DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on March 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of claims
Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 21-25 have been withdrawn from consideration due to be directed to a nonelected invention, see above.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, Examiner proposes renaming the limitation “a locking or engaging bar” to read as either “a locking bar” or “an engaging bar” for clarity within the claims.
In claim 12, the period that appears after “according to claim 9” should be replaced with a comma.
In claim 13, the limitation “a second socket portion” should be corrected to read --[[a]] the second socket portion-- as the second socket portion is already defined within claim 1.
In claim 17, the limitation “the receiving profile” should be corrected to read --the at least one receiving profile-- as such is how the limitation is defined within claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a rotation of the release actuator relative to the socket about the engagement axis moves the locking collar relative to the engagement axis” in lines 5-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the socket” within the claims. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to refer to either one or both of the first and second socket portions defined earlier in the claim, or if Applicant is intending to define a new limitation. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the limitation is directed to both the first and second socket portions and will interpret the above limitation as reading as: “wherein a rotation of the release actuator relative to the first socket portion and the second socket portion about the engagement axis moves the locking collar relative to the engagement axis”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the release collar forming an exterior engagement surface of the release actuator configured to receive an external force causing the rotation”. It is unclear form the language of claim 3 what “the rotation” is referring to, as nothing within claim 3 is being claimed or described as rotating. Examiner does recognize that claim 1 defines of “rotation of the release actuator”. Thus, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the rotation being referred to is that of the release actuator and will interpret the above limitation as reading as: “the release collar forming an exterior engagement surface of the release actuator configured to receive an external force causing the rotation of the release actuator”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the rotation of the sleeve engages the ramp translating the locking collar within the socket”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the sleeve” and “the socket” within the claim. Examiner does recognize that claim 4 defines of “a sleeve” within the claim. Thus, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that claim 5 depends from claim 4. Further, with regard to the limitation “the socket”, it is unclear if Applicant is intending to refer to either one or both of the first and second socket portions that are defined in claim 1, or if Applicant is intending to define a new limitation within the claim. When referring to the drawings of the instant application, it can be seen that the locking collar (40) is disposed within a lateral opening (86) of the second socket portion (14b). As such, Examiner will interpret that the locking collar translates within the second socket portion. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 5 as reading as:
“The coupling apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the release collar forms an engagement surface forming a ramp that varies in a radial distance about the engagement axis in response to the rotation, and wherein second socket portion”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the rotary element” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to refer to the “roller” defined in claim 3, or if Applicant is intending to define a new limitation within the claim. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the rotary element refers to the roller and will interpret said limitation as reading as “the roller”.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the locking collar is disposed in a lateral opening formed in the socket and the at least one (translational) spring is interposed between the socket and the locking collar”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the socket” within the claims. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to refer to either one or both of the first and second socket portions that are defined in claim 1, or if Applicant is intending to define a new limitation within the claim. When referring to the drawings of the instant application, it can be seen that the locking collar (40) is disposed within a lateral opening (86) of the second socket portion (14b). As such, Examiner will interpret the socket as reading as “the second socket portion”. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the at least one (translational) spring”. Also, it is unclear why the word “translational” is in parentheses. It is unclear if the word “translational” is intending to describe a functionality of the spring or not. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 8 as reading as:
“The coupling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the locking collar is disposed in a lateral opening formed in the second socket portion and second socket portion and the locking collar”.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the first socket portion is formed proximal to a receiving opening formed by the receiving coupler and the second socket portion is formed distal of the first socket portion”. When viewing the figures of the instant application, it can be seen that the receiving coupler (12) has a receiving opening (74). Further, it can be seen that the second socket portion (14b) is formed proximal to the receiving opening, not the first socket portion (see Fig. 2, 4A-B). Thus, in light of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear how the “first socket portion is formed proximal” to the receiving opening. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the second socket portion is formed proximal to the receiving opening and will interpret claim 14 as reading as:
“The coupling apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the second socket portion is formed proximal to a receiving opening formed by the receiving coupler and the second socket portion is formed distal of the first socket portion”.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the first socket portion comprises a rotational alignment surface configured to rotationally align the drive head about the engagement axis and the second socket portion comprises a cylindrical opening uniformly about the engagement axis”. When viewing the figures of the instant application, it can be seen that the rotational alignment surface (34b) is formed on the second socket portion and the cylindrical opening (72) is formed in the first socket portion (14a, see Fig. 4A-B). Thus, in light of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear how “the first socket portion comprises a rotational alignment surface” and how “the second socket portion comprises a cylindrical opening”. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the second socket portion comprises the rotational alignment surface and the first socket portion comprises the cylindrical opening and will interpret claim 15 as reading as:
“The coupling apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the second socket portion comprises a rotational alignment surface configured to rotationally align the drive head about the engagement axis and the first socket portion comprises a cylindrical opening uniformly about the engagement axis”.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the rotational alignment surface diverges from a tangential alignment about the engagement axis restricting a rotation of the drive head relative to the socket about the engagement axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the socket” within the claims. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to refer to either one or both of the first and second socket portions defined in claim 1, or if Applicant is intending to define a new limitation. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the limitation is directed to both the first and second socket portions and will interpret the above limitation as reading as: “wherein the rotational alignment surface diverges from a tangential alignment about the engagement axis restricting a rotation of the drive head relative to the first socket portion and the second socket portion about the engagement axis”.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9-13, 17-20 are rejected as they all depend from one of the above rejected 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweitzer et al. (US 2021/0322081; hereinafter Sweitzer).
Regarding claim 1, Sweitzer discloses a coupling apparatus (10) for a surgical tool (see Abstract) comprising:
a receiving coupler comprising a first socket portion (see Annotated Fig. 1 below) and a second socket portion (see Annotated Fig. 1) forming at least one receiving profile (88) aligned with a rotational engagement axis of a drive head (see axis ‘A’ in Fig. 4A-B, drive head 14);
a locking collar (42) interposed between the socket portions (see Annotated Fig. 1); and
a release actuator (36) in connection with the locking collar (as they are both connected within the receiving coupler), wherein a rotation of the release actuator relative to the first socket portion and the second socket portion about the engagement axis moves the locking collar relative to the engagement axis (see [0088]-[0094] discussing how rotation of the release actuator allows for the pressing of the locking collar to lock/engage and unlock/disengage with the drive head 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
995
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Sweitzer discloses wherein the movement of the locking collar (42) in response to the rotation of the release actuator (36) moves a locking surface (62 Fig. 12B) of the locking collar away from the engagement axis (the rotation of the release actuator 36 allows for movement of the locking collar 42, which moves locking surface 80 away from the engagement axis, see [0088]-[0094] and Fig. 5D vs Fig. 7B and 12B-C).
Regarding claim 3, Sweitzer discloses of further comprising a roller (46) disposed between a release collar (38) and the locking collar (42; see Fig. 4C showing rollers 46 positioned, i.e. disposed between the release collar and locking collar), the release collar forming an exterior engagement surface (118) of the release actuator configured to receive an external force causing the rotation of the release actuator (engagement surface 118 receives force from 120 of the release actuator, causing the rotation of the release collar and the release actuator, see Fig. 13B-14 and [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Sweitzer discloses wherein the locking collar (42) is biased into a locking configuration by at least one spring (60, see [0051]) and impinges on the at least one receiving profile (springs 60 bias the locking configuration to retain drive head 14 within the receiving profile, i.e. they impinge on the receiving profile).
Regarding claim 8, Sweitzer discloses wherein the locking collar (42) is disposed in a lateral opening (see lateral opening in Fig. 3A) formed in the second socket portion (the lateral opening is a part of the second socket portion seen in Annotated Fig. 1) and at least one spring (60) is interposed between the second socket portion and the locking collar (see Fig. 4C and Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Sweitzer discloses wherein the locking collar (42) forms a locking surface (62 Fig. 12B) that engages a locking groove (80) formed in an exterior engagement surface of the drive head (14, see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 10, Sweitzer discloses wherein the locking groove (80) comprises a retention feature formed by the receiving coupler between the socket portions, and the locking collar (42) forms a complementary engagement feature (retention feature is the outer surface of the locking groove which is engaged with surface 62, i.e. complementary engagement feature, of the locking collar).
Regarding claim 12, Sweitzer discloses wherein at least one of the first socket portion and the second socket portion are configured to receive the exterior engagement surface of the drive head (see exterior surface of the drive head 14 received within both the first and second socket portions in Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 13, Sweitzer discloses wherein at least one of the first socket portion and the second socket portion comprises an interior alignment surface that engages a rotational alignment surface of the drive head and rotationally orients the drive head to the receiving coupler (interior alignment surface is the interior surface of 88 of the second socket portion which engages with surface 82 of the drive head and limits undesired rotation, i.e. rotationally orients the drive head to the receiving portion, see [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the second socket portion is formed proximal to a receiving opening formed by the receiving coupler (see receiving opening in Annotated Fig. 2 below, which is a part of the second socket portion) and the second socket portion is formed distal to the first socket portion (see the first and second socket portions distal to one another in Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
736
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 15, Sweitzer discloses wherein the second socket portion comprises a rotational alignment surface (internal surface of 88 of the second socket portion) configured to rotationally align the drive head (see [0055]) about the engagement axis and the first socket portion comprises a cylindrical opening (30) uniformly about the engagement axis (‘A’, see Fig. 4A-C).
Regarding claim 16, Sweitzer discloses wherein the rotational alignment surface diverges from a tangential alignment about the engagement axis (‘A’) restricting a rotation of the drive head relative to the socket about the engagement axis (the rotational alignment surface, which is the internal surface of 88 of the second socket portion, can be a number of polygonal shapes in order to complement 82 of the drive head and restrict rotation of the drive head, as stated in [0055], thus, due to the polygonal shape of the rotational alignment surface, it will diverge from a tangential alignment about the engagement axis).
Regarding claim 17, Sweitzer discloses wherein the rotational alignment surface comprises at least one interior flat defining the at least one receiving profile and configured to receive a corresponding exterior flat formed by an engaging profile of the drive head (the rotational alignment surface, which is the internal surface of the receiving profile 88, can be a number of polygonal shapes in order to complement 82 of the drive head and restrict rotation of the drive head, as sated in [0055], thus, due to the polygonal shape of the rotational alignment surface, it will have interior flats that correspond and engage with exterior flats of an engaging profile 82 of the drive head).
Regarding claim 18, Sweitzer discloses wherein the rotational alignment surface comprises a plurality of alignment surfaces azimuthally distributed about the engagement axis (the rotational alignment surface, which is the internal surface of the receiving profile 88, can be a number of polygonal shapes in order to complement 82 of the drive head and restrict rotation of the drive head, as sated in [0055], thus, due to the polygonal shape of the rotational alignment surface, there will be a plurality of alignment surfaces azimuthally distributed about the engagement axis).
Regarding claim 19, Sweitzer discloses wherein the drive head is in connection with a rotary tool comprising at least one of a chuck, a drill, a driver, and a rotary tool accessory adapter (drive head 14 connects with an implant extraction tool, i.e. a drill, see [0003]).
Regarding claim 20, Sweitzer discloses wherein the receiving coupler is in connection with a rotary tool configured to rotate the drive head (drive head 14 connects with an implant extraction tool, i.e. a rotary tool, see [0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, while Sweitzer disclose that the release collar comprises a sleeve or tubular body comprising an interior engagement surface (release collar 38 is in the form of a sleeve or tubular body having an interior engagement surface 108), they do not explicitly disclose that the interior engagement surface extends at an engagement angle relative to a cylindrical sleeve opening radially spaced about the engagement axis.
Regarding claim 5, while Sweitzer discloses that the release collar (38) forms an engagement surface (top surface of 38) forming a ramp (104), they do not explicitly disclose wherein the ramp varies in a radial distance about the engagement axis in response to the rotation, and wherein the rotation of the sleeve engages the ramp translating the locking collar within the socket.
Regarding claim 11, Sweitzer does not explicitly disclose wherein the retention feature comprises a receiving flat that is engaged by a locking or an engaging bar extending perpendicular to the engagement axis and formed by an interior wall forming a movable opening of the locking collar.
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, absent Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify Sweitzer to have any of the above listed features. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1852. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KEVIN J BAYNES/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights