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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species D in the reply filed on January 13th, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6-8:
Claims 1, 2, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allard (U.S. Patent 7,766,918).
Allard discloses a device (for example see Figure 1) comprising:
(claim 1) a handle (100, 200, 300, etc.)
(claim 1) a groove (portion of 122 that extends into handle 100; column 6 lines 52-64) in the handle (see Figures 1 and 5)
(claim 2) wherein the groove of the handle is located on an exterior surface of the handle and extends along a longitudinal axis of the device
(claim 1) a trial head (110 and 210)
(claim 1) wherein the trial head is removably coupled to the handle
(claim 1) wherein the trial head is configured for insertion into a disc space
(claim 8) a trial head groove (portion of 122 in element 110) is configured to guide the blade component along the trial head groove
(claim 1) a blade component (500; for example see Figure 5)
(claim 1) wherein the blade component is movably coupled to the handle
(claim 1) wherein the groove is configured to guide the blade along the groove of the handle
(claim 2) wherein the groove is configured to guide the blade component along the longitudinal axis
(claim 6) wherein the blade component is configured to extend beyond the trial head when the trial head is inserted into the disc space to cut a surface at least partially defines the disc space (the blade is capable of being extended beyond the trial head)
(claim 7) a depth stop (410) configured to prevent over-travel of the blade component
(claim 7) wherein the depth stop is coaxial (a broad definition of coaxial is sharing a common axis, therefore elements aligned relative to a shared axis can be interpreted as coaxial) with the handle, the trial head, and the blade component (the depth stop is aligned along a similar axis with the handle, the trial head, and the blade)
Regarding claim 9:
Allard discloses a device (for example see Figure 1) comprising:
(claim 9) a handle (100, 200, 300, etc.) including
(claim 9) a groove (portion of 122) along an outer surface of the handle
(claim 9) a trial head (110 and 210)
(claim 9) wherein the trial head is removably coupled to the handle and configured for insertion into a disc space
(claim 9) a blade component (500)
(claim 9) wherein the blade component is slidably coupled to the handle
(claim 9) wherein the groove is configured to guide the blade component along the groove
(claim 9) a depth stop
(claim 9) wherein the depth stop is configured to define a cutting depth of the blade with respect to a surface that at least partially defines the disc space
(claim 9) wherein the depth stop, the handle, the trial head, and the blade component are coaxial along a longitudinal axis of the device (the elements are aligned along a similar longitudinal axis of the device)
(claim 10) wherein the depth stop includes
(claim 10) a depth stop post (410)
(claim 10) a drive shaft (400, 420, etc.)
(claim 10) wherein the drive shaft is coupled to the depth stop post and configured to drive movement of the depth stop post (column 5 line 12 to column 6 line 51)
(claim 11) wherein the drive shaft is configured to rotate about an axis of rotation of the drive shaft to move the depth stop post axially along the axis of rotation (thumbwheel 450 rotates about an axis of rotation of the drive shaft to move element 410)
(claim 12) the limitations of claim 12 are optional and are therefore not required to be disclosed by the prior art
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allard (U.S. Patent 7,766,918) in view of Fischer (U.S. Patent 7,749,271).
The device of Allard discloses the device as claimed, see above, except for the depth stop post being positioned between the handle and the trial head. Fischer teaches a device (for example see Figures 1 and 2) comprising a handle (14), a trial head (24), and a depth stop including a drive shaft (82) and a depth stop post (76), wherein the depth stop post is positioned between the handle and the trial head. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Allard wherein the depth stop post is positioned between the handle and the trial head in view of Fisher, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (U.S. Patent 7,749,271) in view of Allard (U.S. Patent 7,766,918).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-8:
Fisher discloses a device (for example see Figures 1-3) comprising:
(claim 1) a handle (14 and 18)
(claim 1) a trial head (24)
(claim 1) wherein the trial head is removably coupled to the handle (end 52 is disclosed as being screwed to element 34 of the trial head)
(claim 1) wherein the trial head is configured for insertion into a disc space
(claim 1) a blade component (112 and 116)
(claim 1) wherein the blade component is movably coupled to the handle
(claim 3) wherein the blade component includes
(claim 3) a shaft portion (116) configured to at least partially enclose the handle (116 at least partially encloses element 18)
(claim 4) wherein the shaft portion defines a cavity and the handle is inserted into the cavity
(claim 3) a blade portion (112) extending from the shaft portion
(claim 6) wherein the blade component is configured to extend beyond the trial head when the trial head is inserted into the disc space to cut a surface that at least partially defines the disc space (the blade element is fully capable of performing this function)
(claim 7) a depth stop (74, 76, etc.)
(claim 7) wherein the depth stop is configured to prevent over-travel of the blade component
(claim 7) wherein the depth stop is coaxial with the handle, the trial head, and the blade component (the depth stop is aligned along a similar axis with the handle, the trial head, and the blade)
Fischer discloses the invention as claimed except for the handle including a groove. Allard teaches a device (for example see Figures 1-5) comprising a handle (100, 200, 300, etc.), a trial head (110, 210, etc.), a blade component (500), and a depth stop (400, 410, etc.), wherein the handle further comprises a groove (portion of 122 on 100) on an outer surface of the handle coaxial with a groove of the trial head portion (portion of 122 on 110) in order to guide the blade component along the handle and the trial head (column 6 lines 52-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Fisher wherein the handle further includes a groove along an outer surface in view of Allard in order to guide the blade component along the handle.
