 of DeGraff et al. to be rigid with an opening in order to permit removal of the grip from device for cleaning or sterilization.
In regard to claim 7, in both DeGraff et al. and as modified by Bird et al., the interior liner 18 is structurally connected to the support member 20 of the surgical device in a fixed arrangement in an assembled configuration.
In regard to claim 8, in both DeGraff et al. and as modified by Bird et al., the rigid shell forms a contoured core defining a plurality of surface contours to which the jamming material and the exterior engagement surface conform in response to a compression of the exterior engagement surface (Figure 2 of DeGraff et al., and figure 5 of Bird et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 3, the prior art fails to at least teach a handle with the valve formed with an aperture of a moldable handle.
In regard to claim 4, the prior art fails to at least teach the particles jamming inside of the moldable handle.
In regard to claims 9-11, the prior art does not teach a fluid pump in communication with a moldable hand grip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T GEDEON whose telephone number is (571)272-3447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:30 PM ET.
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, David E. Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/BRIAN T GEDEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796 20 February 2026