DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed January 21, 2026. By that amendment, claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 were amended. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 January 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is argued that newly added limitations to claim 1 are not present in the Schmid et al. (US 4,280,359) reference. Examiner is of the position that a slight shifting of which components are referred to as reading upon certain structures in the Schmid reference results in all claimed limitations continuing to be present.
Examiner considers the comments and disagrees that the elements alleged to be missing are not present. Examiner re-writes the rejection, below, to identify each limitation of the amended claim.
The rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US 4,280,359) in view of Bittenson (US 2013/0261681 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schmid teaches an orthopedic surgical instrument as at figs. 1 and 2 (there being no reason the device cannot be used for orthopedic surgery) arranged and configured to transmit a forward energy, the orthopedic surgical impactor comprising:
a housing 1;
a motor 2 positioned within the housing 1;
a power supply 7 configured to supply power to the motor 2;
a trigger assembly 6 configured to activate the motor 2; and
a mechanical mechanism as at fig. 2 for converting rotary motion from the motor 2 to reciprocating linear motion of a sliding hammer 23 so that the sliding hammer 23 contacts an impact surface of 8, the mechanical mechanism including a swashplate 20/4 and a wobble shaft 17. The wobble shaft 17 includes a first end and a second end (top of 17 is the first end; bottom of 17 within the groove 18 is the bottom end – see marked up figure), the second end disposed at an angle relative to a central axis of the first end such that the first and second ends are non-axially aligned. The second end of 17 includes a shaft portion at 18 capable of engaging with an internal bore 20 of the swashplate 20/4.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schmid fails to teach the preamble limitation of transmitting a “forward and a reverse” energy.
Bittenson teaches an arrangement which makes an impactor capable of transmitting a forward and a reverse energy as seen at the forward and rearward facing coupling structures (e.g. 104/106) formed at opposed ends of the housing 102. Depending on which end of the housing a tool is coupled to will affect in which direction the force transmitted to the tool is provided. A clear demonstration of these different directions of forces relative to a tool coupled thereto can be seen by comparing the force arrows seen in figs. 6C and 6D.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the Schmid structure with a second coupling structure formed in the region 5 of the housing, in a direction opposed to the structure 8. This second coupling structure would provide for a reverse transmission of energy to an attachment coupled thereto upon impaction of 23 against 8. This would function in the same manner as Bittenson’s teachings of tools coupled to the structures 104/106 to provide forward/reverse energy. Such an arrangement would make the Schmid device useful with different shaped and configured tool attachments.
Regarding claim 2, the motor 2 includes an output shaft 10, the output shaft 10 is coupled to the wobble shaft 17 (via pinion 12), the wobble shaft 17 is coupled to the swashplate 20/4, the swashplate 20/4 is coupled to the sliding hammer 23 so that, in use, rotation of the motor 2 rotates the output shaft 10, which rotates the wobble shaft 17, which converts the rotation into linear motion of the sliding hammer 23 via interaction of the wobble shaft 17 and the swashplate 20/4.
Regarding claim 3, the first end (top) of the wobble shaft 17 is coupled to the output shaft 10 of the motor 2 (at pinion 12), the second end of 17 is coupled to the swashplate 20/4 at 18/20. (17 is considered to be coupled to the pinion 12 by virtue of connection through the portion 17’).
Regarding claim 4, an alternative interpretation of the wobble shaft can be taken for rejecting this claim: Referring now to 17’ as the wobble shaft, 17’ has a first portion (down in fig. 2) and a second portion (up in fig. 2) at an off-axis angle. The first end of the wobble shaft 17’ includes an internal cavity 13 (e.g. between gear teeth being considered a ‘cavity’) arranged and configured to receive the output shaft 10 of the motor (12 and 13 interacting).
Regarding claim 5, the internal bore (interior of the ring member 20) is arranged and configured to receive the shaft portion of the second end of the wobble shaft at 18.
Regarding claim 6, the swashplate 20/4 includes an intermediate ball bearing assembly disposed between an inner surface of the internal bore of the swashplate and an outer surface of the second end of the wobble shaft – see embodiments at fig. 8 and 9 which demonstrate ring 20 including ball bearings for engagement with wobble shaft 17.
Regarding claim 7, the swashplate 20/4 includes a leg 21 extending therefrom, the leg being operatively coupled to the sliding hammer 23.
Regarding claim 8, the sliding hammer 23 is part of an internal hammer assembly including the sliding hammer 23, an impact mechanism housing 22, and a coupling mechanism 24/26.
Regarding claim 9, the impact mechanism housing 22 is coupled to an end of the motor 2 – 22 and other structures are all coupled together into a unitary construct with the motor at the end on which the pinion is present, as in fig. 2.
Regarding claim 10, the impact mechanism housing 22 includes a longitudinal slot formed in an outer surface thereof, the longitudinal slot arranged and configured to enable the leg 21 of the swashplate 20/4 to extend therethrough so that the leg 21 can operatively engage the sliding hammer 23 via the coupling mechanism 24/26 – as can be seen in fig. 2, 21 is passing through a slot formed in 22 to reach to 26.
Regarding claim 11, the coupling mechanism 24/26 is a plunger 24 and a pin 26.
Regarding claim 12, the device includes a distal connector 8 including a coupling mechanism (e.g. chuck) including an internal cavity arranged and configured to receive a surgical tool (col. 4, lines 5-10), the coupling mechanism further including a pair of spring-loaded fingers to be capable of engaging the surgical tool:
No additional structure to the ‘spring loaded fingers’ is provided by Schmid, so the chuck of 8 is understood to be a typical chuck. Without the claim providing any additional structures, examiner sees no reason that fingers within a standard chuck (e.g. jaws of a collet) cannot be said to be being spring loaded arms. It is the spring loading of the jaws against the tool (e.g. loading in the form of a leaf spring) which functions to retain the tool and prevent release of the chuck.
This is a rejection which can be easily overcome by providing nearly any additional structure of the coupling mechanism.
Once a single alternative is shown to be met, no further alternative is considered.
Regarding claim 13, the device includes a control mechanism at pinion 28 arranged to adjust the forward energy. (e.g. by rotating, or not, the tool).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. in view of Bittenson and Pedicini (US 2019/0183555 A1).
Regarding claims 13-15, in an alternative interpretation, a controller in the form of a microprocessor will now be combined with the combination device. The combination device suggests the invention of claim 1.
Pedicini teaches an orthopedic impactor including a controller 21 which is used to control the motor to affect stroke, power, frequency, and direction of the impacts [0076]. Pedicini teaches use of the controller to provide different modes of operation including a full swing (e.g. single impact; adjustable energy); flutter or oscillating (variable and varying direction, force and frequency) [0045].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination device to include a computerized controller as in Pedicini in order to improve the application of force to a particular item being struck by the impactor. One would have done so to improve ergonomics of the tool; and to provide the tool with additional capabilities as compared to a simple hammering tool.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-6PM
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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571)272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights