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 without traverse of Species 2, shown in Figs. 11-17B in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. 00052 uses reference numeral 1850 to designate two different structures. First, "an elongated slot 1840 for receiving a pin 1850 (FIG. 11)," and second, "a relatively narrow region 1850 (e.g., a region having a width less than a width of the lower body portion 1810)." A single reference character must not be used to designate different parts.
Par. 00047 states that "the scroll gear 400 can also include more or less gear teeth corresponding to the number of spiral gear revolutions provided on the adjustment mechanism." This paragraph describes the second exemplary embodiment; the reference numeral appears to be in error and should read 1400.
Par. 00043 recites "a corresponding hole in the housing 320," which appears to be in error. Element 320 is the through hole; the housing is element 300. Suggested correction: "a corresponding hole 320 in the housing 300."
Pars. 00048 and 00049 inconsistently refer to element 1440 as a "female dovetail recess" and a "female dovetail formation." Consistent terminology is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites "an rotatable adjuster mounted to the housing." Suggested correction: "a rotatable adjuster mounted to the housing."
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites "wherein each of the plurality of gear teeth is spaced from a medial end of the scroll gear a distance that differs from a distance each of the plurality of gear teeth is spaced from a medial end of an adjacent scroll gear." It is unclear whether the claim requires (i) that every gear tooth of a given scroll gear be spaced a distance different from every gear tooth of an adjacent scroll gear, or (ii) that corresponding gear teeth (e.g., the innermost tooth of each scroll gear) be spaced different distances from their respective medial ends. Because the metes and bounds of the comparison cannot be determined, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of applying prior art, interpretation (ii) has been adopted, consistent with paragraph [00039] of the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michaeli et al. (U.S. 8,152,721 B2).
Concerning claim 1, Michaeli et al. disclose a surgical retractor (see Figs. 3a and 4a) comprising: an adjuster (see Fig. 8, elements 52, 61, 63, 65 and 67); and a plurality of dilators (see Fig. 8, element 41) each operatively connected to the adjuster for moving the dilator in a radial direction (see Fig. 5a).
Concerning claim 2, further comprising a housing (see Fig. 8, elements 51 and 53), wherein each of the plurality of dilators is movably mounted to the housing (rib carrier 44 is disposed within channel 53b of channeled disc 53; FIG. 5c).
Concerning claim 3, wherein the housing includes a plurality of slots (see Fig. 6c, element 53b), each having a dilator slidably mounted therein (see col. 15, lines 38-50).
Concerning claim 4, wherein the housing has an annular body (element 51 has a central perforation 51a and a cylindrical wall 51b, and element 53 has a central perforation 53a (FIGS. 6a, 6c)).
Concerning claim 5, wherein the adjuster (elements 52, 61, 63, 65 and 67) is mounted to the housing (elements 51 and 53). See Figs. 3a and 3b.
Concerning claim 6, wherein the adjuster is a rotatable adjuster. It is noted that element 52 rotates about the Z axis under the action of element 61 and worm 65/tooth rail 67.
Concerning claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of dilators includes a depending finger (element 41 extends from element 44 substantially parallel to the Z axis and depends distally therefrom for insertion into tissue; FIGS. 3a, 4a, 9a).
Concerning claim 15, further comprising a handle (see Fig. 3a, element 60) connected to the housing.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawkins et al. (U.S. 2013/0261402 A1).
Concerning claim 16, Hawkins et al. disclose a surgical retractor (see Figs. 3-10) comprising: a housing (12); a rotatable adjuster (14) mounted to the housing; and a plurality of dilators (16) carried by the housing and operatively connected to the rotatable adjuster; each of the plurality of dilators including: a scroll gear (see Fig. 15A, element 17P) radially movable in the housing, and a finger (see Fig. 15A, element 17d) extending from the scroll gear.
Concerning claim 1, Hawkins et al. disclose a surgical retractor (see Fig. 3-10) comprising: an adjuster (14); and a plurality of dilators (16) each operatively connected to the adjuster for moving the dilator in a radial direction.
Concerning claim 7, wherein the adjuster includes a spiral gear (see Figs. 13 and 14; and see par. 0055, lines 13-15) for operatively engaging each of the plurality of dilators.
Concerning claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of dilators includes a scroll gear (see Fig. 15A, element 17p).
Concerning claim 10, wherein each scroll gear includes a plurality of gear teeth (see Fig. 15A, element 42A-d) for engaging a spiral gear (see Figs. 13 and 14 and par. 0055, lines 13-15) of the adjuster.
14. (Original) The surgical retractor of claim 8, wherein each scroll gear includes a female dovetail for receiving a corresponding dovetail joint of a finger therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al. (U.S. 2013/0261402 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hawkins et al. disclose the invention substantially as described above. However, Hawkins et al. do not explicitly disclose that each scroll gear has a transverse cross-section that is substantially T-shaped. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to construct each scroll gear with a transverse cross-section that is substantially T-shaped, since applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a stable and sliding engagement between two components. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Concerning claim 11, Hawkins et al. disclose the invention substantially as described above. However, Hawkins et al. do not explicitly disclose that each of the plurality of gear teeth is spaced from a medial end of the scroll gear a distance that differs from a distance each of the plurality of gear teeth is spaced from a medial end of an adjacent scroll gear. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to space each of the plurality of gear teeth from a medical end of the scroll gear a distance that differs form a distance each of the plurality of gear teeth is spaced from a medical end of an adjacent scroll gear, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hawkins et al. disclose the invention substantially as described above except for the detachable dovetail coupling between the finger and scroll gear. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to detachably couple the finger to the scroll gear, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,195,592 B2 discloses a surgical retraction apparatus having a ring gear driving a plurality of retraction arms radially toward and away from a central axis. US 8,579,809 B2 disclosed radially expanding surgical retractor having blades slidable within arcuate slots in a base. US 11,864,739 B2 discloses a spinal retractor having spirally retracting blades driven by a slot-and-follower cam between coaxially rotatable plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-3819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4 PM .
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo C. Robert, 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 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.
/ELLEN C HAMMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights