DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on August 3rd, 2026.
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 1, 2, 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sava (U.S. Patent 5,931,777) in view of Bass (U.S. Patent 7,569,014).
Sava discloses a device (for example see Figures 1-8 and 10) comprising:
(claim 1) a retractor assembly (110) including
(claim 1) a first blade engagement mechanism (first set of elements 34, 40, 50, etc.)
(claim 1) a first anchored blade (first element 122)
(claim 1) wherein the first anchored blade is configured to releasable engagement with the first blade engagement mechanism
(claim 1) the first anchor blade including
(claim 1) a blade body (30) having
(claim 1) a proximal end
(claim 1) a distal end
(claim 1) an anchor mechanism (26) positioned at the distal end
(claim 1) an engagement feature (36) positioned at the proximal end having
(claim 1) a spherical surface
(claim 1) wherein the engagement feature allows the first anchored blade to be releasably secure to the first blade engagement mechanism while still be able to pivot
(claim 2) wherein the first blade engagement mechanism is configured to automatically engage with the engagement feature of the first anchored blade when the engagement feature is inserted into the engagement mechanism
(claim 8) a third blade engagement mechanism (second set of elements 34, 40, 50, etc.)
(claim 8) a third anchored blade (second element 122)
(claim 8) wherein the third anchored blade is configured to releasable engagement with the first blade engagement mechanism
(claim 8) the third anchor blade including
(claim 8) a blade body (30) having
(claim 8) a proximal end
(claim 8) a distal end
(claim 8) an anchor mechanism (26) positioned at the distal end
(claim 8) an engagement feature (36) positioned at the proximal end having
(claim 8) a spherical surface
(claim 8) wherein the engagement feature allows the first anchored blade to be releasably secure to the first blade engagement mechanism while still be able to pivot
(claim 12) at least two connection points (elements 137) configured to allow the device to be secured to a patient support structure
Sava fails to disclose the device wherein the engagement features includes a pair of lateral projections opposite each other. Bass teaches a device comprising a blade engagement mechanism (for example see Figure 2A) and an anchored blade having an engagement feature including a pair of lateral projections (110; for example see Figures 1A-1C) opposite each other in order to limit rotation of the anchored blade in one plane, i.e. about the longitudinal axis of the blade. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sava wherein the engagement features includes a pair of lateral projections in view of Bass in order to limit rotation of the first anchored blade in one plane. The device of Sava as modified by Bass discloses a device wherein the engagement features wherein the spherical surface in combination with the lateral projections allow the anchored blades to pivot about an axis defined by the pair of lateral projections.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sava (U.S. Patent 5,931,777) in view of Bass (U.S. Patent 7,569,014) further in view of a first interpretation of Phillips (U.S. Patent 7,147,599).
The device of Sava as modified by Bass discloses a device as discussed above further comprising a retractor base (proximal end of arm 12 up to element 68, proximal end of arm 14 up to pivot 68, etc.), a first retractor arm (the distal portion of arm 12 past element 68 to the retractor blade), and a second retractor arm (the distal portion of arm 14 past element 68 to the retractor blade) in order to move the distractor blades relative to each other. Phillips teaches a device comprising (for example see Figure 5) comprising an elongate retractor base (92), a first retractor arm (104, 110, and 112) having a proximal end in sliding engagement with the retractor base and a distal end including a first retractor blade engagement mechanism, and a second retractor arm (102, 106, and 108) having a proximal end in sliding connection with the retractor base and a distal end including a second retractor blade engagement mechanism in order to move the distractor blades relative to each other. Because both the device of Sava as modified by Bass and the device of Phillips disclose devices including a retractor base, a first retractor arm, and a second retractor arm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the retractor base, first retractor arm, and the second retractor arm for the other in order to achieve the predictable results of moving the distractor blades relative to each other.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sava (U.S. Patent 5,931,777) in view of Bass (U.S. Patent 7,569,014) further in view of a second interpretation of Phillips (U.S. Patent 7,147,599).
The device of Sava as modified by Bass discloses a device as discussed above further comprising a retractor base (proximal end of arm 12 up to element 68, proximal end of arm 14 up to pivot 68, etc.), a first retractor arm (the distal portion of arm 12 past element 68 to the retractor blade), and a third retractor arm (the distal portion of arm 14 past element 68 to the retractor blade) in order to move the distractor blades relative to each other. Phillips teaches a device comprising (for example see Figure 5) comprising an elongate retractor base (92), a first retractor arm (104, 110, and 112) having a proximal end in sliding engagement with the retractor base and a distal end including a first retractor blade engagement mechanism, wherein the first retractor arm is configured to pivot about a first axis normal to an axis defined by the retractor base (for example the pivot between sections 104 and 110), and a third retractor arm (102, 106, and 108) having a proximal end in sliding connection with the retractor base and a distal end including a second retractor blade engagement mechanism, wherein the third retractor arm is configured to pivot about a third axis normal to an axis defined by the retractor base (for example the pivot between sections 102 and 106) and wherein the first and third retractor arms are positioned opposite each other along the elongate retractor base and are independently adjustable along the retractor base in order to move the distractor blades relative to each other. Because both the device of Sava as modified by Bass and the device of Phillips disclose devices including a retractor base, a first retractor arm, and a second retractor arm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the retractor base, first retractor arm, and the third retractor arm for the other in order to achieve the predictable results of moving the distractor blades relative to each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 13-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s argument that the device of Sava as modified by Bass does not disclose all the limitations of the claim, i.e. allowing pivoting about an axis defined by the pins, is not persuasive. First, Bass teaches the head of the connection element including pins 110 to prevent rotation about the longitudinal axis. Preventing longitudinal rotation of the retractor blades of Sava would help protect soft tissue during use in certain surgical situations. Second, the device of Sava as modified by Bass would including a ball shaped head for the joint that includes a pair of lateral projections extending form the surface of the ball wherein the pair of projection would allow the ball shaped head to pivot about an axis defined by the lateral projection. Therefore, the device of Sava as modified by Bass discloses the invention as claimed. The applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the device of Sava with the lateral projections of Bass is not persuasive. Sava states the joint is only required to move in one plane though a plurality of planes is preferable. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would add the pins in order to prevent longitudinal rotation of the retractor blades in situations where that might be preferable. The applicant’s argument that modifying Sava with the projections of Bass would render the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose is not persuasive. Sava explicitly state that the swivel mountings only need to be capable of free pivoting movement in at least one plane and preferably in multiple planes or directions (column 2 lines 1-3). Therefore, adding the lateral projections to limit longitudinal rotation would not render the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose since the swivel mountings would still be capable of free pivoting in at least one plane, i.e. the plane/axis defined by the pins.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nicholas Woodall whose telephone number is (571) 272-5204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571. 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.
/NICHOLAS W WOODALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights