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 .
This action is in response to the Election/Restriction response filed on 03/19/2206. Claims 1-32 are pending. Claims 1, 12, 23, and 32 are independent. Claims 7-9, 19, 20, 28, 29, and 32 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (Claims 1-31) in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 32 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/2026.
Applicant’s election of Species B (Figures 8, 9, and 11-15) in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7-9, 19, 20, 28, and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 22, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 9, the limitation “to for crimp” should be amended to --to crimp--
Claim 22, lines 1-2, the limitation “an alignment fiduciary associated one jaw” should be amended to --an alignment fiduciary associated with one jaw--.
Claim 31, lines 1-2, the limitation “an alignment fiduciary associated one jaw” should be amended to --an alignment fiduciary associated with one jaw--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a mechanism, cooperating with the stop, for adjusting the extent of travel of the crossbar for crimp tube deformation” in claim 1 in claim and “a mechanism, cooperating with the stop and configured to adjust the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm to for crimp tube deformation” in claim 12. Based on the specification (PGPub, Paras. [0012] and [0015]), the mechanism in each of claims 1 and 12 is a dial, a button, or a wheel.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.\
Furthermore, the limitation “means for adjusting the gap between the jaws when the first and second handles close” properly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by meeting the 3-prong test. Based on the specification (PGPub, Para. [0020]), the means is a button or a wheel.
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 3-5, 11, 15-18, 22, 27 and 31 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 3 recites the limitation "the dial" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
- Claim 11 recites the limitation "an alignment fiduciary" in each of lines 1 and 2 of the claim. However, a fiduciary is a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another. Therefore, it is unclear what "an alignment fiduciary" is.
- Claim 15 recites the limitation "the dial" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
- Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one jaw" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
- Claim 22 recites the limitation "an alignment fiduciary" in each of lines 1 and 2 of the claim. However, a fiduciary is a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another. Therefore, it is unclear what "an alignment fiduciary" is.
- Claim 27 recites the limitation "the at least one jaw" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
- Claim 31 recites the limitation "an alignment fiduciary" in each of lines 1 and 2 of the claim. However, a fiduciary is a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another. Therefore, it is unclear what "an alignment fiduciary" is.
The art rejection(s) below is/are made as best understood by the examiner because of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) stated above.
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)(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) 12, 18, 21-23, 27, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (CN 218960819).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Ma discloses an adjustable medical/veterinary suture crimp tool (knotting clamp, Fig. 3; see also Para. [0064]) comprising: a first arm (arm made up of first clamp handle 22 connected to second clamp head 212, Figures 3 and 19; see also Para. [0064]) having a proximal first handle (first clamp handle 221, Figures 3 and 19) and a distal first jaw for crimping a crimp tube (second clamp head 212, Figures 3-5b and 19); a second arm pivotably coupled to the first arm (arm made up of remaining clamp handle 22 connected to first clamp head 211, Figures 3 and 19; see also Para. [0064]) and having a proximal second handle (second grip handle 222, Fig. 3) and a distal second jaw for crimping the crimp tube (first clamp head 211, Figures 3-5b and 19); a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm (limiting rod 225, Fig. 15; see also Paras. [0083] and [0085]-[0086], as the use of stop lever 225 is the same as stop protrusion 223, which is noted to limit the clamping angle of clamp handle 22); and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop and configured to adjust the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm for crimp tube deformation (limiting adjusting groove made up of clamping grooves 224 and limiting rod sliding channels 226, Figures 15-16a; see also Paras. [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood, Ma discloses the crimp tool of claim 12 in which at least one jaw includes an upwardly extending nose extension (Figures 3-4, as tooth forming portion 232 extends upwardly).
Regarding Claim 21, Ma discloses the crimp tool of claim 12 in which the first jaw (second clamp head 212, Figures 3-5b and 19) has across its width and extending at least partially along its length spaced fixed crimp members including at least first, second, and third crimp members (protrusions of tooth forming portion 232 and blade mounting groove 2324, Fig. 14) and the second jaw (first clamp head 211, Figures 3-5b and 19) has a cross its width and extending at least partially along its length spaced crimp members including at least fourth, fifth, and sixth crimp members opposing, respectively the first, second, and third crimp members of the first jaw (protrusions and indentations of groove forming portion 231 and blade mounting groove 2324, Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 22, as best understood, Ma discloses the crimp tool of claim 12 further includes an alignment fiduciary associated one jaw for alignment within an alignment fiduciary of a crimp tube (positioning piece 2313, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 23, Ma discloses an adjustable/medical veterinary suture crimp tool (knotting clamp, Fig. 3; see also Para. [0064]) comprising: a first arm (arm made up of first clamp handle 22 connected to second clamp head 212, Figures 3 and 19; see also Para. [0064]) having a proximal first handle (first clamp handle 221, Figures 3 and 19) and a distal first jaw for crimping a crimp tube (second clamp head 212, Figures 3-5b and 19); a second arm pivotably coupled to the first arm (arm made up of remaining clamp handle 22 connected to first clamp head 211, Figures 3 and 19; see also Para. [0064]) and having a proximal second handle (second grip handle 222, Fig. 3) and a distal second jaw for crimping the crimp tube (first clamp head 211, Figures 3-5b and 19); a stop setting a gap between the jaws when the first and second handles close (limiting adjusting groove made up of clamping grooves 224 and limiting rod sliding channels 226, Figures 15-16a; see also Paras. [0085]-[0086]); and means for adjusting the gap between the jaws when the first and second handles close (limiting rod 225, Fig. 15; see also Paras. [0083] and [0085]-[0086], as the use of stop lever 225 is the same as stop protrusion 223, which is noted to limit the clamping angle of clamp handle 22).
Regarding Claim 27, as best understood, Ma discloses the crimp tool of claim 23 in which at least one jaw includes an upwardly extending nose extension (Figures 3-4, as tooth forming portion 232 extends upwardly).
Regarding Claim 30, Ma discloses the crimp tool of claim 23 in which the first jaw (second clamp head 212, Figures 3-5b and 19) includes at least first, second, and third crimp members (protrusions of tooth forming portion 232 and blade mounting groove 2324, Fig. 14) and the second jaw (first clamp head 211, Figures 3-5b and 19) includes at least fourth, fifth, and sixth crimp members opposing, respectively, the first, second, and third crimp members of the first jaw (protrusions and indentations of groove forming portion 231 and blade mounting groove 2324, Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 31, as best understood, Ma discloses the crimp tool of claim 23 further includes an alignment fiduciary associated with one jaw for alignment within an alignment fiduciary of a crimp tube (positioning piece 2313, Fig. 7).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12-14, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Pub. No.: 2021/0015479) in view of Kerboul et al. (US Pat. No.: 9,931,127).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith discloses an adjustable medical/veterinary suture crimp tool (tool 80, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as a tool 80 may be used to engage the male blade and suture female components) comprising: a stationary jaw at a distal end of fixed shank (fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10); a moveable jaw at a distal end of a linearly driven crossbar for deforming a crimp tube located between the stationary jaw and the moveable jaw (sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as sliding jaw 82 moves relative to fixed jaw 84 to drive the male blade member deeper into the female suture component); a first handle connected to a fixed shank (handle extending from fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10); a second handle pivotably connected to the fixed shank and configured to drive the crossbar linearly with respect to the fixed shank to crimp the crimp tube (remaining handle connected to fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as the male blade and suture female components crimp the suture as sliding jaw 82 moves relative to fixed jaw 84). However, Smith fails to explicitly disclose a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the crossbar; and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop, for adjusting the extent of travel of the crossbar for crimp tube deformation.
Kerboul is in the field of endeavor (adjustable rongeurs), and teaches a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of a crossbar (opening selection actuator 70, Figures 1-2; see also col. 3, Ins. 31-35, as a length of cutting opening 60 reflects the travel of crossbar 50 relative to shank 40); and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop, for adjusting the extent of travel of the crossbar (limiting portion 36, Fig. 3; see also col. 4, Ins. 44-69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the adjustable medical/veterinary suture crimp tool of Smith to further include a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the crossbar; and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop, for adjusting the extent of travel of the crossbar for crimp tube deformation, as taught by Kerboul, the motivation being that such a configuration provides substantial benefits to medical professionals utilizing the apparatus, as it provides means for adjustment, preventing the need for switching instruments, which often results in delays and heightened complexities in performing the surgical techniques due to the instrument selection interruptions(Kerboul, col. 4, Ins. 27-38).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Smith discloses the crimp tool of claim 1. Smith fails to explicitly disclose that the stop is on the fixed shank.
Kerboul is in the field of endeavor (adjustable rongeurs), and teaches a stop (opening selection actuator 70, Figures 1-2) on a fixed shank (Fig. 1, as opening selection actuator 70 is positioned at the proximal end 42 of shank 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the crimp tool of Smith to further include that the stop is on the fixed shank, as taught by Kerboul, the motivation being that such a configuration provides substantial benefits to medical professionals utilizing the apparatus, as it provides means for adjustment, preventing the need for switching instruments, which often results in delays and heightened complexities in performing the surgical techniques due to the instrument selection interruptions (Kerboul, col. 4, Ins. 27-38).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Smith discloses an adjustable medical/veterinary suture crimp tool (tool 80, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as a tool 80 may be used to engage the male blade and suture female components) comprising: a first arm (arm including fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) having a proximal first handle (handle extending from fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) and a distal first jaw for crimping a crimp tube (fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045]); a second arm pivotably coupled to the first arm (arm including sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10) and having a proximal second handle (remaining handle connected to fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) and a distal second jaw for crimping the crimp tube (sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045]). Smith fails to explicitly disclose a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm; and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop and configured to adjust the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm for crimp tube deformation.
Kerboul is in the field of endeavor (adjustable rongeurs), and teaches a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of a first arm relative to a second arm ( opening selection actuator 70, Figures 1-2; see also col. 3, Ins. 31-35, as a length of cutting opening 60 reflects the travel of crossbar 50 relative to shank 40); and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop and configured to adjust the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm (limiting portion 36, Fig. 3; see also col. 4, Ins. 44-69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the adjustable medical/veterinary suture crimp tool of Smith to further include a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm; and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop and configured to adjust the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm for crimp tube deformation, as taught by Kerboul, the motivation being that such a configuration provides substantial benefits to medical professionals utilizing the apparatus, as it provides means for adjustment, preventing the need for switching instruments, which often results in delays and heightened complexities in performing the surgical techniques due to the instrument selection interruptions (Kerboul, col. 4, Ins. 27-38).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Smith discloses the crimp tool of claim 12 in which the first arm includes a fixed shank terminating in the first jaw (arm including fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) and the second arm includes a linearly driven crossbar terminating in the second jaw (arm including sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Smith discloses the crimp tool of claim 13. Smith fails to explicitly disclose that the stop is on the fixed shank.
Kerboul is in the field of endeavor (adjustable rongeurs), and teaches a stop (opening selection actuator 70, Figures 1-2) on a fixed shank (Fig. 1, as opening selection actuator 70 is positioned at the proximal end 42 of shank 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the crimp tool of Smith to further include that the stop is on the fixed shank, as taught by Kerboul, the motivation being that such a configuration provides substantial benefits to medical professionals utilizing the apparatus, as it provides means for adjustment, preventing the need for switching instruments, which often results in delays and heightened complexities in performing the surgical techniques due to the instrument selection interruptions (Kerboul, col. 4, Ins. 27-38).
Regarding Claim 23, Smith discloses an adjustable/medical veterinary suture crimp tool (tool 80, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as a tool 80 may be used to engage the male blade and suture female components) comprising: a first arm (arm including fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) having a proximal first handle (handle extending from fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) and a distal first jaw for crimping a crimp tube (fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045]); a second arm pivotably coupled to the first arm (arm including sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10) and having a proximal second handle (remaining handle connected to fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) and a distal second jaw for crimping the crimp tube (sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045]). Smith fails to explicitly disclose a stop setting a gap between the jaws when the first and second handles close; and means for adjusting the gap between the jaws when the first and second handles close.
Kerboul is in the field of endeavor (adjustable rongeurs), and teaches a stop setting a gap between jaws when first and second handles close opening selection actuator 70, Figures 1-2; see also col. 3, Ins. 31-35, as a length of cutting opening 60 reflects the travel of crossbar 50 relative to shank 40); and means for adjusting the gap between the jaws when the first and second handles close (limiting portion 36, Fig. 3; see also col. 4, Ins. 44-69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the adjustable/medical veterinary suture crimp tool of Smith to further include a stop setting a gap between the jaws when the first and second handles close; and means for adjusting the gap between the jaws when the first and second handles close, as taught by Kerboul, the motivation being that such a configuration provides substantial benefits to medical professionals utilizing the apparatus, as it provides means for adjustment, preventing the need for switching instruments, which often results in delays and heightened complexities in performing the surgical techniques due to the instrument selection interruptions (Kerboul, col. 4, Ins. 27-38).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Smith discloses the crimp tool of claim 23. Smith fails to explicitly disclose that the stop is located on a fixed shank of the first arm.
Kerboul is in the field of endeavor (adjustable rongeurs), and teaches a stop (opening selection actuator 70, Figures 1-2) located on a fixed shank of a first arm (Fig. 1, as opening selection actuator 70 is positioned at the proximal end 42 of shank 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the crimp tool of Smith to further include that the stop is located on a fixed shank of the first arm, as taught by Kerboul, the motivation being that such a configuration provides substantial benefits to medical professionals utilizing the apparatus, as it provides means for adjustment, preventing the need for switching instruments, which often results in delays and heightened complexities in performing the surgical techniques due to the instrument selection interruptions (Kerboul, col. 4, Ins. 27-38).
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Pub. No.: 2021/0015479) in view of Michelson (US Pat. No.: 8,241,290).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith discloses an adjustable medical/veterinary suture crimp tool (tool 80, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as a tool 80 may be used to engage the male blade and suture female components) comprising: a stationary jaw at a distal end of fixed shank (fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10); a moveable jaw at a distal end of a linearly driven crossbar for deforming a crimp tube located between the stationary jaw and the moveable jaw (sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as sliding jaw 82 moves relative to fixed jaw 84 to drive the male blade member deeper into the female suture component); a first handle connected to a fixed shank (handle extending from fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10); a second handle pivotably connected to the fixed shank and configured to drive the crossbar linearly with respect to the fixed shank to crimp the crimp tube (remaining handle connected to fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as the male blade and suture female components crimp the suture as sliding jaw 82 moves relative to fixed jaw 84). Smith fails to explicitly disclose a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the crossbar; and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop, for adjusting the extent of travel of the crossbar for crimp tube deformation.
Michelson is in the field of endeavor (surgical instruments with closeable jaws), and teaches a stop (stop pin 60, Fig. 2) configured to limit the extent of travel of a crossbar ( col. 9, Ins. 4-7, as moving handle 30 proximally slides drive member 20 distally; see also col. 9, Ins. 35-42); and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop, for adjusting the extent of travel of the crossbar (button assembly 70, Fig. 2; see also col. 11, Ins. 37-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the medical/veterinary suture crimp tool of Smith to further include a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the crossbar; and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop, for adjusting the extent of travel of the crossbar, as taught by Michelson, the motivation being that such a configuration provides a means of controlling the range of proximal to distal motion of a sliding member of the tool, allowing more control of engagement and release of the end elements of the device (Michelson, col. 6, Ins. 23-29 and col. 11, Ins. 37-39).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Smith discloses the crimp tool of claim 1 in which at least one jaw includes an upwardly extending nose extension (Fig. 10, as the end of fixed jaw 84 extends upwardly).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Smith discloses the crimp tool of claim 1 in which the stationary jaw at the distal end of the fixed shank has across its width and extending at least partially along its length spaced fixed crimp members (structures of the female suture component 46, Fig. 9A; see also Paras. [0043] and [0045], as sliding jaw 82 moving relative to fixed jaw 84 drives a male blade member deeper into the female suture component) including at least first, second, and third crimp members (members of female component 46 that extend up around suture ends 10a and 10b, Fig. 9A) and the movable jaw at the distal end of the linearly driven crossbar has across its width and extending at least partially along its length, spaced crimp members (members of male blade member 40, Fig. 9A; see also Paras. [0043] and [0045], as sliding jaw 82 moving relative to fixed jaw 84 drives a male blade member deeper into the female suture component) including at least fourth, fifth, and sixth crimp members opposing, respectively the first, second, and third crimp members of the stationary jaw (members of male blade member 40 that extend to form suture clamps 32a, 32b).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Smith discloses the crimp tool of claim 10 further includes an alignment fiduciary associated with said fifth crimp member of the stationary jaw for alignment with an alignment fiduciary of a crimp tube (suture gripping features 72a, 72b, Fig. 9A).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Smith discloses an adjustable medical/veterinary suture crimp tool (tool 80, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045], as a tool 80 may be used to engage the male blade and suture female components) comprising: a first arm (arm including fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) having a proximal first handle (handle extending from fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) and a distal first jaw for crimping a crimp tube (fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045]); a second arm pivotably coupled to the first arm (arm including sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10) and having a proximal second handle (remaining handle connected to fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) and a distal second jaw for crimping the crimp tube (sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10; see also Para. [0045]). Smith fails to explicitly disclose a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm; and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop and configured to adjust the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm for crimp tube deformation.
Michelson is in the field of endeavor (surgical instruments with closeable jaws), and teaches a stop (stop pin 60, Fig. 2) configured to limit the extent of travel of a first arm relative to a second arm (col. 9, Ins. 4-7, as moving handle 30 proximally slides drive member 20 distally; see also col. 9, Ins. 35-42); and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop, and configured to adjust the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm (button assembly 70, Fig. 2; see also col. 11, Ins. 37-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the adjustable medical/veterinary suture crimp tool of Smith to further include a stop configured to limit the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm; and a mechanism, cooperating with the stop and configured to adjust the extent of travel of the first arm relative to the second arm for crimp tube deformation, as taught by Michelson, the motivation being that such a configuration provides a means of controlling the range of proximal to distal motion of a sliding member of the tool, allowing more control of engagement and release of the end elements of the device (Michelson, col. 6, Ins. 23-29 and col. 11, Ins. 37-39).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Smith discloses the crimp tool of claim 12 in which the first arm includes a fixed shank terminating in the first jaw (arm including fixed jaw 84, Fig. 10) and the second arm includes a linearly driven crossbar terminating in the second jaw (arm including sliding jaw 82, Fig. 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 24, and 26 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.
Claim 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and 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.
US 20130041379 A1 Bodor; Peter Pal et al. discloses a surgical rongeur release mechanism.
US 20130150861 A1 AGBODOE; VICTOR B. discloses a ronger with detachable tip.
US 5484441 A Koros; Tibor et al. discloses a rongeur surgical instrument.
US 5569258 A Gambale; Charles E. discloses a laminectomy rongeur.
US 6126674 A Janzen; Peter discloses surgical sliding shaft instrument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING RUI OU whose telephone number is (571)270-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am -5:00pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/JING RUI OU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights