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. 5-6 and 9 in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-2 and 4-8 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 1 and 5 include the recitation “the latter” which fails to particularly identify any of the previously recited structure.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the lower portion" and “the upper portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cabrera et al. (U.S. 4,421,108).
Concerning claim 1, Cabrera et al. discloses a device for supporting and positioning a surgical retractor blade on a surgical ring retractor, said retractor blade comprising a stem, said device comprising a clamp (see Fig. 3) adapted to connect reversibly with the outer ring (see Fig. 1, element 18) of a surgical ring retractor and comprising means for reversibly supporting the stem of a surgical retractor blade (see Fig. 1, element 74) protruding inwardly from the ring of the retractor characterized in that said clamp comprises a mutually cooperating upper half-body (see Fig. 3 below) and lower half-body (see Fig. 3 below) respectively adapted to surround superiorly and inferiorly the surgical retractor ring, and in that said clamp is traversed longitudinally by a cavity (see Fig. 3, element 78) adapted to accommodate the stem (see Fig. 1, element 75) of said surgical retractor blade, said cavity being defined in the upper half-body (see Fig. 3 below) of said clamp, the latter includes constraining means (see Fig. 3, element 79) adapted to reversibly block the movement of the stem of said retractor blade.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower half-body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper half-body)]
PNG
media_image1.png
538
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 5, the clamp includes reciprocal clamping means (see Fig. 3, element 92) of said upper half-body (see Fig. 3 above) and lower half-body (see Fig. 3 above) the latter forming a prismatic pair, so that by acting on said reciprocal clamping means, one of said half-body can be moved with translatory motion with respect to the other.
Concerning claim 6, the reciprocal clamping means (92) comprise a vertical-axis screw that passes through the upper half-body (see Fig. 3 above) forming a turning pair with it, engaging a corresponding female thread defined in the lower half-body (see Fig. 3 above).
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) 2, 4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrera et al. (U.S. 4,421,108) in view of Farley (U.S. 5,897,087).
Concerning claim 2, Cabrera’s constraining means (spring-loaded pawl 79) are movable between a resting position, in which the retractor blade stem is free to translate with respect to the clamp (i.e., when the pawl is disengaged, the handle translates freely through bore 78 and may be removed and rotated), and an engaged position, in which the constraining means prevent the movement of the retractor blade with respect to the clamp (i.e., when pawl 79 engages teeth 76, the handle is locked).
However, Cabrera’s stem is rectangularly shaped and therefore can’t rotate with respect to its longitudinal axis when received within the bore 78.
Farley discloses a circular bore (see Fig. 13, element 235) to receive a circular stem in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of clamping a retractor component in a rotationally adjustable manner.
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 the bore of Cabrera’s to be circular to receive a circular stem, 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 adjustably connecting retractor components. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966). The concept of a spring-loaded detent or pin movable between a free and a locking position to reversibly restrain a sliding and rotatable stem within a bore is a well-known and routine mechanical arrangement in the retractor art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement such a two-position locking mechanism in the device of Cabrera et al., as it provides the predictable result of controlled positioning with quick release, consistent with the teachings of Cabrera et al. and the general knowledge of the art.
Regarding claim 4, Cabrera et al. do not disclose a quick-release clamp comprising an eccentric cam lever as the constraining means for locking the blade stem.
Farley discloses a quick release clamp comprising an eccentric cam lever (see Fig. 13, element 410 and col. 10, lines 52-60) which is tightened around the lateral surface of a stem in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of applying a clamping force i.e., a quick release clamp.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the eccentric cam lever mechanism of Farley into the retractor holder of Cabrera et al. as the constraining means for locking the blade stem. The motivation to do so is explicitly recognized in the retractor art: cam levers provide rapid single-handed locking and release, which is highly advantageous in the surgical setting. The combination would yield the predictable result of a quick-release clamping action, as both references teach locking mechanisms for surgical retractor components and are directed to the same field of use.
Regarding claim 7, Cabrera et al. teach that the mating surfaces of the clamp engage the outer surface of the ring. Contouring the lower portion of the upper half-body and the upper portion of the lower half-body as portions of the lateral surface of a cylinder (i.e., cylindrical saddle surfaces) to match a circular cross-section of the ring is a routine design choice that improves contact and grip, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Farley (see Fig. 13, element 235a) and the general retractor art confirm the use of contoured mating surfaces on circular clamp components for improved clamping stability.
Concerning claim 8, Cabrera et al. are directed to surgical retractor instruments, which by their nature must be capable of sterilization. Selecting materials suitable for sterilization (e.g., stainless steel, autoclavable polymers) for a surgical retractor holder is not a patentable distinction but rather an inherent and routine requirement imposed by the surgical context. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to fabricate the clamp of Cabrera et al. from sterilizable materials, as surgical instruments that cannot be sterilized are unsuitable for their intended use. Applicant’s attention is directed to col. 1, lines 11-14 of Farley.
Conclusion
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