Regarding claims 9-13:
Fisher discloses a device (for example see Figures 1-3) comprising:
(claim 9) a handle (14 and 18)
(claim 9) a trial head (24)
(claim 9) wherein the trial head is removably coupled to the handle (distal end 52 is disclosed as being capable of being screwed to element 34 of the trial head)
(claim 9) wherein the trial head is configured to be inserted into a disc space
(claim 13) wherein the trial head assembly is removably coupled to the handle by a trial head shaft (18)
(claim 9) a blade component (112 and 116)
(claim 9) wherein the blade component is slidably coupled to the handle (elements 112 and 116 are slid over shaft 18)
(claim 9) a depth stop (74, 76, etc.)
(claim 9) wherein the depth stop is configured to define a cutting depth of the blade with respect to a surface that at least partially defines a disc space
(claim 9) wherein the depth stop, the handle, the trial head, and the blade component are coaxial along a longitudinal axis of the device (the depth stops 74, 76, etc. are aligned relative to the same longitudinal axis as the other elements)
(claim 10) wherein the depth stop includes
(claim 10) a depth stop post (76) positioned between the handle and the trial head
(claim 10) a drive shaft (82, 84, etc.) coupled to the depth stop
(claim 10) wherein the drive shaft is configured to drive movement of the depth stop post
(claim 11) wherein the drive shaft is configured to rotate about an axis of rotation of the drive shaft to move the depth stop post axially along the axis of rotation (the depth stop posts move along the axis of rotation; this limitation does not require them to move on the axis of rotation)
(claim 12) wherein an aperture defined by the handle may receive a portion of the drive shaft (shaft 82 passes through shaft 18; this limitation is optional, but is shown in the prior art)
(claim 13) wherein the drive shaft extends through an aperture defined by the trial head shaft
Fischer discloses the invention as claimed except for the handle including a groove. Allard teaches a device (for example see Figures 1-5) comprising a handle (100, 200, 300, etc.), a trial head (110, 210, etc.), a blade component (500), and a depth stop (400, 410, etc.), wherein the handle further comprises a groove (portion of 122 on 100) on an outer surface of the handle in order to guide the blade component along the handle (column 6 lines 52-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Fisher wherein the handle further includes a groove along an outer surface in view of Allard in order to guide the blade component along the handle.
Claims 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (U.S. Patent 7,749,271) in view of Allard (U.S. Patent 7,766,918) and in view of Grinberg (U.S. Publication 2006/0084986).
Fischer discloses a device (for example see Figures 1-3) comprising:
(claim 14) a handle (14 and 16)
(claim 14) a trial head (24)
(claim 14) wherein the trial head is removably coupled to the handle (element 52 of shaft 18 is disclosed as being screwed to element 34 of trial head 24)
(claim 17) wherein trial head includes
(claim 17) a trial head shaft (34)
(claim 14) a blade component (112 and 116)
(claim 14) wherein the blade component is movable coupled to the handle
(claim 14) wherein the blade component at least partially encloses the handle (elements 112 and 116 slide over shaft 18)
Fischer discloses the invention as claimed except for the handle including a groove and wherein the trial head is coupled to the handle by a latch mechanism.
Regarding the handle including a groove, Allard teaches a device (for example see Figures 1-5) comprising a handle (100, 200, 300, etc.), a trial head (110, 210, etc.), a blade component (500), and a depth stop (400, 410, etc.), wherein the handle further comprises a groove (portion of 122 on 100) on an outer surface of the handle in order to guide the blade component along the handle (column 6 lines 52-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Fischer wherein the handle further includes a groove along an outer surface in view of Allard in order to guide the blade component along the handle.
Regarding the trial head being coupled to the handle by a latch mechanism, the device of Fischer as modified by Allard discloses a device wherein the trial head includes a trial head shaft coupled to the handle via a coupling mechanism, such as by a threaded connection, in order to removably couple the trial head to the handle. Grinberg discloses a device comprising a trial head (110) including a trial head shaft (114) and a handle (318) removably coupled to the trial head via a coupling mechanism, wherein the coupling mechanism includes a latching mechanism having a pair of latches (see Figure 3) coupled to the handle which are biased to engage respective fingers (128) on opposing sides of the trial head shaft in order to removably couple the trial head to the handle. Because both the device of Fischer as modified by Allard and the device of Grinberg disclose device comprising a coupling mechanism between a handle and a trial head shaft in order to removably couple the trial head to the handle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one coupling mechanism for the other in order to achieve the predictable results of removably coupling the trial head to the handle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references the examiner felt were relevant to the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Woodall whose telephone number is (571) 272-5204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571. 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.
/NICHOLAS W WOODALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775