Detailed Action
This is the first office action on the merits for US application number 18/688,599.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant' s argument that the office action asserts that the pending claims lack a special technical feature and Applicant disagrees as Conte fails to disclose a portion of the new limitations of claim 1 (Remarks p. 6-7), Examiner notes this argument is unclear. That is, the previous office action was a restriction requirement based on unity of invention which requires unity of invention between each claimed invention for U.S. national stage applications, i.e. Applicant's initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371. However, Applicant has cancelled all non-elected independent claims, which leave only one pending independent claim, thus Applicant’s argument against that the pending claims lacking a special technical feature appears to be a mismatching of arguments to statutes and legal terminology. Further, the analysis of Conte relative to the amended claims is irrelevant to the restriction requirement. Finally, it has not been asserted that Conte discloses amended claim 1; thus, this argument is moot.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, the instrument of claims 1-7 and 12-15, in the reply filed on November 26, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, an English translation has not been received.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
As to claim 1, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for the coupling frame provided to “disperse a repulsive load generated during impacting in a circumferential direction” of lines 20-22. That is, the specification appears to be silent to such a disclosure; thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the coupling frame provided to “disperse a repulsive load generated during impacting in a circumferential direction” of lines 20-22. Examiner suggests cancelling “to disperse a repulsive load generated during impacting in a circumferential direction” or identifying where such is supported by Applicant’s original disclosure.
As to claim 1, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for each of the plurality of recesses “having a longitudinal direction parallel to the impacting direction” of lines 30-31. That is, the specification appears to be silent to such a disclosure; thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for each of the plurality of recesses “having a longitudinal direction parallel to the impacting direction” of lines 30-31. Examiner suggests amending as “having a longitudinal direction substantially parallel to the impacting direction”.
As to claim 3, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “a gripping part that grips the coupling part according to rotation of the grip” in line 9 that is in addition to the first portion and second portion of claim 1 lines 24-29. That is, the specification appears to be silent to such a disclosure; thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “a gripping part that grips the coupling part according to rotation of the grip” in line 9 that is in addition to the first portion and second portion of claim 1 lines 24-29. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to define a gripping portion comprising the first and second portion and amending claim 3 to clarify the intended function of the gripping portion.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-5 contain blurry lines, partially missing font, and what appears to be at least one missing portion of lines. For example, Fig. 2 appears to include an ‘13’ and ‘17’, however, part of the ‘1’ is missing for both. Similar font issue are readily apparent in Figs. 3-5. Fig. 5 appears to be missing part of lines that would define 157.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “protruding jaws” of paragraphs 56 and 57as provided in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “133” has been used to designate both a portion of the coupling part 13 adjacent the recesses 131 that is shown as a flange, lip, circumferential protrusion, or the like in Figs. 5 and 6 and “protruding jaws” in paragraphs 56 and 57.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “coverage” in paragraphs 58-60 as described in the specification that is part of the anchor in paragraph 59 and surrounds the knob in paragraph 60. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “157” has been used to designate both a portion of coupling part 13 as shown in Figs. 5 and 6 and a “coverage” in paragraphs 58-60 that is part of the anchor in paragraph 59 and surrounds the knob in paragraph 60.
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 “an alignment guide indicating an impacting direction” of claim 1 line 7, “the second portion protrudes from an inner surface of the leg” of claim 1 line 28, and “a gripping part that grips the coupling part according to rotation of the grip” of claim 3 line 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 should read “A surgical instrument[[,]] comprising:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claims 12 and 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Examiner suggests cancelling claims 12 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, 3, 5-7, and 12-15, the coupling frame provided to “disperse a repulsive load generated during impacting in a circumferential direction” of claim 1 lines 20-22 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification appears to be silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed and drawings do not comprise a scale to enable such a determination. Thus, the coupling frame provided to “disperse a repulsive load generated during impacting in a circumferential direction” of lines 20-22 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests cancelling “to disperse a repulsive load generated during impacting in a circumferential direction” or identifying where such is supported by Applicant’s original disclosure.
As to claim 1, 3, 5-7, and 12-15, each of the plurality of recesses “having a longitudinal direction parallel to the impacting direction” of claim1 lines 30-31 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification appears to be silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed and drawings do not comprise a scale to enable such a determination. Thus, each of the plurality of recesses “having a longitudinal direction parallel to the impacting direction” of lines 30-31 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending as “having a longitudinal direction substantially parallel to the impacting direction”.
As to claims 3 and 13, “a gripping part that grips the coupling part according to rotation of the grip” in claim 3 line 9 that is in addition to the first portion and second portion of claim 1 lines 24-29 appears to be new matter. That is, the specification appears to be silent to such a disclosure, such was not originally claimed and is not shown in the drawings. Thus, “a gripping part that grips the coupling part according to rotation of the grip” in line 9 that is in addition to the first portion and second portion of claim 1 lines 24-29 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to define a gripping portion comprising the first and second portion and amending claim 3 to clarify the intended function of the gripping portion.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 12-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “an alignment guide indicating an impacting direction” in line 7 relative to alignment guide 31 of paragraphs 62 and 63 and how Fig. 2 can be construed to have any portion of 31 indicating an impacting direction as such does not appear to be shown in alignment with the longest dimension of handle 17, which paragraph 61 discloses has a flat surface for application of a force/impaction. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “a coupling mechanism detachably coupled to the coupling part extending a predetermined distance from the alignment guide, the coupling mechanism of the anteversion guide being provided to be detachably coupled to the coupling part of the impactor,” in lines 8-11 and the intent of reciting that coupling mechanism detachably coupled to the coupling part and then reciting that the coupling mechanism provided capable of being detachably coupled to the coupling part. That is, it appears that if something is detachably coupled, then it is capable of being detachably coupled and that such repetition causes unnecessary confusion as to the scope of the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “a coupling mechanism detachably coupled to the coupling part extending a predetermined distance from the alignment guide
Claim(s) 1 recites/recite the limitation "one of the recesses” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or a lack of clarity regarding to which of the recited plurality such is intended to refer. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “fixed to one of the plurality of recesses”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “a first portion bent and extended inward from an end thereof” in line 24 and if ‘thereof’ is intended to refer to the first portion or the grip and if this “an end” is intended to be in addition to or in reference to the “an end” of the grip that protrudes inward in line 19 or how many ends of what structures are intended to be recited. Examiner is interpreting broadly and suggests amending lines 19 and 24 to clarify.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “when the coupling mechanism is coupled, the first portion being received in one of the recesses of the coupling part and the second portion protruding from an inner surface of the leg and contacts a surface of the coupling part,” in lines 27-29 and the mixing/switching of the tense of the verbs from is ‘coupled’ to ‘being’/’protruding’ to ‘contacts’ as well as the antecedence support for “one of the recesses of the coupling part” in lines 27-28. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “when the coupling mechanism is coupled, the first portion is received in one of the plurality of recesses of the coupling part and the second portion protrude[[ing]]es from an inner surface of the leg and contacts a surface of the coupling part”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “each of the plurality of recesses is formed as a continuous slot” in line 30 and support for the recesses 131 being formed as a slot where Fig. 8 appears to show recess 131a as a recess or a groove and not a slot as the terms are ordinarily used. Further, there appears to be no mention of such as a slot in the specification to support such and interpretation of ‘slot’. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein each of the plurality of recesses is formed as a continuous [[slot]]groove having a”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “configured to longitudinally receive ends of a pair of the grip to support an impacting load in the longitudinal direction” in lines 31-32 and the intended scope of “a pair of the grip” and if this is intended to refer multiple of the “a grip” of line 18 and the “an end” of line 19 and thus be a pair of “grips” and how that relates to “a grip that grips the coupling part” of line 18 or the intent of initially reciting a grip and later reciting a pair of grips within the same claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “a pair of grips that grip[[s]] the coupling part by applying force from a side of the coupling part, wherein ends of each of the pair of gripsare fixed to one of the recesses” in lines 18-19, “each of the grips comprising:” in line 23, and “configured to longitudinally receive the ends of [[a]]the pair of the grips to support an impacting load in the longitudinal direction, in lines 31-32”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to each of the plurality of recesses configured to “support an impacting load in the longitudinal direction” of lines 30-32 and how the disclosed recesses can be reasonably construed to be both parallel and support an impacting load and where support can be found for such and assertion. That is, as shown, for example in Fig. 4, it appears that an impacting load delivered to the left end of 17 would be transmitted through the device and the recesses are oriented such that their surfaces would experience a shear force with any contacting surfaces, but how that can be reasonably construed to “support an impacting load” is unclear and does not appear to be explained in the specification. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests and amending as, “each of the plurality of recesses “configured to longitudinally receive the ends of [[a]]the pair of the grips
Claim(s) 3 is/are unclear with regards to “the coupling frame is hinge coupled with the grip” in lines 1-2 that is in addition to the grip being hinge coupled in claim 1 line 26 and where support can be found for a total of two hinge couplings of the disclosed grip. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to a single hinged coupling and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 3 is/are unclear with regards to “an elastic member is provided between a second side of the grip and the coupling frame, so that the grip rotates by force applied thereto to engage with or disengage from the coupling part,” in lines 3-5 and the if the comma is a typographical error or if there is a phrase missing prior to ‘so that’ as well as the intended scope of ‘thereto’ and if such is intended to refer to the elastic member or the grip and how it can be reasonably construed that the elastic member is capable of causing the grip to engage or disengage from the coupling part as the disclosed elastic member 332 appears to be a simple spring in Fig. 6 that paragraph 67 discloses may transmit the force pressing the grip to restore the state of the grip by elastic force. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 5 is/are unclear with regards to “a part where the grip is hinge coupled” in lines 2-3 and if such intended to be in addition to or in reference to “a part where the grip is hinge coupled” of claim 1 line 26 and where support for an additional part as currently claimed can be found in the original disclosure. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “the coupling frame comprises a stop rod that extends a predetermined distance from [[a]]the part where the grip is hinge coupled”.
Claim(s) 6 and each of claims 12-15 is/are unclear with regards to “the body of the impactor extends forming a hollow” in lines 1-2 and the intended scope as paragraph 54 discloses that body 11 is a hollow tubular shape and in an unshown embodiment may extended without a hollow. This scope of this “hollow” is further unclear with regards to the additionally recited “interior of the body” in line 3. Review of Figs. 3 and 4 show body 11 as cannulated shaft that a rod/”anchor” 15 passes through. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to cannulated shaft or a body with a through bore that defines the “interior of the body” or the like and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling et al. (US 2019/0231446, hereinafter “Bowling”) in view of Beck et al. (US 2021/0169661, hereinafter “Beck”).
The claimed phrases “forming”, “formed”, and “forms” are being treated as product by process limitations; that is the product reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
As to claims 1 and 3, Bowling discloses a surgical instrument (Figs. 10-15C) comprising: an impactor (302, Figs. 10-12A and 15A-15C, ¶148) comprising: a body (306, 312, 286, 284, Figs. 10-12A and 15A-15C) provided capable of applying force to an acetabular cup (44, Fig. 10, ¶81) and having an end (284, Fig. 10, ¶224) thereof extending toward a first side of the acetabular cup (Fig. 10); and a coupling part (288) provided at a side of the body (Figs. 10, 12A, 12B, and 15A-15C, ¶148); and an anteversion guide (304, ¶s 115 and 131 disclose use to control the position and orientation of the end effector 40/tool 42, ¶s 119-122, 131-135, 151, and 225 disclose use to rotate the impactor while maintaining the trajectory) comprising: an alignment guide (290) indicating an impacting direction (in as much as Applicant’s, Fig. 10, ¶s 224 and 225); and a coupling mechanism (left portion of 304 as shown in Fig. 12B, 300, 364, 366, 298, 292, Figs. 12A-14) detachably coupled to the coupling part (Figs. 15A-15C) extending a predetermined distance from the alignment guide (Figs. 12B-14), a direction of force applied by the coupling mechanism to the coupling part forming a predetermined angle with an extension direction of the impactor (Fig. 12A); the coupling part formed along at least a portion of a circumference of the impactor while having a constant central angle from a center (Fig. 12B); the coupling mechanism comprising: a coupling frame (292, 366, Figs. 13 and 14) provided capable of surrounding at least a portion of the coupling part (Fig. 12B); and a grip (300) that grips the coupling part by applying force from a side of the coupling part (Fig. 12B), wherein an end of the grip protrudes inward (Figs. 12B-14); the coupling frame comprising a leg (366 and corresponding portion of 298, Fig. 12B) provided capable of partially enclosing an outer circumference of the coupling part (Fig. 12B) capable of dispersing a repulsive load generated during impacting in a circumferential direction (due to the shown structure, Fig. 12B); and the grip comprising: a first portion (see illustration of Fig. 12B) bent and extended inward from an end thereof (Figs. 12B-14); and a second portion (see illustration of Fig. 12B, Figs. 12B-14) whose inner surface extends straight between the first portion and a part (see illustration of Fig. 12B) where the grip is hinge coupled (Figs. 12B-14, ¶153 discloses that 374 rotatably supports 364 relative to 292), when the coupling mechanism is coupled, the first portion is received on the coupling part (see illustration of Fig. 12B, Figs. 12B-14) and the second portion protrudes from an inner surface of the leg (see illustration of Fig. 12B, Figs. 12B-14) and contacts a surface of the coupling part (see illustration of Fig. 12B, Figs. 12B-14), wherein the second portion extends beyond an inner surface of the leg to protrude toward the coupling part (Fig. 12B) and provides surface contact gripping to a surface of the coupling part (Fig. 12B). As to claim 3, Bowling discloses that the coupling frame is hinge coupled with the grip (Figs. 12A, 12B, 15B, and 15C), an elastic member (380, Figs. 13 and 14, ¶153) is provided between a second side of the grip and the coupling frame (Figs. 13 and 14, ¶153) so that the grip rotates by force applied thereto capable of engaging with or disengage from the coupling part (in as much as Applicant’s, Figs. 12B-14, ¶153), and the grip comprises: a pressing part (see illustration of Fig. 12B) that is connected to the elastic member (Figs. 12B-14, ¶153) and transmits the force applied to the grip to the elastic member (Figs. 12B-14, ¶153); and a gripping part (in as much as Applicant’s first and second portions, Fig. 12B) that grips the coupling part according to rotation of the grip (Fig. 12B).
Bowling is silent to the coupling part comprising a plurality of recesses; the grip being a pair of grips; ends of each of the pair of grips are fixed to one of the plurality of recesses; when the coupling mechanism is coupled, the first portion is received in one of the plurality of recesses; and wherein each of the plurality of recesses is formed as a continuous groove having a longitudinal direction parallel to the impacting direction and configured to longitudinally receive the ends of the pair of the grips.
Beck teaches a similar surgical instrument (200, 244, Figs. 9-13, ¶64 discloses use of 200/244 in Fig. 13) comprising: an impactor (244) comprising: a body (246) provided capable of applying force to an acetabular cup (70, Fig. 13, ¶s 43 and 64) and having an end thereof extending toward a first side of the acetabular cup (Figs. 10, 11, and 13, ¶64); and a coupling part (254, Figs. 10 and 11, ¶61) provided at a side of the body (Figs. 10 and 11); and an anteversion guide (200) comprising: an alignment guide (16) indicating an impacting direction (Figs. 9-13); and a coupling mechanism (12) detachably coupled to the coupling part extending a predetermined distance from the alignment guide (14, Figs. 9-13, ¶39), a direction of force applied by the coupling mechanism to the coupling part forming a predetermined angle with an extension direction of the impactor (Figs. 10-12, ¶63); the coupling part comprising a plurality of recesses (208, Fig. 10, ¶61) formed along at least a portion of a circumference of the impactor while having a constant central angle from a center (Figs. 10-12, ¶s 61 and 63); the coupling mechanism comprising: a coupling frame (upper portion of 12 as shown in Fig. 9) provided to surround at least a portion of the coupling part (Figs. 9-12); and a pair of grips (18, 20, Fig. 9, ¶37) that grip the coupling part by applying force from a side of the coupling part (Figs. 9-11, ¶38), wherein ends of each of the pair of grips protrude inward and are fixed to one of the plurality of recesses (Fig. 9); each of the grips comprising: a first portion (202, 204) bent and extended inward from an end thereof (Fig. 9); and a second portion (portion of 18, 20 shown above 202, 204 in Fig. 9, Fig. 9) whose inner surface (26) extends between the first portion and a part where the grip is coupled (Fig. 9), when the coupling mechanism is coupled, the first portion is received in one of the plurality of recesses of the coupling part (¶62) and the second portion contacts a surface of the coupling part (¶62), wherein each of the plurality of recesses is formed as a continuous groove (Fig. 10) having a longitudinal direction parallel to the impacting direction (¶61) and capable of longitudinally receiving the ends of the pair of the grips (¶62), and the second portion protrudes toward the coupling part and provides surface contact gripping to a surface of the coupling part (¶62). As to claim 3, Beck teaches a gripping part (in as much as Applicant’s first and second portions, Figs. 9 and 12) that grips the coupling part according to rotation of the grip (Figs. 9-12).
Bowling discloses the claimed invention except that the coupling part and the first portion are smoothly contoured instead of comprising recesses and a first portion shaped to be received in one of the plurality of recesses. Beck shows that the coupling part and the first portion being smoothly contoured or comprising recesses and a first portion shaped to be received in one of the plurality of recesses are an equivalent structures known in the art, see Figs. 1-8 and 9-12. Therefore, because these two engagement structures were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute recesses and a first portion shaped to be received in one of the plurality of recesses for smoothly contoured surfaces. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the coupling part and the first portion as disclosed by Bowling by providing the coupling part with a plurality of recesses and modifying the first portion to be received in one of the plurality of recesses as taught by Beck in order to lock the guide to the impactor with an interference fit (Beck ¶52) as well as provide an index of rotation of the guide (Beck Fig 12, ¶63) the surgeon may use to select the angle based on individual preference, to adjust to patient anatomy, or for other reasons and thereafter have the guide remain positively locked to the impactor (Beck ¶63).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the grip and corresponding frame and supporting structures as disclosed by Bowling to be a pair of grips and support/accommodate a pair of grips as taught by Beck, since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and one would be motivated to do so in order to provide additional stability in a known configuration (Beck Figs. 9-12). That is, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the grip and corresponding frame and supporting structures as disclosed by Bowling to be a pair of grips and support/accommodate a pair of grips as taught by Beck in order to provide additional stability in a known configuration (Beck Figs. 9-12).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1066
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, the combination of Bowling and Beck discloses the invention of claim 3 as well as the coupling frame comprises a stop (wall of 292 that defines the side of the pocket 378 as shown in Fig. 13, e.g. the wall shown in Fig. 12B that 386 could potentially abut when rotated, Fig. 13) that extends a predetermined distance from the part where the grip is hinge coupled (Fig. 13), and the grip further comprises a stopper (wall of recess shown including aperture 372 in Fig. 14, Fig. 14) provided to surround at least a portion of the stop to limit the rotation of the grip (Fig. 14).
The combination of Bowling and Beck is silent to the stop comprising a stop rod.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the stop of Bowling as a stop rod, since Applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of limiting movement of the grip (Bowling Figs. 12B-14) while predicably containing the elastic member (Bowling Figs. 13 and 14, ¶153).
As to claims 6, 7, 12, and 14, the combination of Bowling and Beck discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as the body of the impactor (306, 312, 286, 284, Figs. 10-12A and 15A-15C) comprises an anchor (286, 284, Figs. 10-12A, ¶224) having an end (Fig. 12A) capable of engaging with the acetabular cup (284, Figs. 10-12A, ¶224), wherein the anchor comprises: a shaft (286); a tip end portion (right end of 284 as shown in Fig. 12A, Fig. 12A, ¶224) coupled to the acetabular cup at an end of the shaft (Fig. 12A, ¶224); and a knob (306) capable of rotating the shaft and the tip end portion (Fig. 12A).
The combination of Bowling and Beck is silent to the body of the impactor extends forming a hollow, the anchor at least partially extending through an interior of the body, the shaft extending within the body. As to claim 7, the combination of Bowling and Beck is silent to a plurality of through holes are formed along a circumference of the body.
Bowling, in an alternate embodiment, teaches a similar surgical instrument (Figs. 16A-28B) comprising: an impactor (502) comprising: a body (486, 596, 508, 510, 506, Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶159 and 160) provided capable of applying force to an acetabular cup (¶159) and having an end (596) thereof extending toward a first side of the acetabular cup (Fig. 17); and a coupling part (512) provided at a side of the body (Figs. 16A-17); and an anteversion guide (504, Fig. 17, ¶161) comprising: a coupling mechanism (right portion of 504 as shown in Fig. 18A, Fig. 18A) detachably coupled to the coupling part extending a predetermined distance from the alignment guide (Figs. 16A-28B); the coupling mechanism comprising: a coupling frame (Fig. 18A) provided capable of surrounding at least a portion of the coupling part (Fig. 17); and the coupling frame comprising a leg (494A, 494B/500) provided to partially enclose an outer circumference of the coupling part (Fig. 17); and a grip (630); wherein the body of the impactor extends forming a hollow (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶159), and the impactor further comprises an anchor (588, 602) at least partially extending through an interior of the body (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶s 159 and 160) and having an end (524) capable of engaging with the acetabular cup (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶160), wherein the anchor comprises: a shaft (588) extending within the body (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶s 159 and 160); a tip end portion (end of 524) coupled to the acetabular cup at an end of the shaft (Fig. 17, ¶160); and a knob (602) capable of rotating the shaft and the tip end portion (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶160). As to claim 7, Bowling, in an alternate embodiment, teaches that a plurality of through holes (Figs. 16A and 16B) are formed along a circumference of the body (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶159).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify body and anchor as disclosed by the combination of Bowling and Beck to be separate components as a body with through holes and an anchor extending within the body as taught by Bowling, in an alternate embodiment, in order to permit the acetabular cup to be indexed relative to the body which is advantageous when the acetabular cup has features that need to be aligned relative to the surgical site (Bowling ¶160) and facilitate releasable attachment between the acetabular cup and the impactor in that rotation and translation of the anchor relative to the body can be used to disengage the threaded engagement to the acetabular cup without also rotating the body (Bowling ¶160).
As to claim 13, the combination of Bowling and Beck discloses the invention of claim 3 as well as the body of the impactor (306, 312, 286, 284, Figs. 10-12A and 15A-15C) comprises an anchor (286, 284, Figs. 10-12A, ¶224) having an end (Fig. 12A) capable of engaging with the acetabular cup (284, Figs. 10-12A, ¶224), wherein the anchor comprises: a shaft (286); a tip end portion (right end of 284 as shown in Fig. 12A, Fig. 12A, ¶224) coupled to the acetabular cup at an end of the shaft (Fig. 12A, ¶224); and a knob (306) capable of rotating the shaft and the tip end portion (Fig. 12A).
The combination of Bowling and Beck is silent to the body of the impactor extends forming a hollow, the anchor at least partially extending through an interior of the body, the shaft extending within the body.
Bowling, in an alternate embodiment, teaches a similar surgical instrument (Figs. 16A-28B) comprising: an impactor (502) comprising: a body (486, 596, 508, 510, 506, Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶159 and 160) provided capable of applying force to an acetabular cup (¶159) and having an end (596) thereof extending toward a first side of the acetabular cup (Fig. 17); and a coupling part (512) provided at a side of the body (Figs. 16A-17); and an anteversion guide (504, Fig. 17, ¶161) comprising: a coupling mechanism (right portion of 504 as shown in Fig. 18A, Fig. 18A) detachably coupled to the coupling part extending a predetermined distance from the alignment guide (Figs. 16A-28B); the coupling mechanism comprising: a coupling frame (Fig. 18A) provided capable of surrounding at least a portion of the coupling part (Fig. 17); and the coupling frame comprising a leg (494A, 494B/500) provided to partially enclose an outer circumference of the coupling part (Fig. 17); and a grip (630); wherein the body of the impactor extends forming a hollow (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶159), and the impactor further comprises an anchor (588, 602) at least partially extending through an interior of the body (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶s 159 and 160) and having an end (524) capable of engaging with the acetabular cup (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶160), wherein the anchor comprises: a shaft (588) extending within the body (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶s 159 and 160); a tip end portion (end of 524) coupled to the acetabular cup at an end of the shaft (Fig. 17, ¶160); and a knob (602) capable of rotating the shaft and the tip end portion (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶160).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify body and anchor as disclosed by the combination of Bowling and Beck to be separate components as a body with through holes and an anchor extending within the body as taught by Bowling, in an alternate embodiment, in order to permit the acetabular cup to be indexed relative to the body which is advantageous when the acetabular cup has features that need to be aligned relative to the surgical site (Bowling ¶160) and facilitate releasable attachment between the acetabular cup and the impactor in that rotation and translation of the anchor relative to the body can be used to disengage the threaded engagement to the acetabular cup without also rotating the body (Bowling ¶160).
As to claim 15, the combination of Bowling and Beck discloses the invention of claim 5 as well as the body of the impactor (306, 312, 286, 284, Figs. 10-12A and 15A-15C) comprises an anchor (286, 284, Figs. 10-12A, ¶224) having an end (Fig. 12A) capable of engaging with the acetabular cup (284, Figs. 10-12A, ¶224), wherein the anchor comprises: a shaft (286); a tip end portion (right end of 284 as shown in Fig. 12A, Fig. 12A, ¶224) coupled to the acetabular cup at an end of the shaft (Fig. 12A, ¶224); and a knob (306) capable of rotating the shaft and the tip end portion (Fig. 12A).
The combination of Bowling and Beck is silent to the body of the impactor extends forming a hollow, the anchor at least partially extending through an interior of the body, the shaft extending within the body.
Bowling, in an alternate embodiment, teaches a similar surgical instrument (Figs. 16A-28B) comprising: an impactor (502) comprising: a body (486, 596, 508, 510, 506, Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶159 and 160) provided capable of applying force to an acetabular cup (¶159) and having an end (596) thereof extending toward a first side of the acetabular cup (Fig. 17); and a coupling part (512) provided at a side of the body (Figs. 16A-17); and an anteversion guide (504, Fig. 17, ¶161) comprising: a coupling mechanism (right portion of 504 as shown in Fig. 18A, Fig. 18A) detachably coupled to the coupling part extending a predetermined distance from the alignment guide (Figs. 16A-28B); the coupling mechanism comprising: a coupling frame (Fig. 18A) provided capable of surrounding at least a portion of the coupling part (Fig. 17); and the coupling frame comprising a leg (494A, 494B/500) provided to partially enclose an outer circumference of the coupling part (Fig. 17); and a grip (630); wherein the body of the impactor extends forming a hollow (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶159), and the impactor further comprises an anchor (588, 602) at least partially extending through an interior of the body (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶s 159 and 160) and having an end (524) capable of engaging with the acetabular cup (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶160), wherein the anchor comprises: a shaft (588) extending within the body (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶s 159 and 160); a tip end portion (end of 524) coupled to the acetabular cup at an end of the shaft (Fig. 17, ¶160); and a knob (602) capable of rotating the shaft and the tip end portion (Figs. 16A and 16B, ¶160).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify body and anchor as disclosed by the combination of Bowling and Beck to be separate components as a body with through holes and an anchor extending within the body as taught by Bowling, in an alternate embodiment, in order to permit the acetabular cup to be indexed relative to the body which is advantageous when the acetabular cup has features that need to be aligned relative to the surgical site (Bowling ¶160) and facilitate releasable attachment between the acetabular cup and the impactor in that rotation and translation of the anchor relative to the body can be used to disengage the threaded engagement to the acetabular cup without also rotating the body (Bowling ¶160).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 6-4.
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 or telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775