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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 15-25 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.
Regarding claims 16-19 and 23, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 15, 17, and 19 the phrase "for instance" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For examination purposes, all “such as” and “for instance” limitations will be omitted from the claim interpretation.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beale et al. (US 20090261536 A1) (hereon referred to as Beale).
Regarding claim 1, Beale teaches a mounting component (1600) for connecting a surgical procedural element to another element (see Figs. 16-17), the mounting component comprising:
a. a mount body (1600) provided at an end of the another element or at the end of the surgical procedural element (1700); wherein:
i. the mount body (1600) has a first end and a second end, the mount body has a longitudinal axis, the first end being spaced from the second end along the longitudinal axis (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 below),
ii. the mount body has a first surface profile section, the first surface profile section including a first radial profile considered perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
507
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
459
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
iii. the mount body has a second surface profile section, the second surface profile section being closer to the second end of the mount body than the first surface profile section, the second surface profile section including a second radial profile considered perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and parallel to the first radial profile (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above);
iv. wherein the second surface profile section is at least partially defined by one or more alignment elements and the second radial profile has a different radial profile to the first radial profile surface due to the presence of the one or more alignment elements (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
374
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 1, wherein the second surface profile section has a different radial profile to the first surface profile section surface (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above) due to the presence of the one or more alignment elements and the one or more alignment elements reduce the different radial profile in those parts of the second surface profile section for which they are present (see the labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above, wherein the inward protrusion of the alignment elements is circled).
Regarding claim 3, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 2, wherein the one or more alignment elements extend radially inward (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above).
Regarding claim 4, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 3, wherein the alignment elements are provided in a regular pattern around the second surface profile section (note that proximal end 1704 of the tool is a rectangular shape and configured to fit into the second surface profile, see Para. [0070] and Para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 4, wherein an intermediate area is provided between two alignment elements within the second surface profile section, the intermediate area being an area where the different radial profile is different to the different radial profile where an alignment element is present (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
374
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 5, wherein one or more or all, of the alignment elements have the same radial profile as each other (see Para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 6, wherein one or more or all, of the alignment elements have a different radial profile at two or more different axial positions (note that the radial profile of the alignment elements is different based on where you measure on the alignment element, as the elements have a tapered profile. This creates a different radial profile at different axial positions, see Para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 7, wherein one or more or all, of the alignment elements have a non-constant cross-sectional profile considered along a first part of the longitudinal axis (see Para. [0069]), the first part of the longitudinal axis with the non-constant cross-section being closer to the first surface profile section than a second part of the longitudinal axis where the cross-section is considered (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above).
Regarding claim 9, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 8, wherein the non-constant cross-section along a first part of the longitudinal axis defines an alignment element transition part of the second surface profile section (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 below).
Regarding claim 10, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 9, wherein the second surface profile section defines an alignment element transition part (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 below).
Regarding claim 11, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 10, wherein the alignment element transition part provides one or more abutment surfaces for one or more alignment elements (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
486
635
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
374
494
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 11, wherein one or more or all, of the alignment element transition parts may include a first abutment surface inclined in one direction and a second abutment surface inclined in a second direction (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above).
Regarding claim 13, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 10, wherein a first direction of inclination and/or a second direction of inclination of one or more alignment element transition parts includes a component of the incline which is towards the second end of the mount and/or a component axially along the mount body (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
497
494
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 10, wherein an alignment element transition part is inclined in a first direction which is anticlockwise about a central axis and/or the another alignment element transition part is inclined in a second direction which is clockwise about a central axis (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above).
Regarding claim 15, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 10, wherein an alignment element transition part is provided with a further inclination direction (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above).
Regarding claim 16, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 10, wherein a first alignment element transition part is angled relative to a second alignment element transition part (see labelled diagram of Fig. 17 above).
Regarding claim 18, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 10, wherein one or more or all of the alignment element transition parts are angled relative to a longitudinal axis by an angle (see Para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, Beale teaches a mounting component according to claim 18, wherein the angle is 45 +/-15 degrees (see Para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 24, Beale teaches a kit, the kit comprising:
a) one or more surgical procedural elements (power tool, see Para. [0028]);
b) one or more another elements (1700);
wherein at least one of the surgical procedural elements or at least one of the further elements is provided with a mounting component according to any of claims 1 to 20 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 25, Beale teaches a kit according to claim 24, wherein the kit includes a plurality of surgical procedural elements each provided with the same mounting component as each other and/or the kit includes a plurality of another elements each provided with the same mounting component as each other (note that a plurality of surgical procedural elements may be used, see Paras. [0028-0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY J LANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/H.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773