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 .
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) 1-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mast (US 20180055504).
With respect to claim 1, Mast discloses a method of using a retractor blade device (810) (see para. 37-43), the method comprising: engaging the retractor blade device with a channel (804) of a retractor blade (802) by inserting at least a portion of the retractor blade device into the channel at a point distal to a proximal end of the channel (see fig. 8a, 8b below).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
584
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Mast further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein engaging the retractor blade device with the channel of the retractor blade comprises moving the at least a portion of the retractor blade device (e.g., arms 808/806) in a direction normal to a plane defining the channel (e.g., see para. 37 and note that inward deflection of arms 808 allows 810 to engage 804).
As for claim 3, Mast further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein engaging the retractor blade device with the channel of the retractor blade comprises engaging at least a portion of the retractor blade device with one or more depressions in the channel of the retractor blade (see fig. 8b above).
As for claim 4, Mast further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the retractor blade is positioned within a surgical opening of a patient so as to create a surgical corridor prior to the retractor blade device being engaged with the channel of the retractor blade (see para. 56, lines 7-9).
As for claim 5, Mast further discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising sweeping the surgical corridor and/or a surgical site of interfering tissue with the retractor blade device prior to engaging the retractor blade device with the channel of the retractor blade (see para. 56, lines 7-9).
As for claim 6, Mast further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the retractor blade device comprises: a retractor blade engagement portion (810) having a body portion with a distal end and a proximal end (see fig. 8a, 8b below), the retractor blade engagement portion configured to sit at least partially in a channel of a retractor blade (see fig. 8a, 8b below), the body portion having a first retention component (one of 808) extending therefrom; and an extension portion (812) having a distal end and a proximal end (see fig. 8a, 8b below, also see fig. 8c, 8d above).
PNG
media_image3.png
741
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 7, Mast further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the extension portion is substantially flat (see fig. 8a above).
As for claim 8, Mast further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the extension portion is curved (note the shape of the tip, see fig. 8a, 8b above).
As for claim 9, Mast further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the extension portion has a hook feature (see fig. 8c above).
As for claim 10, Mast further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the extension portion is wider than the retractor blade engagement portion (see fig. 8c, 8d above).
As for claim 11, Mast further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein at least a portion of the extension portion extends laterally of the blade engagement portion (see fig. 8c, 8d above).
As for claim 12, Mast further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the first retention component extends in a plane coplanar with the body portion (see fig. 8d above).
As for claim 13, Mast further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a blade device driver (e.g., 808) is used to insert the retractor blade device into the surgical corridor (see para. 37), manipulate the movement of the retractor blade device in the surgical corridor (see para. 37), and engage the retractor blade device with the channel of the retractor blade (see para. 37, fig. 8a-8d above, also see para. 56 lines 6-12 and note the reference to the shim insertor tool which also reads on this limitation).
As for claim 14, Mast further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising toeing out the retractor blade while simultaneously advancing the retractor blade device distally along the channel of the retractor blade (see para. 56 lines 6-7).
As for claim 15, Mast further discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising detaching the blade device driver from the retractor blade device so as to leave the retractor blade device in the channel of the retractor blade while removing the blade device driver from the surgical corridor (para. 56 and note the reference to the shim insertor tool, lines 6-12, is interpreted to read on this limitation).
As for claim 16, Mast further discloses the method of claim 15, wherein removing the blade device driver from the surgical corridor comprises sliding the blade device driver proximally along the channel of the retractor blade and out of a proximal opening of the channel (see para. 56 lines 6-12).
As for claim 18, Mast further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the retractor blade defines a plane and has a proximal end and a distal end with a channel extending from the proximal end toward the distal end (see fig. 8a-d above); and wherein at least a portion of the retractor blade device is configured to engage with the channel of the retractor blade (see fig. 8a-8d above and para. 37).
As for claim 19, Mast further discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the channel is closed (e.g., covered by 814) at the distal end of the retractor blade (see fig. 8d).
As for claim 20, Mast further discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the channel is open at the proximal end of the retractor blade (see fig. 8g).
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast (US 20180055504), as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Lovell (US 20120296171).
Mast does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the blade device driver comprises: a handle; an elongated housing; a shaft contained within the housing; and a receiving portion configured to receive at least a portion of the retractor blade device; wherein the handle communicates with the shaft to releasably engage the retractor blade device.
Lovell, also drawn to retractor blade devices and associated tools (see fig. 40), teaches wherein a blade device driver (350) comprises: a handle (374); an elongated housing (368); a shaft (372) contained within the housing; and a receiving portion (352) configured to receive at least a portion of a retractor blade device (e.g., 6) (see fig. 40-41, 46 and para. 239-241); wherein the handle communicates with the shaft to releasably engage the retractor blade device (see para. 239-242) in order to provide a known tool that will provide the known function of removing the retractor blade device as needed (see para. 241-242).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mast wherein the blade device driver comprises: a handle; an elongated housing; a shaft contained within the housing; and a receiving portion configured to receive at least a portion of the retractor blade device; wherein the handle communicates with the shaft to releasably engage the retractor blade device, in view of Lovell, in order to provide a known tool that will provide the known function of removing the retractor blade device as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that while the invention teaches retractor blade devices with a variable lateral width, the shims (equivalent to retractor blades) of Mast do not teach this feature (see Remarks pages 5-6). Applicant does concur that the shims of Mast include flexible arms 808 (see Remarks page 6 and Mast paragraph 37) which allow the shims to be slid proximally or distally within the blade channel when arms 806/808 are compressed. However, Applicant argues, this “compression of flexion of those arms does not change the width of the shim itself” (see Remarks page 6).
While none of the claims actually requires the width of the retractor blade device to change, as stated in the rejection to claims 1-20 above, because the arms of Mast are inwardly deflected for insertion within the channel of the retractor blade, the retractor blade device 810 is able to meet all of the recited limitations presented in claims 1-20. In fact, a (undeflected) width of the shims/retractor blade devices is changed/reduced when arms 808 are compressed (creating a smaller width) as described in figures 8a-8b below and paragraph 37 of Mast.
PNG
media_image1.png
793
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ last argument is that “compression of flexible arms 808 does not and cannot allow shim 810 to be moved into or out of the blade channel in a direction perpendicular to the blade channel” (see Remarks page 6). This is not found to be persuasive as this is not a limitation set forth by any of claims 1-20. Claim 2 requires “wherein engaging the retractor blade device with the channel of the retractor blade comprises moving the at least a portion of the retractor blade device in a direction normal to a plane defining the channel”. As stated above in figures 8a-8b and in the rejection to claim 2, Mast discloses wherein engaging the retractor blade device with the channel of the retractor blade comprises moving the at least a portion of the retractor blade device (e.g., arms 808/806) in a direction normal to a plane defining the channel (e.g., see para. 37 and note that inward deflection of arms 808 allows 810 to engage 804).
Applicant does not provide further argument regarding the combination of Lovell to claim to reject claim 17.
The rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained.
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 Tara Carter whose telephone number is (571) 272-3402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-3pm.
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, Eduardo 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 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.
/TARA ROSE E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3773
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
