DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits in this application. The claims as amended October 14, 2025, are under consideration. Claims 1 and 11 were amended; and claims 20 and 21 were canceled. Claims 1-19 are pending.
This application has been afforded special status due to an inventor being over the age of 65 in the petition decision of November 25, 2025.
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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,776. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they teach each of the same features, and the ‘776 patent effectively teaches each limitation of the instant claims.
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, 2 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyon et al. (US 2022/0323134 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lyon teaches an orthopedic impactor system as at figs. 2 and 3, comprising:
a motor 130 operatively coupled to a driveshaft 150;
an anvil 160/180 configured to be operatively coupled to an implement handle (at interface 120); and
an impaction cam 164 operatively coupled to the driveshaft 150, wherein:
when in an impaction position, the impaction cam 164 is configured to strike the anvil 180 when driven by the driveshaft 150 in a first direction to drive the anvil in an impaction direction,
when retarded as by rotating knob 252A of 250 [0065-6], the impaction cam 164 is configured to be forced out of contact with the anvil in a first axial direction along a longitudinal axis of the driveshaft (when the knob is loosened, the amount of force sustained by the anvil 180 is reduced with 184 being relaxed as a result of anvil 180 being permitted to move away from cam 164 more easily than when the spring is fully compressed), and
the impaction cam 164 is configured to be forced back into the impaction position in a second axial direction when the impaction cam rotates past the anvil 180 (by spring 184 pushing the components back together).
Regarding claim 2, the system includes a spring 184/194 configured to force the impaction cam 164 in a second axial direction along the longitudinal axis of the driveshaft 150 into contact with the anvil 180.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 10, the system includes a speed control input configured to adjust a frequency of impacts – frequency can be adjusted as at [0068] or by use of at rigger [0053]. Forward/reverse mode can be selected [0053]. The device includes a battery 105 electrically coupled to the motor 130. At least some of the frequences caused as at [0068] are considered to be ‘high frequency, low force’.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the anvil 160/180 is coupled to the implement (coupled at 120) using a connection mechanism at 120. 120 is seen as a threaded coupling, permitting a plurality of locked positions.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is found to be non-limiting. The implement handle at claim 1 was not a positively required component. As such, a vibratory assembly coupled to the implement handle does not change structure of any positively recited structure.
Claim(s) 11- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei (US 2011/0094764 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wei teaches an orthopedic impactor system as at figs. 26-30, comprising:
a motor M operatively coupled to a driveshaft 35;
an anvil 612 configured to be operatively coupled to an implement handle (when contacted by 611 within 63); and
an impaction cam 32 operatively coupled to the driveshaft 35, wherein:
the impaction cam 32 is configured to strike the anvil 612 when driven by the driveshaft 35 to drive the anvil 612 in an impaction direction,
the impaction cam 32 is configured to be retarded when a minimum force is sustained by the anvil (as by use of ball bearings 38 riding in slots 36/37 [0046]), and
retarding the impaction cam is configured to force the impaction cam out of contact with the anvil 612 in a first axial direction along a longitudinal axis of the driveshaft 35 [0046].
Regarding claim 12, the system includes a spring 40 configured to force the impaction cam 32 in a second axial direction along the longitudinal axis of the driveshaft 35 into contact with the anvil 612.
Regarding claim 13, the impaction cam 32 is operatively coupled to the driveshaft 35 with ball bearings 38 interfacing with a plurality of respective spherical grooves defined by the driveshaft at 36 and a plurality of respective sockets defined by the impaction cam32 at 37.
Regarding claim 15, the system further includes a battery 5 electrically coupled to the motor M.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the anvil 612 is capable of being coupled to the implement using a connection mechanism 63. The connection mechanism 63 includes a plurality of lockable positions with respect to a longitudinal axis of the anvil 612 depending on where the cam is relative to 612.
Regarding claim 18 the claim is found to be non-limiting. The implement handle at claim 1 was not a positively required component. As such, a vibratory assembly coupled to the implement handle does not change structure of any positively recited structure.
Regarding claim 19, the system is configured to produce high- frequency, low force impacts – there is no reason that the impacts caused by Wei cannot be considered to be high frequency, low force.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei.
Regarding claim 14, Wei teaches the system of claim 11 as above, and further teaches a trigger 7. Wei does not specify that the trigger is a speed control input. It is old and well known in the art of hand held power tools for the trigger of the tool functions as a speed control input capable of placing the impactor in a first mode or second mode (slow or fast) depending on amount of depression of the trigger. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the Wei device include a variable speed trigger in order to permit the operator of the device to strike a target at at least two different rates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
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