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 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.
Claims 2-5 and 15-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the device interface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is interpreted as referring back to the positioning device interface. Please keep this terminology consistent to overcome this rejection.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the positioning device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is interpreted as referring back to the positioning device interface. Please keep this terminology consistent to overcome this rejection.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is interpreted as referring back to the self-retaining retraction device. Please keep this terminology consistent to overcome this rejection.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is interpreted as referring back to the self-retaining retraction device. Please keep this terminology consistent to overcome this rejection.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the device" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is interpreted as referring back to the self-retaining retraction device. Please keep this terminology consistent to overcome this rejection.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the walls" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Tupper (US 3762401).
With respect to claim 1, Tupper discloses an adapter (e.g., 33) for connecting a surgical instrument (e.g., 32) with a self-retaining retraction device (e.g., 19) (see fig. 1 below), the adapter comprising: an instrument interface (34, 35) comprising cavity (34) shaped to receive a proximal portion of the surgical instrument (see fig. 7 below); and a positioning device interface (at 36) connected with the instrument interface and comprising a connection mechanism (notch 36) shaped to secure the adapter with the self-retaining retraction device (see fig. 1, 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
646
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Tupper further discloses the adapter of claim 1, further comprising a connecting portion (e.g., body of 33 between 34 and 36) connecting the instrument interface with the device interface (see enlarged fig. 7 below), wherein the instrument interface defines an instrument axis (see fig. 7 below), wherein the positioning device defines a device axis (see enlarged fig. 7 below), and wherein the connecting portion positions the instrument axis and the device axis at a selected angular orientation with respect to one another in at least one geometric plane (see enlarged fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
386
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 3, Tupper further discloses the adapter of claim 2, wherein the instrument axis and the device axis are oriented at selected angular orientations with respect to one another along two geometric planes (see enlarged fig. 7 above).
As for claim 4, Tupper further discloses the adapter of claim 2, wherein the selected angular orientation is between about 0 degrees and about 180 degrees (see enlarged fig. 7 above).
As for claim 5, Tupper further discloses the adapter of claim 4, wherein the selected angle is between about 45 degrees and about 135 degrees (see enlarged fig. 7 above and col. 4 lines note that the adapter 33 is “toboggan-shaped member).
Claim(s) 1 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Seton (US 5299563).
With respect to claim 1, Seton discloses an adapter (e.g., 6b) for connecting a surgical instrument (e.g., 10) with a self-retaining retraction device (2) (see fig. 3-5 below), the adapter comprising: an instrument interface comprising cavity shaped to receive a proximal portion of the surgical instrument (see fig. 3-5 below); and a positioning device interface connected with the instrument interface and comprising a connection mechanism (e.g., to receive 6a) shaped to secure the adapter with the self-retaining retraction device (see fig. 3-5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
644
830
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 15, Seton further discloses the adapter of claim 1, wherein the self-retaining retraction device comprises an attachment mechanism (8) comprising an opening at a distal end of the device (see fig. 2 and also fig. 3-5 above) and wherein the connection mechanism comprises a tongue (e.g., post) shaped to fit through the opening and to engage with the attachment mechanism (see fig. 3-5 above).
As for claim 16, Seton further discloses adapter of claim 15, wherein the connection mechanism further comprises one or more walls positioned to engage outside surfaces of the device (see fig. 4-5 above and note the elevated surface that the post/tongue reside on) when the tongue is engaged with the attachment mechanism to secure the adapter with the device.
As for claim 17, Seton further discloses the adapter of claim 15, wherein the connection mechanism (note that the connection mechanism is interpreted to also include 6a) further comprises a lip (e.g., 6a) extending from one or more of the walls (e.g., cylindrical body of the post/tongue) and positioned to engage an outside top surface of the device (see fig. 3-5 above).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in independent claim 1. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest wherein instrument interface comprises a wall surrounding the cavity, wherein a keyhole extends through the wall on at least one side of the cavity, wherein a handle of the instrument comprises a hole positioned to align with the keyhole to form a keyway with the handle inserted into the cavity, as required by claims 6-14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: EP2001369B1; US 3724449; US 5365921; US 3998217; US 4813401; US 5813978; US 5503617; US 6379297.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tara Carter whose telephone number is (571) 272-3402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Robert, at (571) 272-4719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TARA ROSE E CARTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3773
/EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773