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 6-11, 15 and 16 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 6 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “at least one holding means”, in line 2, since it is unclear if at least one holding means is the same as the “at least one holding means” defined in line 8 in line 1, or different holding means. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “at least one holding means” in line 2 of claim 6 as “the at least one holding means”.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “at least one holding means”, in line 2, since it is unclear if at least one holding means is the same as the “at least one holding means” defined in line 8 in line 1, or different holding means. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “at least one holding means” in line 2 of claim 8 as “the at least one holding means”.
Claim 15 is rendered indefinite since a claim should only have a single claim dependency. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the claim as “The metal cassette as claimed in claim 1, wherein both the base component and lid comprise a metal sheet.”
Claim 16 is rendered indefinite since a claim should only have a single claim dependency. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the beginning of the claim as “The metal cassette as claimed in claim1, wherein the lid comprises a metal sheet, whereby the sheet comprises a planar horizontal surface…”.
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 1-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heede (US 2019/0231468).
Regarding claim 1, Heede discloses a metal cassette (at 10 – See Figs. 5-7) capable of housing at least one surgical instrument, the cassette comprising a base component (at 2/14 in Fig. 7) and a lid (See [0023]) fastenable to the base component to form an enclosed space in which the at least one surgical instrument can be housed, at least one of the base component and lid comprising a metal sheet (stainless steel), the enclosed space being partly delimited by a boundary forming surface (at S in Fig. 6) of the metal sheet, the metal sheet comprising at least one integral tongue (at 13 – See Fig. 6 labeled below) forming at least one holding means (cavity at 12 in Fig. 6, between the cutout in surface S and tongue 13) capable of retaining the at least one surgical instrument within the cassette, the tongue consisting of a section (at 13 in Fig. 5) of the metal sheet which is partially but not fully detached from the metal sheet (as shown between Figs. 5 and 6) and which is integrally connected to the boundary forming surface at at least one attachment location (at opposing edges of 13), wherein, in a resting state, the tongue extends from the at least one attachment location into the enclosed space (as shown in Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Heede discloses the at least one tongue (See Fig. 6 labeled above) extends from the at least one attachment location at an angle of between 30°-150°, relative to the plane (at S in Fig. 6) of the metal sheet at the at least one attachment location of the tongue.
Regarding claim 3, Heede discloses the at least one tongue is formed by a partially detached cut out in the boundary forming surface of the metal sheet (as shown in Figs. 5-6), said the cut out being bent out of alignment with the boundary forming surface at the at least one attachment location (as shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Heede discloses the at least one tongue is formed by a cut out in a section of the boundary forming surface which extends in a single plane (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Heede discloses he at least one tongue extends in a single plane (as shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Heede discloses the at least one tongue forms at least one holding means comprising a holding surface (side surface of 13) for retaining an instrument, the holding surface opposing a cooperating surface of the cassette not located on said the tongue such that in use the instrument is retained between the holding surface and the cooperating surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
568
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Heede discloses the holding surface of the tongue is planar and the cooperating surface comprises a cavity capable of housing the instrument.
Regarding claim 12, Heede discloses the at least one tongue is arranged capable of providing a passive hold on the instrument.
Regarding claim 13, Heede discloses the metal sheet comprises a plurality of integral tongues, each forming at least one holding means capable of retaining at least one surgical instrument.
Regarding claim 14, Heede discloses the metal sheet comprises a planar horizontal boundary forming surface, the planar horizontal boundary forming surface delimiting the full horizontal extent of the enclosed space.
Regarding claim 15, Heede discloses both the base component and lid comprise a metal sheet.
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.
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.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heede (US 2019/0231468) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Frieze et al. (US 6,244,447). As described above, Heede discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the holding means. However, Frieze teaches an instrument assembly (See Fig. 2) comprising a base component (at 18 in Fig. 2) having a holding means (at 10 in Fig. 2 – shown in detail in Figs. 1 and 5), wherein the holding means includes at least one integrally formed spring element (elements at 26 are considered spring elements since they are resilient), moveable relative to the remainder of the holding means, for resiliently retaining an instrument between the at least one spring element and another area of the holding means, comprising a passage (at 24) through the thickness of the holding means, and wherein the passage includes a distal insertion section (upper section) that is open towards a distal free end of the holding means for allowing insertion of a surgical instrument into the passage and a proximal holding section (lower section) intended for releasably housing the surgical instrument, for the purpose of securely holding surgical instruments on the base component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the holding means of Heede to have the spring element arrangement as taught by Frieze in order to more securely hold surgical instruments thereon.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heede (US 2019/0231468) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Oko et al. (US 2020/0297885). As described above, Heede discloses the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the specifics of the lid. However, Oko teaches an instrument assembly (See Figs. 16A-16C) comprising a lid (See Fig. 16C) comprising a planar horizontal surface (top surface in Fig. 16C) and two or more side surfaces (vertical side surfaces in Fig. 16C) by end portions bent at 90° to the plane of the horizontal surface, the horizontal and side surfaces forming a boundary forming surface of the enclosed space, and one or more integral clasp (at 34) formed by a side surface of the lid, wherein the clasp is pivotable relative to the horizontal surface, for the purpose of engaging with the base component of the instrument assembly for providing an enclosed cavity for the instruments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid of Heede to have a clasp arrangement as taught by Oko in order to securely close the cassette during storage/transport.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
