DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits in this application. The claims of February 14, 2025, are under consideration. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
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 2, 4, 11 and 13 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.
Claims 2 and 11 require “…and further comprising a surgical pin…” It is unclear if claims 2 and 11 are intended to positively recite the surgical pin, or if this was intended as a further clarification of the previous inferentially recited surgical pin of claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 2, specifically, if this was intended as a positive recitation of the pin, then examiner is at a quandary – is the pin actually part of the driver attachment? This would not seem to be a fair understanding of a driver attachment which was configured to drive a pin, as claimed at claim 1. Examiner would require the claim to be a ‘system’ claim (or the like) to clarify that a second component is now being positively required by the claim, if this is the interpretation intended.
Regarding both claims 2 and 11, Examiner, rather, believes that this was intended as a further clarification of the pin of claim 1, and suggests amendment to read “…and further configured to drive a surgical pin…” (or similar). Examiner best understands this interpretation of the claim to be what applicant intended for examination purposes, and requires correction/clarification of the claim.
Claims 4 and 13 refer to “the flexible couplers”. Examiner request this be clarified as to which couplers are intended (e.g. “the first and second flexible couplers”) for consistency and clarity. 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abbott (US 11,292,109 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Abbott teaches a driver attachment as best seen at figs. 1-3 capable of use in driving an inferred surgical pin, the driver attachment comprising:
an input shaft 12/34/38 capable of being removably coupled to an inferred handpiece housing for receiving torque from a motor of the inferred handpiece housing (col 3, lines 15-22), the input shaft 12/34/38 having a first drive portion 38 having a first bore 70 capable of connecting to a first inferred surgical pin having a particular structure of a first diameter and a second drive portion 34 having a second bore 66 for connecting to a second inferred surgical pin having a second diameter (col. 3, line 55 – col. 4, line 12), the first bore 70 being coaxial with the second bore 66 and the first bore 70 being smaller than the second bore 66; and
first and second flexible couplers 126/118 (demonstrated as balls in fig. 1; contemplated as other types of elements; contemplated with resilient structures such as springs, or snap rings col. 5, lines 30-44) coupled to the input shaft 12/34/38 and associated with the first and second bores 70/66, respectively, each flexible coupler 126/118 comprising an annular shape (in at least the snap-ring configuration) and movable between an engaged position to secure the inferred surgical pin to the respective bore 70/66 and an unengaged position to permit the respective inferred surgical pin to be removed from the respective bore 70/66;
wherein the first flexible coupler 126 defines a smaller cross-sectional area than the second flexible coupler 118 (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the first bore 70 includes a plurality of flats, and the second bore includes a plurality of flats (col. 3, line 65 – col. 4 line 3), capable of use with an inferred surgical pin including at least four flats.
Regarding claim 3, the first bore 70 is proximal to the second bore (at least in configuration of fig. 3, when tool 18a pushed 38 proximally relative to bore 66 when it was inserted).
Regarding claim 4, the first and second flexible couplers 126/118 are biased to the engaged position (due to the resilient structures, especially the snap ring).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott in view of Baisells (US 5,160,122) and Nelson (US 10,288,2003 B2)
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Abbott teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above. Abbott teaches the couplers 126/118 including a spring (the snap-ring coupled to, or integral with 126/118).
Abbott fails to teach the first and second flexible couplers 126/118 comprising a cover; and fails to teach the spring disposed at least partially inside the cover. Further, the cover is not taught being formed of a polymer.
Baisells teaches a helical spring at 14 encased in an elastic polymeric (col. 1, line 24) material 18. Baisells teaches this spring retained within a groove 250 at fig. 22. Baisells teaches that the cover 18 functions to modify forces exerted by the spring assembly.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a coil spring as taught by Baisells in place of the snap ring and balls of Abbott. Such would have permitted the Abbott device to be utilized with inserts having differently shaped connection structures. Such is considered a selection of a functionally equivalent structure – both snap ring/ball and helical spring function to selectively retain a structure within a bore of a housing.
Nelson is referred to as a teaching reference provide a teaching identifying the functionally equivalent nature of the Abbott snap ring and Baisells spring/cover. Nelson teaches use of a helical spring 130 retained within a groove of a housing 120 to permit removable coupling of a pin 110 within the bore of the housing, in a similar manner to the retention caused by Abbott’s snap ring and ball arrangement. This shows that Baisells structure is capable of acting in the same manner in a properly sized housing/insert.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott in view of Wienhold (US 7,896,355 B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Abbott teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a third drive portion capable of connecting to an inferred twist drill, where the first, second and third drive portions have three different cross-sectional areas.
Wienhold teaches a tool bit holder having a first portion 30 of a first cross-section for retaining a structure of a first cross-section, a second portion 32 of a second diameter for retaining a second structure of a second cross section, and a third portion 34 of a third cross-sectional diameter for retaining a twist drill (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Abbott device to include a cannulation through 74 designed to receive a twist drill, therein, based on the teaching of Wienhold. One would have done so in order to improve the Abbott device to permit it to be utilized with tools structured as the driver/drill bit combo seen in fig. 2 of Wienhold. This would have provided Abbott with an additional capability and usefulness.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott.
Regarding claim 9, Abbott teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further Abbott teaches the bores 66/70 can have inner geometric profiles, examples of which are described as hexagonal, splined, triangular, square, etc. Examiner takes the position that a helical flute is a geometric profile. Examiner takes the position that a threaded coupling is a helical flute. Examiner takes the position that a helical flute is essentially a modified spline. Abbott presented his possible configurations as a non-exhaustive list (e.g., and etc.) which made clear that other designs were contemplated, and within the spirit of the teaching. Helical coupling structures are old and well known in the art, especially in threaded couplings. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to form Abbott to include a helical flute in the bores 70/66 in order to permit coupling of the bores to particularly designed pins.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2001/0048855 A1) in view of Abbott.
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches a power tool system capable of use in surgery and for driving a surgical pin, the surgical power tool assembly comprising:
a surgical handpiece assembly as at figs. 2 and 3 comprising:
a handpiece housing 10,
an electric motor 22 positioned in the handpiece housing 10,
a controller 21 positioned in the handpiece housing 10,
a battery 20 removably coupled to the handpiece housing 10 and configured to supply electrical power to the controller,
an output drive 23 coupled to the electric motor 22 and configured to be rotated about an axis by the electric motor 22.
Lin teaches his device including a chuck 30 clearly for attachment to tools and attachments.
Lin does not teach the particular tool to be used with the handpiece.
Abbott teaches a driver attachment, as noted above in rejecting claim 1. That attachment is identical to the attachment claimed here in claim 10. Portion 12 of Abbott is capable of being retained in Lin’s chuck 30.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the Abbott tool with the Lin handpiece in order to apply rotary force to the Abbott tool. Abbott teaches application of force to his tool by a motorized tool as at col. 3, lines 15-20.
Regarding claim 11, Abbott additionally teaches the claimed features in the same fashion as identified in rejecting claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 12, Abbott additionally teaches the claimed features in the same fashion as identified in rejecting claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 13, Abbott additionally teaches the claimed features in the same fashion as identified in rejecting claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 18, Abbott makes obvious the modification of the driver attachment in the same manner as rejecting claim 9, above.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Abbott, Baisells and Nelson.
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Lin and Abbott suggests the limitations of claim 10, as above. In the same manner as rejecting claims 5 and 6, above, Abbott’s structure will be modified by Baisells in view of the teaching of Nelson.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Abbott and Wienhold.
The combination of Lin and Abbott teaches the limitations of claim 10, as above. Further, Wienhold is relied upon to modify Abbott in the same manner as for rejecting claims 7 and 8, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-6PM
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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, 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 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.
/DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights