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 without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spring” of Claim 5, “slide system or ratchet system” of claim 7, and “notches and recesses” of Claim 8 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “is” in line 6 should be changed to “are”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 and 21 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.
The term “substantially contracted state” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially contracted” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the term “substantially contracted” will be regarded as any positioning less than fully expanded.
Regarding Claim 21, it is unclear what is meant by “omega-shaped” in reference to the biasing element. In the specification, the “omega-shaped” refers to a curved spring, however, a spring element is not shown in the drawings as described above and therefore this description does not lend clarity to the claim. For the purpose of examination, any open-curved element will be considered “omega-shaped.”
All Claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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, 3, 5-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MAHABOB (US 2024/0390108 A1, hereinafter “Mahabob”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15 -17, and 21, Mahabob discloses a retractor (abstract) comprising a controlling handle portion (Figure 1, portion below fastener 7) comprising an omega shaped biasing element (handles 9 and 10 in combination with spring 5), a first elongated gripping member (elongated member extending from element 9), and a second elongated gripping member (other elongated member extending from element 10), where each elongated gripping member extends monolithically from or is attached to the omega shaped biasing element (as seen in Figure 1). Mahabob further discloses a soft tissue retracting portion (Figure 1 above fastener 7) comprising a first arm (arm extending from member 9) and a second arm (arm extending from member 10), where each arm has a proximal section comprising elongated extension members that extend from or are attached to one of the elongated gripping members of the controlling handle portion (as seen in Figure 1, the arms extend from the elongated gripping members) and a distal section comprising a first soft tissue retracting member (2) and a second soft tissue retracting member (4) that is configured to contact and retract tissue (as seen in Figure 1), where the controlling handle portion and the soft tissue retracting portion are configured such that the soft tissue retracting members are positioned in a substantially contracted state in relation to each other by a biasing force of the biasing element when the retractor is not in use but expandable in angular relation to each other when the first and second elongated gripping members are pressed towards each other (as described in [0024]). Mahabob further discloses that the first soft tissue retracting member is longer than the second soft tissue retracting member (Figure 1 where 2 is longer than 4), that the first soft tissue retracting member includes a buccal shelf contour, a retromolar pad contour, and a labial vestibule extension (arm 2 is capable of retracting and contacting the buccal shelf, retromolar pad, and labial vestibule extension – please note: as no structure has been assigned to these elements, and portion of arm 2 can be assigned as the contours and extensions as claimed), and that the second soft tissue retracting member includes a glossal hood, a retromylohyoid fossas extension, and a lingual vestibule extension (arm 4 is capable of retracting and contacting the glossal hood, retromylohyoid fossa, and lingual vestibule - please note: as no structure has been assigned to these elements, and portion of arm 4 can be assigned as the contours and extensions as claimed).
Regarding Claim 3, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the biasing element has a curved shape (as seen in Figure 1, elements 9 and 10 are curved).
Regarding Claim 5, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the biasing element is in a form of a spring (5, where spring is considered part of the biasing elements).
Regarding Claim 6, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses finger pads or rests on both elongated gripping members (as the fingers are able to rest on the elongated gripping members, they can be considered finger rests).
Regarding Claim 7, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the elongated extension members are provided with a slide system or ratchet system for locking the elongated gripping members in place (serrated lock 6 provides elongated extension members with a system for locking by locking the elongated gripping members in place).
Regarding Claim 8, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the elongated extension members are provided with notches and recesses for locking the elongated gripping members at a selected angle (notches and recesses in 6 lock the elongated gripping members at a selected angle).
Regarding Claim 9, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the elongated extension members or the soft tissue retracting members are provided with protrusions or tabs to act as stops against the biasing force exerted by the biasing element (tabs from elongated extension members that unite at element 7 would act as a stop when fastener is tightened).
Regarding Claim 10, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the soft tissue retracting members has a range of expandable angular displacement of about 10 to about 110 degrees (as seen in Figure 1, when expanded, the retracting members would have an angular displacement within this range).
Regarding Claim 11, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the retractor is in a form of a unitary structure (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the retractor is manufactured from metals or polymeric materials ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 13, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that the retractor is autoclavable ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 14, Mahabob discloses the retractor according to claim 1, and further discloses that at least the soft tissue retracting member is disposable (as any tool can be thrown away, it is disposable).
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.
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahabob in view of Smith et al. (US 2023/0157532 A1, hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding Claim 2, Mahabob discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose that the extension members intersect in an overlaid, scissor configuration. In the similar art of medical retractors, Smith discloses a biased retractor with an intersection of extension members (Figure 2, 18a and 18b) in an overlaid, scissor configuration (at 13a and 13b, extension members 18a and 18b are seen overlaid upon each other). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the intersection of the extension members of Smith with an overlaid structure as taught by Smith in order to provide a secure connection that would be stable to lateral forces.
Regarding Claim 4, Mahabob in view of Smith discloses the invention of Claim 2, and Mahabob further discloses that the biasing element has a generally arch-or C-shape (Figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772