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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03 October 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3, and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-9 currently stand pending in the application.
The claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) listed in the previous action, which are accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 October 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to Danitz et al. (US 6,676,676), Applicant contends that Danitz does not disclose a chisel at a distal end of the sheath as required by claim 1. Applicant contends that jaw 260 in Danitz is shown in FIG. 10 as having a distal end that is blunt and not sharp, and thus the jaw cannot be used as a chisel. Examiner respectfully submits that the commonly understood definition of a chisel is a tool with a sharpened edge. By this definition, the jaw 260 in Danitz is a chisel because it has a relatively sharpened edge, at least at its inner edge. A chisel may be a side cutting chisel as is known in the art, with a sharpened inner longitudinal edge. Danitz discloses at least this type of chisel. Danitz also shows a distal end that has at least a sharp inner corner, and the entire distal end is relatively sharpened relative to the thicker proximal body of the chisel/jaw 260. Therefore, Danitz’s jaw 260 can be used as a chisel, which Applicant describes as being defined by its function. The jaw 260 is fully capable of being used as a chisel (either at its distal end or at its inner edge) upon the appropriate application of relevantly directed force, and therefore can be defined as a chisel by its capability of functioning as a chisel.
As to Lanzoni (US 5,715,604), Applicant contends that Lanzoni discloses jaw elements 2 and 3 with medially facing cutting edges, and because the medially facing cutting edges do not face distally, neither of the jaw elements can be fairly construed to be a chisel. Similarly as above, Examiner respectfully submits that the commonly understood definition of a chisel is a tool with a sharpened edge. By this definition, the jaw element in Lanzoni is a chisel because it has a relatively sharpened edge, at least at its inner edge. A chisel may be a side cutting chisel as is known in the art, with a sharpened inner longitudinal edge. Lanzoni discloses at least this type of chisel. Lanzoni also shows a distal end that has at least a sharp inner corner, and the entire distal end is relatively sharpened relative to the thicker proximal body of the chisel/jaw 3. Therefore, Lanzoni’s jaw 3 can be used as a chisel, which Applicant describes as being defined by its function. The jaw 3 is fully capable of being used as a chisel (either at its distal end or at its inner edge) upon the appropriate application of relevantly directed force, and therefore can be defined as a chisel by its capability of functioning as a chisel.
Further as to Lanzoni, Applicant contends that element 16 is not a jaw but a flange. Examiner respectfully submits that in function, the element 16 is a jaw because 16 and 14/3 move relative to each other by virtue of 14/3 moving relative to 16. The term jaw is a broad term that evokes the concept of grasping or holding; in combination with the other components in Lanzoni, element 16 is a jaw because something can be held by the device of which element 16 is a component (movement of 14/3 relative to 16 results in grasping by those components of a material held between the jaw elements, where grasping is fully capable of occurring before completely cutting through the material or grasping of a relatively hard material is fully capable of occurring). Applicant further contends that sheath 8 does not extend to the jaw elements 2 or 3. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the sheath extends to the jaw elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim requires that the jaw is at the distal end of the sheath, not that the sheath extends to the jaw. The jaw in Lanzoni is at the distal end of the sheath because it is located beyond the distal end of the sheath, and is closer to the distal end than a proximal end of the sheath.
As to Roth et al. (US 5,618,306), Applicant contends that arms 36A, 36B move together when squeezed, i.e. one is not a handle base and the other a trigger. Examiner respectfully submits that movement of the arms toward each other results in one arm, e.g. 36B, moving toward the other arm 36A, such that the one arm triggers the resulting actuation and is thus a trigger. Depending on perspective, the other arm 36A can be interpreted as the base or foundation or bottom of the movement.
Further as to Roth, Applicant acknowledges that jaw 112 may be considered a narrow chisel, but contends that jaw 114 is not movable relative to a chisel between an open position and a clamping position in response to movement of the trigger relative to the base. Examiner respectfully submits that the jaw 114 is movable relative to the chisel 112 and that the closed position is fully capable of being a clamping position because clamping of a material held between the jaws (the jaw 114 and chisel 112) is fully capable of occurring before completely cutting through the material or clamping of a relatively hard material (and/or, if the jaws are dull) is fully capable of occurring based on the relatively close position of the jaws to each other.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 6,676,676 to Danitz et al. (hereinafter, “Danitz”).
As to claim 1, Danitz discloses a gouger grasper device comprising: a handle that includes a base (116) and a trigger (216) movably connected to the base (col. 7 / lines 58-59), FIG. 6A; a sheath (32) extending from the handle, FIG. 1; a chisel (260, where a chisel is commonly understood to mean a tool with a sharpened edge at one end) at a distal end of the sheath, FIGS. 1 and 10; a jaw (262) at the distal end of the sheath and movable relative to the chisel (col. 14 / lines 41-42, col. 15 / lines 14-34), FIGS. 9A-9B; and a ratcheting assembly (164, 122, 196), FIG. 6A, for moving the jaw relative to the chisel between an open position and a clamping position in response to movement of the trigger relative to the base (col. 15 / lines 14-34).
As to claim 2, Danitz discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the trigger is pivotably connected to the base (col. 9 / lines 29-31), FIGS. 1 and 19.
As to claim 3, Danitz discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the ratcheting assembly comprises: a ratchet arm (122) having a plurality of teeth (125), FIG. 6A, and connected to the base (via distal end of 124 and 160); and a button (180; relatively small object or protrusion) carried by the trigger for engaging the teeth of the ratchet arm (col. 9 / line 66 – col. 10 / line 2).
As to claim 4, Danitz discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the ratcheting assembly further comprises an inner arm (196) received in the base, FIG. 6A, and configured to bias the trigger into an open position (as part of the assembled whole, including and via attachment to 124, 160, 130, 128, 40, 72, 420, col. 12 / lines 6-11, col. 14 / line 64 – col. 15 / line 14).
As to claim 5, Danitz discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the inner arm and the trigger each define an aperture (208 in 196, FIG. 18; and 218 in 216, FIG. 15) to allow passage of the ratchet arm therethrough (col. 8 / line 64 – col. 9 / line 3; col. 9 / lines 31-33).
As to claim 6, Danitz discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the ratcheting assembly further comprises: a connecting link (130) connected to a distal end of the inner arm, FIG. 6A; a push rod (128) connected to a distal end of the connecting link (col. 8 / lines 26-28); and a linkage (40) connected to a distal end of the push rod (col. 7 / line 67 – col. 8 / line 5).
As to claim 7, Danitz discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the jaw is connected to the linkage (via 72), FIG. 9A.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 5,715,604 to Lanzoni.
As to claim 1, Lanzoni discloses a gouger grasper device comprising: a handle that includes a base (4) and a trigger (5) movably connected to the base (col. 3 / lines 40-47), FIGS. 1-5; a sheath (8) extending from the handle, FIG. 1; a chisel (cutting end of 3, where a chisel is commonly understood to mean a tool with a sharpened edge at one end) at a distal end of the sheath (the chisel is at a distal end of the sheath since it is located beyond the distal end of the sheath, and is closer to the distal end than a proximal end of the sheath); a jaw (16) at the distal end of the sheath (as interpreted above), FIG. 2, and movable relative to the chisel (since the chisel at the cutting end of 3 is on link 14 which is articulated on jaw 16, so that movement of 16 relative to 14/3 occurs because 16 and 14/3 are moved relative to each other by virtue of 14/3 moving relative to 16 when the links 13 and 14 pivot to close the chisel; col. 3 / line 67 – col. 4 / line 2), FIGS. 1-5; and a ratcheting assembly (26, 27; 27, which can be a pawl, col. 2 / lines 57-60, moves in one direction distally along 26, FIGS. 3-5, due to the shape of the teeth) for moving the jaw relative to the chisel (as above, because there is relative movement between the jaw and chisel when the chisel is closed) between an open position (open position of the chisel), FIG. 2, and a clamping position (closed position of the chisel), FIG. 5, in response to movement of the trigger relative to the base (col. 5 / lines 4-18).
As to claim 2, Lanzoni discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the trigger is pivotably connected to the base (col. 4 / lines 14-16), FIG. 1.
As to claim 3, Lanzoni discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the ratcheting assembly comprises: a ratchet arm (26) having a plurality of teeth and connected to the base (col. 4 / lines 21-26), FIG. 2; and a button (27; relatively small object) carried by the trigger for engaging the teeth of the ratchet arm (col. 5 / lines 4-18), FIGS. 3-5.
As to claim 4, Lanzoni discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the ratcheting assembly further comprises an inner arm (35) received in the base (one end of the inner arm is in the location of the base) and configured to bias the trigger into an open position (col. 4 / lines 63-65).
As to claim 6, Lanzoni discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the ratcheting assembly further comprises: a connecting link (21) connected to a distal end of the inner arm (connected via interconnectedness of the whole device, through connection of 35, 27, 5, 8, and 21); a push rod (7) connected to a distal end of the connecting link; and a linkage (11, 12, 13, 14) connected to a distal end of the push rod (col. 3 / lines 63-65), FIG. 2.
As to claim 7, Lanzoni discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the jaw (16) is connected to the linkage (at least frictionally by abutment, and pivotally at the distal ends of the second links 13, 14, col. 3 / line 67 – col. 4 / line 2).
As to claim 8, Lanzoni discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the linkage comprises: a pair of first links (11, 12) and a pair of second links (13, 14), wherein each of the first links has a proximal end coupled to the push rod and a distal portion coupled to the second links, FIG. 2, and wherein the second links are pivotably coupled to the first links at their proximal ends and pivotably coupled to the jaw at their distal ends (col. 3 / line 55 – col. 4 / line 4).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 5,618,306 to Roth et al. (hereinafter, “Roth”).
As to claim 1, Roth discloses a gouger grasper device, FIGS. 3A-4B and 8, comprising: a handle that includes a base (one 36) and a trigger (other 36) movably connected to the base (via pivotal attachment to 30) (col. 6 / lines 6-11); a sheath (22) extending from the handle; a chisel (112, where a chisel is commonly understood to mean a tool with a sharpened edge at one end) at a distal end of the sheath, FIG. 8; a jaw (114) at the distal end of the sheath and movable relative to the chisel (col. 8 / lines 49-67, col. 9 / lines 48-51); and a ratcheting assembly (86) for moving the jaw relative to the chisel between an open position and a clamping position in response to movement of the trigger relative to the base (the ratcheting assembly can move and lock the trigger closer to the base to move the jaw closer to the chisel, col. 8 / lines 1-40).
As to claim 2, Roth discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the trigger is pivotably connected to the base (via 30).
As to claim 3, Roth discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the ratcheting assembly comprises: a ratchet arm (94) having a plurality of teeth (102) and connected to the base (36A), FIG. 4B; and a button (104) carried by the trigger (36B) for engaging the teeth of the ratchet arm (col. 8 / lines 20-40).
As to claim 4, Roth discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the ratcheting assembly further comprises an inner arm (30) received in the base, FIGS. 1A and 3A, and configured to bias the trigger into an open position (via abutment with spring 50, col. 6 / lines 61-65).
As to claim 6, Roth discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the ratcheting assembly further comprises: a connecting link (58) connected to a distal end of the inner arm, FIG. 3C; a push rod (46) connected to a distal end of the connecting link (col. 7 / lines 14-18); and a linkage (pivot pin that attaches jaw 114) connected to a distal end of the push rod, shown for example in FIG. 6.
As to claim 7, Roth discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the jaw is connected to the linkage.
As to claim 9, Roth discloses the device of claim 4, further comprising a biasing member (50) disposed between a proximal end of the inner arm and the base for biasing the trigger into the open position (col. 6 / lines 61-65), FIGS. 1A and 3A.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY L KAMIKAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-7276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:30 PM.
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, Kevin Truong, can be reached at 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 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.
/TRACY L KAMIKAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights