DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed May 27, 2026. Claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 were amended. Claims 2-5, 7, 10-12, 15 and 16 were canceled. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 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
The outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome by the amendments of May 27, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026, regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Biedermann et al. (US 2017/0056194 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments are based on amended claim language. Examiner reviews the amended claims and takes the position that the prior art includes the claimed features.
Applicant helpfully identifies the flats on the cylindrical part and spherical part of the instant device, which flats are now required to be parallel to one another, in the claim language, and identifies usefulness of such structures.
Applicant then states that Biedermann’s device does not have flats of the claimed structure in the previously identified body. While examiner ultimately agrees, examiner wishes to first point to orthogonally oriented flats seen in fig. 3A between 56 and 56’ orthogonally oriented relative to element 61. Examiner sees no reason that these flats cannot convey the same information to a user of the tool as applicant’s flats. However, examiner agrees these are not parallel to the flats 61.
Disagreement arises at the section at page 6 of the remarks where applicant identifies flat surfaces on the sleeve about the instrument, but discounts these flats as not being a part of the body. Examiner sees no reason, as presently claimed, that the sleeve cannot be considered a part of the body of the instrument, and takes the position that the sleeve does include flats in the claimed locations.
Examiner agrees that the cited flats are not for the same purpose as applicant’s flats but disagrees that such use is required by the claims.
Examiner having taken this position updates his rejection, below, to correlate to the amended claim language. Examiner identifies how the Biedermann reference reads on every limitation of claim 1 and identifies the flats which read on the elements argued to be missing.
The rejection is respectfully maintained, as modified to correlate to the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biedermann et al. (US 2017/0056194 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Biedermann teaches a surgical instrument extraction device, the extraction device 50 as in fig. 1, the extraction device comprising:
a body 51/54;
a first mounting location formed in the proximal end of the body (at the threads where 60 is mounted onto 51 [0078]);
a second mounting location seen in fig. 3A formed in the distal end of the body 51/54, wherein the second mounting location includes an engagement element 53 capable of use for an inferred surgical instrument to be extracted in use, the engagement element 53 having (i) one or more part spherical surface sections 57 and (ii) a pair of opposing side flats 61; and
a cylindrical part 54 formed in the body 51/54 and positioned between the first mounting location at the threads where 60 is mounted and the engagement element 53 of the second mounting location, the cylindrical part 54 having a pair of opposing flats formed therein 81, wherein the each of the pair of opposing flats 81 of the cylindrical part 54 is parallel to a respective one of the pair of opposing flats of the engagement element (there are four rotational positions of 53/61 relative to 54 which result in this limitation being met).
Regarding claim 6, the one or more part spherical surface sections 57 lie on a common sphere.
Regarding claim 8, the pair of opposing side flats 61 of the engagement element 53 extend parallel to the longitudinal axis L of the extraction device 50 (as seen clearly in figs. 1 and 3A).
Regarding claim 9, the engagement element 53 has the profile of a sphere with one or more spherical caps removed as seen at fig. 3A.
Regarding claim 13, the body 51/54 includes a body portion 63 and an includes an elongate portion 56/56’/52, together with a transition portion seen clearly in fig. 3B therebetween that connects the body portion 63 to the elongate portion 56/56’/52.
Regarding claim 14, the first mounting location at the threads receiving 60 is adapted to connect the extraction device to the distal end of a tool (the nut 60).
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