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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 24-31 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 of the claim ends with a period. It should end with a comma Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 8-9, 11, 24, 27-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (US 2016/0199106). Regarding claim 1, Fischer et al. disclose a surgical instrument, comprising a body (see figure below) with a proximal-facing surface (see figure below), a distal-facing surface (see figure below), as well as opposed first (see figure below) and second (see figure below) lateral ends extending therebetween; a first arm (11) extending proximally from the proximal-facing surface of the body, the first arm being laterally offset from a center of the body toward the first lateral end of the body (figure 3); and a second arm (20) extending distally from the distal-facing surface of the body, the second arm being laterally offset from the first arm toward the second lateral end of the body (figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Fischer et al. disclose the first arm is longer than the second arm (figures 2, 3).
Regarding claim 3, Fischer et al. disclose the body includes a first shoulder (see figure below) formed along the proximal-facing surface between the first arm and the center of the body, the first shoulder facing the second lateral end (see figure below).
Regarding claim 6, Fischer et al. disclose a handle (14) disposed at a proximal end of the first arm (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Fischer et al. disclose a proximal portion of the first arm includes at least one flat surface (24, figure 3) configured for applying torque to the first arm (if one so applies torque/rotating force to the flat surface).
Regarding claim 9, Fischer et al. disclose the proximal portion of the first arm includes a circumferential groove (see figure below) disposed distal to the at least one flat surface.
Regarding claim 11, Fischer et al. disclose the body includes a sidewall with a length extending between the proximal-facing surface and the distal-facing surface, the length being configured to limit rotation of the instrument when the instrument is disposed between opposed arms of a second surgical instrument (e.g. 4, ¶43).
Regarding claim 24, Fischer et al. disclose a surgical instrument, comprising a body (see figure below) with a proximal-facing surface (see figure below), a distal-facing surface (see figure below), as well as opposed first (see figure below) and second (see figure below) lateral ends extending therebetween; a first arm (11) extending proximally from the body, the first arm being laterally offset from a center of the body toward the first lateral end of the body (figure 3); and a second arm (20) extending distally from the body, the second arm being laterally offset from the first arm toward the second lateral end of the body (figure 3), wherein the body includes a first shoulder (see figure below) formed along the proximal-facing surface between the first arm and the center of the body, the first shoulder facing the second lateral end (figure 3).
Regarding claim 27, Fischer et al. disclose a proximal portion of the first arm includes at least one flat surface (24) configured for applying torque to the first arm (if one so applies torque/rotating force to the flat surface).
Regarding claim 28, Fischer et al. disclose the proximal portion of the first arm includes a circumferential groove (see figure below) disposed distal to the at least one flat surface.
Regarding claim 30, Fischer et al. disclose a surgical instrument, comprising a body (see figure below) with a proximal-facing surface (see figure below), a distal-facing surface (see figure below), as well as opposed first (see figure below) and second (see figure below) lateral ends extending therebetween a first arm (11) extending proximally from the body, the first arm being laterally offset from a center of the body toward the first lateral end of the body (figure 3); and a second arm (20) extending distally from the body, the second arm being laterally offset from the first arm toward the second lateral end of the body (figure 3), wherein the second arm includes a proximal end (see figure below) fixed to the distal-facing surface of the body and a longitudinal axis extending from the distal-facing surface of the body parallel to a proximal-distal axis of the body (figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 29 and 31are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2016/0199106).
Regarding claims 10, 29 and 31 Fischer et al. disclose a distal portion of the second arm includes a single bulbous protrusion (19, figure 3) extending in a direction that is perpendicular to an axis extending between the opposed first and second lateral ends and perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the second arm (figure 3). However, Fischer et al . fail to expressly teach more than one protrusion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to construct the distal portion of the second arm to include a second protrusion therefore making protrusions extending from the second arm in a direction that is perpendicular to an axis extending between the opposed first and second lateral ends and perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the second arm. The second protrusion extending from the opposite face of the second arm to allow for position of the protrusion to either side of the tulip (4), since it is known that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and the resultant device would yield the ability to position the second arm to the “left” or right” of the tulip (4) where it is received within for use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 12 and 25-26 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights