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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “interior and exterior surface” should be amended to --interior and exterior surfaces--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “between the proximal end and the distal” in line 3 should be amended to --between the proximal end and the distal end--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greep et al (US 2014/0276763) in view of Walen (US 5,888,200).
Regarding claim 1, Greep discloses a surgical instrument (Fig. 10-11), comprising:
a body (Fig. 10-11; [0091]; handpiece 202) having a proximal end, a distal end, and an interior conduit (Fig. 10-11; [0091]; interior of handpiece 202 where extendable shaft 204 is disposed interpreted as interior conduit);
an extendable shaft (Fig. 10-11, [0091]; extendable shaft 204) at least partially disposed within the interior conduit of the body (See Fig. 10-11; [0091]) and extending distally out of the distal end of the body (See Fig. 10-11; [0091]), the extendable shaft being selectively movable relative to the body between a retracted position and an extended position (See Fig. 10-11; [0091]; extendable shaft 204 may be secured relative to hand piece 202 in a fully retracted position, a fully extended position, and an infinite number of positions therebetween); and
a locking mechanism ([0092]) configured to selectively secure the extendable shaft in the retracted and extended positions (Fig. 10-11; [0092] a locking nut 206 may be used to secure extendable shaft 204 in the desired position), the locking mechanism comprising:
a locking nut (206) movably connectable to the body (locking nut 206 can be movably connectable by disassembly), the locking nut being configured to move relative to the body between a locked position and an unlocked position ([0092] refers to the locking but 206 moving between a locked and unlocked position).
While Greep discloses a locking mechanism including a locking nut to secure the extendable shaft in the retracted and extended positions, Greep does not explicitly disclose the locking mechanism comprises one or more compression flanges disposed around the extendable shaft and being configured to flex towards and away from the extendable shaft, the one or more compression flanges being configured to restrict movement of the extendable shaft relative to the body when the one or more compression flanges are flexed towards the extendable shaft, and the one or more compression flanges being configured to allow for movement of the extendable shaft relative to the body when the one or more compression flanges are flexed away from the extendable shaft; the locking nut being configured to cause the one or more compression flanges to flex towards the extendable shaft when the locking nut is in the locked position, and the locking nut being configured to allow the one or more compression flanges to flex away from the extendable shaft when the locking nut is in the unlocked position.
However, Walen discloses a surgical tool (20) comprising a locking nut (52) movably connected to the body (see col. 11, lines 13-51). The system further comprises one or more flanges (collet 50 including legs 126) disposed around an extendable shaft (see Figs. 3-4 which displays at least a portion of the flanges disposed around extendable shaft see movable stud 84 of collet housing stem 82 connected to shaft 32) to selectively restrict movement of the extendable shaft relative to the body (Col. 6, Lines 48-50; Col. 8, Lines 10-11; Col. 11, Lines 38-56 discuss the clamping force that is selectively applied to lock the shaft into place, note the force is not applied to unlock the shaft). The flanges (collet 50 including legs 126) are further configured to flex toward and away from the shaft to apply or release a clamping force (i.e. configured to flex) on shaft (32) when in the locked position to hold the shaft in place that is released when in the unlocked position (Col. 6, Lines 48-50; Col. 8, Lines 10-11; Col. 10, Lines 55-67; Col. 11, Lines 38-56). The locking nut being configured to cause the one or more compression flanges to flex towards the extendable shaft when the locking nut is in the locked position, and the locking nut being configured to allow the one or more compression flanges to flex away from the extendable shaft when the locking nut is in the unlocked position (see col. 11, lines 13-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the locking mechanism of Greep to include one or more compression flanges as claimed that are actuated by the locking nut in the claimed manner in light of Walen. This configuration provides the benefit of locking the cutting tool in place (Col. 11, Lines 48-51) as well as the ability to easily and quickly couple different surgical cutting accessories to a single handpiece (Col. 2, Lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 2, Walen further teaches wherein the one or more compression flanges are connected to or integrally formed with a ring, the ring being connectable to the distal end of the body (see lip 125 of the collet integrally formed with the legs 126 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Greep in view of Walen further teaches wherein the one or more compression flanges extend distally from the distal end of the body (as a result of the combination, the compression flanges extend distally from their attachment point to the distal end of the body when following the orientation provided in Walen Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Walen further teaches wherein the one or more compression flanges are integrally formed with the body (see legs 126 integrally formed with the body of the instrument, Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Walen further teaches wherein each of the one or more compression flanges comprises a contact pad that extends from a distal end of the compression flange and radially towards the extendable shaft (see 128, Fig. 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 6, Greep further discloses wherein the extendable shaft comprises a conduit extending therethrough (see lumen of nozzle 224 extending through the extendable shaft 204, Figs. 10-12).
Regarding claim 7, Greep in view of Walen further teaches wherein the body comprises one or more grooves in a surface thereof (see Walen: 170, Fig. 10A-10B), and the locking nut comprises one or more pins (see Walen: 160, Fig. 5), the one or more pins being configured to move through the one or more grooves when the locking nut moves between the locked position and unlocked positions (Col. 7, Lines 26-33).
Regarding claim 8, Greep in view of Walen further teaches wherein each of the one or more grooves comprises an entry segment (see Walen: 174 and 178, Fig. 10B), an intermediate segment (see Walen: middle of main slot 172, Fig. 10B), and a terminal segment (see Walen: end portion of main slot 172, Fig. 10B), the entry segment comprising a retention feature (see Walen: 174 and 178, Fig. 10B) configured to enable a pin of the one or more pins to enter the groove and prevent inadvertent removal of the pin from the groove (see Walen: sides of 174 and 178 preventing inadvertent removal of the pin as it travels along the slot, Fig. 10B), the retention feature comprising an angled surface that enables the pin to enter the groove (see Walen: angled inner surface of release section 178, Fig. 10B) and a retention wall that restricts movement of the pin out of the groove (see Walen: wall of detents 174 that restrict movement out of the groove, Fig. 10B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greep in view of Walen and in further view of Potempa (US 2006/021875).
Regarding claim 9, Greep in view of Walen teaches the limitations of claim 1 for which the claim is dependent upon, however Greep in view of Walen fails to teach wherein the extendable shaft comprises a stop adjacent a proximal end thereof and the locking nut comprises a shoulder, the stop and the shoulder being configured to interact to limit distal movement of the extendable shaft relative to the body.
Potempa teaches wherein the extendable shaft comprises a stop adjacent a proximal end thereof (Fig. 3B, par. 53; tube stop 34), the locking nut (Fig. 9, par. 53; collet handle 50) comprises a shoulder (Fig. 9; distal end of collet handle 50 is seen to have a reduced diameter compared to the proximal end of collet handle 50. The reduced diameter creates a shoulder that is slightly smaller than tube stop 34), wherein the stop on the extendable shaft and the shoulder are configured to interact to limit distal movement of the extendable shaft relative to the body (par. 53; flange 36 of tube stop 34 prevents inner tube 14 from exiting outer tube 12 as the diameter of the flange 36 is less than outer tube 12 but not the distal end of collet handle 50, the distal end of collet handle 50 acting as a shoulder that, due to its internal diameter being smaller than the outer diameter of flange 36 of tube stop 34, causes the flange 36 to catch on the inside of the distal end of collet handle 50, preventing the inner tube 14 from being removed from outer tube 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the extendable shaft comprises a stop adjacent a proximal end thereof and the locking nut further comprising a shoulder, wherein the stop on the extendable shaft and the shoulder are configured to interact to limit distal movement of the extendable shaft relative to the body of Potempa with the extendable shaft of Greep as it would prevent the extendable shaft of Greep from accidently being pulled out of handpiece of Greep by catching on the smaller diameter distal end of the collet in light of Potempa. One of ordinary skill would recognize that preventing the accidental disassembly of the electrosurgical device when adjusting its length would be desirable.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greep in view of Walen and in further in view of Richelsoph et al. (US 2015/0100089).
Regarding 10, Greep discloses a surgical instrument (Fig. 10-11), comprising:
a body (Fig. 10-11; [0091]; handpiece 202) having a conduit extending therethrough (Fig. 10-11; [0091]; interior of handpiece 202 where extendable shaft 204 is disposed interpreted as interior conduit);
a shaft (Fig. 10-11, [0091]; extendable shaft 204) at least partially disposed within the interior conduit of the body (See Fig. 10-11; [0091]) and being selectively movable relative to the body between a retracted position and an extended position (See Fig. 10-11; [0091]; extendable shaft 204 may be secured relative to hand piece 202 in a fully retracted position, a fully extended position, and an infinite number of positions therebetween); and
a locking mechanism ([0092]) configured to selectively secure the shaft in the retracted and extended positions (Fig. 10-11; [0092] a locking nut 206 may be used to secure extendable shaft 204 in the desired position), the locking mechanism comprising:
a locking nut (206) movably connectable to the body (locking nut 206 can be movably connectable by disassembly), the locking nut being configured to move relative to the body between a locked position and an unlocked position ([0092] refers to the locking but 206 moving between a locked and unlocked position).
While Greep discloses a locking mechanism including a locking nut to secure the extendable shaft in the retracted and extended positions, Greep does not explicitly disclose the locking mechanism comprises one or more compression flanges that are configured to flex towards and away from the shaft, the one or more compression flanges being configured to restrict movement of the shaft when the one or more compression flanges are flexed towards the shaft; the locking nut being configured to cause the one or more compression flanges to flex towards the extendable shaft when the locking nut is in the locked position, and the locking nut being configured to flex the one or more compression flanges towards the shaft when the locking nut is in the locked position, the locking nut having one or more slots disposed in a distal end of the locking nut and being configured to reduce a force required to move the locking nut between the locked position and the unlocked position.
However, Walen discloses a surgical tool (20) comprising a locking nut (52) movably connected to the body (see col. 11, lines 13-51). The system further comprises one or more flanges (collet 50 including legs 126) disposed around an extendable shaft (see Figs. 3-4 which displays at least a portion of the flanges disposed around extendable shaft see movable stud 84 of collet housing stem 82 connected to shaft 32) to selectively restrict movement of the extendable shaft relative to the body (Col. 6, Lines 48-50; Col. 8, Lines 10-11; Col. 11, Lines 38-56 discuss the clamping force that is selectively applied to lock the shaft into place, note the force is not applied to unlock the shaft). The flanges (collet 50 including legs 126) are further configured to flex toward and away from the shaft to apply or release a clamping force (i.e. configured to flex) on shaft (32) when in the locked position to hold the shaft in place that is released when in the unlocked position (Col. 6, Lines 48-50; Col. 8, Lines 10-11; Col. 10, Lines 55-67; Col. 11, Lines 38-56). The locking nut being configured to cause the one or more compression flanges to flex towards the extendable shaft when the locking nut is in the locked position, and the locking nut being configured to allow the one or more compression flanges to flex away from the extendable shaft when the locking nut is in the unlocked position (see col. 11, lines 13-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the locking mechanism of Greep to include one or more compression flanges as claimed that are actuated by the locking nut in the claimed manner in light of Walen. This configuration provides the benefit of locking the cutting tool in place (Col. 11, Lines 48-51) as well as the ability to easily and quickly couple different surgical cutting accessories to a single handpiece (Col. 2, Lines 44-47). However, Greep/Walen does not explicitly disclose wherein the locking nut further comprises one or more slots disposed in a distal end of the locking nut and being configured to reduce a force required to move the locking nut between the locked position and the unlocked position.
Richelsoph discloses a nut (Fig. 20) comprising one or more slots (slots 4f) disposed in the distal end of the locking nut (see Fig. 20). The one or more slots are configured to reduce a force required to move the locking nut between the locked position and the unlocked position ([0226] discusses the slots as increasing the flexibility, where it naturally follows the force is reduce; note the structure of Richelsoph is the same as that claimed and as such is functionally equivalent for providing a reduced force). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the locking nut of Greep to incorporate the one or more slots of Richelsoph. This configuration provides the benefit of increased flexibility and avoidance of stress risers ([0226]).
Regarding claim 11, Greep in view of Walen and Richelsoph further teaches wherein each of the one or more slots extends between and opens to both interior and exterior surface of the locking nut (see Richelsoph: slots extending between and open to both interior and exterior surfaces of the nut in Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 12, Greep in view of Walen and Richelsoph further teaches wherein each of the one or more slot is open to the distal end of the locking nut (see slots within the distal end of the nut being open within their extension that extends to the distal end material of the nut when viewed in combination).
Regarding claim 13, Walen further teaches wherein the one or more compression flanges are disposed on a ring, the ring being selectively connectable to the distal end of the body (see lip 125 of the collet integrally formed with the legs 126 in Fig. 4).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greep et al (US PGPUB: 2014/0276763) in view of Park (WO 2017/099291; translation utilized for below citations attached of equivalent US PGPUB: 2018/0243026).
Regarding independent claim 15, Greep discloses a surgical instrument (Fig. 10-11), comprising:
a body (Fig. 10-11; [0091]; handpiece 202) having a proximal end, a distal end, an interior conduit between the proximal end and the distal end (Fig. 10-11; [0091]; interior of handpiece 202 where extendable shaft 204 is disposed and where the conduit is defined by an interior surface of the handpiece interpreted as interior conduit),
an extendable shaft (Fig. 10-11, [0091]. 91; extendable shaft 204) at least partially disposable within the interior conduit of the body (See Fig. 10-11; [0091]), the extendable shaft being selectively movable relative to the body between a retracted position and an extended position (See Fig. 10-11; [0091]; extendable shaft 204 may be secured relative to hand piece 202 in a fully retracted position, a fully extended position, and an infinite number of positions therebetween), the extendable shaft comprising an interior conduit (see lumen of nozzle 224 extending through the extendable shaft 204, Figs. 10-12).
Greep does not explicitly disclose a sliding conductor secured to the extendable shaft, the sliding conductor comprising: a main portion extending along a length of the interior conduit of the extendable shaft; and a contact portion that extends along an exterior portion of the extendable shaft between the conductor of the body and the exterior portion of the extendable shaft, the contact portion being connected to the main portion by a bend in the sliding conductor, the contact portion maintaining a conductive connection with the conductor of the body when the extendable shaft is selectively moved between the retracted position and the extended position, an end portion of the contact portion of the sliding conductor being at least partially disposed within the opening in the extendable shaft when the contact portion is conductively connected to the conductor of the body.
Park teaches an electrosurgical instrument (Fig. 1-9: 50) comprising a conductor (504; [0036] describes 504 as conductive) disposed on or in the interior surface (Fig. 7: 122 defining interior conduit formed in 120; see Fig. 7 where 504 is disposed on 122) and extending along a length within the interior conduit and at least partially between the proximal end and the distal end (Fig. 2 and 7). The device comprises an extendable shaft (300; extendable at [0034], [0042], [0047]) which comprises a first opening at or adjacent to a proximal end of the extendable shaft (see opening in proximal end of 300 in Fig. 2 and 7) and a second opening between the proximal end and a distal end of the extendable shaft, the second opening (304) being distinct from the first opening (Fig. 2), the second opening being formed in a sidewall of the extendable shaft (Fig. 2; [0046]). The device further comprises a sliding conductor (500; sliding discussed at [0047])) secured to the extendable shaft (Fig. 2, 7; [0036]), the sliding conductor comprising a first end portion (502), a main body portion (middle elongate portion of 500), a bend (see bend in Fig. 2), a contact portion (contact portion of 504), and a second end portion (end portion of 504), the first end portion being disposed within the extendable shaft (Fig. 2, 7; [0036]), the main portion extending proximally from the first end portion along a length of an interior portion of the extendable shaft (Fig. 2; [0036]), the bend being disposed at the first opening in the extendable shaft (Fig. 2, Fig. 7; [0036]), the contact portion extending distally along the exterior portion of the extendable shaft between the conductor of the body and the exterior portion of the extendable shaft (Fig. 2, Fig. 7; [0036]), the second end portion of the sliding conductor being disposed adjacent to and configured to extend at least partially within the second opening in the extendable shaft (Fig. 7; [0046]) and towards the main body portion (see Fig. 7 which displays the second end portion 504 bending toward main body portion 500), the contact portion being configured to maintain a sliding conductive connection with the conductor of the body when the extendable shaft is selectively moved between the retracted position and the extended position ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Greep to incorporate the conductor, sliding conductor, and opening as claimed in the extendable shaft of Park. This configuration provides the benefit of an easily adjustable and movable device ([0005], [0016], [0054]) for easy insertion into the patient ([0016], [0054]).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Park further discloses wherein the end portion does not contact the extendable shaft or main portion of the sliding conductor when the contact portion is in conductive connection with the conductor of the body (see Fig 7; [0046]-[0047] 504 extends through 304).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Park further discloses wherein the opening comprises a hole extending between interior and exterior surfaces of the extendable shaft (Fig. 2, 7; [0046] 504 extends through 304).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Park further discloses wherein the opening comprises an indent in the exterior portion of the extendable shaft (Fig. 2, 7; [0046]).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Park further discloses wherein the bend is positioned at a gap of the extendable shaft (Fig. 2, Fig. 7).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Park further discloses wherein the gap is positioned at a proximal portion of the extendable shaft (Fig. 4, Fig, 8).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 15-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,261. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,261 anticipate the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-7 and 9 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,261 anticipate the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Greep et al. (US 2014/0276763), Walen (US 5,888,200), Richelsoph et al. (US 2015/0100089), and Potempa (US 2006/021875), fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein the shaft comprises a stop adjacent a proximal end thereof, the stop and the ring being configured to interact to prevent complete removal of the shaft from the body when considered in combination with the additional requirements of the claim. Walen teaches the compression flanges being connected to a ring and Potempa teaches use of a ring attached to a locking nut that interfaces with a stop adjacent a proximal end of a shaft, however neither the references considered alone nor considered in combination teaches or suggests a ring attached to the compression flanges interacting with the stop to prevent complete removal of the shaft from the body as required by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN W COLLINS whose telephone number is (408)918-7607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached on 303-297-4276. 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.
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794