DETAILED ACTION
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 responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) received on 13 April 2026. Claims 1 and 6-11 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 April 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeVahn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0215865) in view of in view of Fowler, Jr. (U.S. Patent 5,785,649), further in view of Nestor et al. (U.S. Patent 4,099,521).
Regarding claims 1, 6-7 and 10, LeVahn et al. disclose (as to part of claim 1) a hook arrangement (210) for a medical retraction system (200) having an elongated fixation arrangement (230) for connecting the hook arrangement to a retractor frame (202) of a medical retraction system (200), wherein the fixation arrangement has a plurality of at least virtually spherical or ball-shaped bulges (232, see Note below regarding the term “virtually”); and a hook element (212), wherein the hook element has on a first side (214) a hook (i.e. hook defined by 214, see Figure 12) and on a second side (i.e. side defining 218/220/222) has a connection mechanism (i.e. mechanism defined by 218/220/222), via which the hook element is detachably connectable or connected to the fixation arrangement (see paragraph 0045), wherein the connection mechanism has an opening (i.e. opening defined by 218/220/220, 226 and 228), via which a section of the fixation arrangement can be introduced into the connection mechanism (see paragraph 0045), and wherein the opening has an at least virtually circular section (i.e. section defining 228, see Note below regarding the term “virtually”) and an at least virtually slot-shaped section (i.e. section of 218/220/220 located above 226, see Figure 12 and Note below regarding the term “virtually”), and wherein the opening is capable of permit passage therethrough of at least one virtually spherical or ball-shaped bulge of the plurality of at least virtually spherical or ball-shaped bulges (i.e. 232 is fully capable of passing through the at least virtually slot-shaped section of 218/220/222), wherein (as to claim 6) the fixation arrangement has an extension mechanism (234), via which the fixation arrangement is detachably connectable or connected to (i.e. via 204) an extension arrangement (202), wherein (as to claim 7) the hook arrangement is part of a medical retraction system (see paragraph 0044) having a retractor frame (i.e. frame defined by multiple instances of 202); and at least one hook arrangement (210), and wherein (as to claim 10) the at least one hook arrangement is connectable via the respective fixation arrangement detachably to (i.e. via the interaction between 204 and 232/234) the retractor frame (see Figures 1-14, and paragraphs 0021-0053).
LeVahn et al. disclose various fixation arrangement embodiments formed by either by a flexible (i.e. 48, 130, 132, 230, and 270 are disclosed as being flexible) and/or an elastic material (i.e. 48, 130, and 132 are disclosed as being elastic) and the importance being that the fixation arrangement is not rigid (see paragraph 0030); however, fail to explicitly disclose wherein (as to part of claim 1) the fixation arrangement (i.e. 230) is formed by an elastic material.
Fowler, Jr. teach the use of a hook arrangement (33) for a medical retraction system (see Figure 8) having an elongated fixation arrangement (34); and a hook element (11), wherein the fixation arrangement is formed by an elastic material (see column 4, lines 48-62) (see Figures 5-8, and column 4, lines 44-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the invention of LeVahn et al. with wherein the fixation arrangement is formed by an elastic material in view of Fowler, Jr. in order to provide an alternative, well-known and obvious fixation arrangement material having elastic capability for holding tissue relative to a frame to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
LeVahn et al. in view of Fowler, Jr. disclose the claimed invention except for wherein (as to the remainder of claim 1) the hook element is formed by a rigid material.
Nestor et al. teach the use of a hook arrangement (i.e. arrangement defined by 35 and 36/37/38/39) for a medical retraction system (i.e. system as best seen in Figure 2), having an elongated fixation arrangement (35) capable of connecting the hook arrangement to a retractor frame (22) of a medical retraction system (i.e. system as best seen in Figure 2); and a hook element (e.g. 38) formed by a rigid material (i.e. metal, see column 5, lines 13-15), wherein the hook element has on a first side (i.e. side defining 38c) a hook (38c) and on a second side (i.e. side defining 38b) has a connection mechanism (38b), via which the hook element is detachably connectable or connected to the fixation arrangement (see Figure 12, and column 5, lines 39-47), wherein the connection mechanism has an opening (38b), via which a section (35b) of the fixation arrangement can be introduced into the connection mechanism (see Figure 12, and column 5, lines 39-47) (see Figures 2 and 9-13, and column 3, line 4 – column 7, line 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the invention of LeVahn et al. in view of Fowler, Jr. with wherein the hook element is formed by a rigid material in view of Nestor et al. in order to provide a well-known, obvious hook element material capable of rigidly holding tissue relative to the medical retraction system to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, LeVahn et al. in view of Fowler, Jr. further in view of Nestor et al. disclose the claimed invention except for wherein (as to claim 8) the at least one hook arrangement has a plurality of hook arrangements, wherein a hook element of a first of the plurality of hook arrangements has a hook with a first hook shape and a hook element of a second of the plurality of hook arrangements has a hook with a second hook shape differing from the first hook shape, and wherein (as to claim 9) a plurality of hook elements is provided and a fixation arrangement of the at least one hook arrangement is detachably connectable via the connection mechanism optionally to one of the plurality of hook elements.
However, Nestor et al. teach wherein the at least one hook arrangement has a plurality of hook arrangements (i.e. arrangements defined by 35/36, 35/37, 35/38 and 35/39), wherein a hook element (e.g. 38) of a first of the plurality of hook arrangements (e.g. 35/38) has a hook (e.g. 38c) with a first hook shape (i.e. shaped as best seen in Figure 12) and a hook element (e.g. 36) of a second of the plurality of hook arrangements (e.g. 35/36) has a hook (e.g. hook defined by 36c and 36c) with a second hook shape (i.e. shape as best seen in Figure 10) differing from the first hook shape, and wherein a plurality of hook elements (i.e. 36, 37, 38 and 39) is provided and a fixation arrangement (35) of the at least one hook arrangement is detachably connectable via the connection mechanism optionally to one of the plurality of hook elements (i.e. it is an option for any instance of 35 to be detachably connected to any one of 36, 37, 38 and 39) (see Figures 2 and 9-13, and column 3, line 4 – column 7, line 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the invention of LeVahn et al. in view of Fowler, Jr. further in view of Nestor et al. with wherein the at least one hook arrangement has a plurality of hook arrangements, wherein a hook element of a first of the plurality of hook arrangements has a hook with a first hook shape and a hook element of a second of the plurality of hook arrangements has a hook with a second hook shape differing from the first hook shape, and wherein a plurality of hook elements is provided and a fixation arrangement of the at least one hook arrangement is detachably connectable via the connection mechanism optionally to one of the plurality of hook elements in view of the teachings of Nestor et al. in order to provide a versatile system for performing retraction functions given the operating site to yield predictable results.
Note: For examination purposes and in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “virtually” is being interpreted as for the most part; almost wholly; just about (definition retrieved from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeVahn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0215865) in view of in view of Fowler, Jr. (U.S. Patent 5,785,649) further in view of Nestor et al. (U.S. Patent 4,099,521), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Malley et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0186356).
LeVahn et al. in view of Fowler, Jr. further in view of Nestor et al. disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the rigid material is plastic.
O’Malley et al. teach the use of a hook arrangement (110) having a fixation arrangement (116) and a hook element (112), wherein the hook arrangement is formed by metal or plastic (see paragraph 0068) (see Figures 26-27, and paragraphs 0064-0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the invention of LeVahn et al. in view of Fowler, Jr. further in view of Nestor et al. with wherein the rigid material is plastic in view of O’Malley et al. in order to provide an alternative, well-known and obvious material for the retraction of tissue to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY E WAGGLE, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7110. The examiner can normally be reached TEAP: Monday - Friday (7:45am - 3:45pm).
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, Kevin Truong can be reached 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 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.
/LARRY E WAGGLE, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights