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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not executed in durable, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined, lines and strokes. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, “axel” should be “axle”.
Regarding claim 7, “outer drive washer gears” should be “the outer drive washer gears”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, “the pin” has unclear antecedent basis as multiple pins have previously been recited in the claims. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed “the ratchet pin” is referred to.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0156757 (Muniz).
Regarding claim 1, Muniz discloses a clamping device (100) configured to engage an external fixation rod (50 or 60) for use in bone fracture surgery comprising: an upper housing (170) including a ratcheting mechanism (180); and a lower housing (120/150) comprising an upper jaw (150) and a lower jaw (120) configured to engage an external fixation rod (50 or 60); wherein when the upper housing is turned in a clockwise motion relative to the lower housing, the jaws are drawn towards one another until opposed by a predetermined force (force of spring 160, see paragraphs [0064], [0074] and [0075]); wherein engaging an action pin in the upper housing and turning the upper housing in a clockwise motion can overcome the predetermined force (see paragraphs [0074] and [0075]; final tightening of housing 170 via torque tool; it is noted an action pin is not recited as part of the clamping device, and an action pin is capable of being used as part of a torque tool); wherein engaging an action pin in the upper housing and turning the upper housing in a counterclockwise motion can release engagement to an external fixation rod (see paragraphs [0074] and [0075]; reversal of the tightening motion of the upper housing would result in unlocking of the clamping device and released engagement of an external fixation rod; it is noted an action pin is not recited as part of the clamping device, and an action pin is capable of being used as part of a torque tool to turn the upper housing).
Additionally, it is known that standard tightening involves clockwise motion, while standard loosening involves counterclockwise motion. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize clockwise motion for tightening of the assembly, and counterclockwise motion for loosening of the assembly, as standard fasteners use such motion for tightening and loosening the fastener.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muniz in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0287652 (Lessig).
Regarding claim 2, Muniz is silent on the clamping device comprising a wave spring washer that applies the predetermined force, though Muniz does suggest that other types of biasing members can be used as biasing member 160 instead of a coil spring (see paragraph [0064]). Additionally, Lessig discloses a coil spring or wave spring or the like is a suitable biasing member (130) for providing a predetermined, biasing force in an external fixation clamp (1) (see paragraph [0051]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the biasing member of Muniz to be a wave spring washer, as Muniz suggests other types of biasing members may be used (see paragraph [0064], and Lessig suggests a wave spring or the like may be used as a biasing member in an external fixation clamp (see Lessig, paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Muniz discloses further comprising a central axle (110) engaged to the upper jaw and lower jaw (see Figs 3 and 4), wherein the engagement between the central axle and the lower jaw is such that movement of the central axle moves the lower jaw (see Figs. 3 and 4; movement of central axle moves the lower jaw via flange 116 pressing against member 122 of lower jaw 120).
Regarding claim 4, Muniz discloses further comprising a drive screw (182) engaged to the central axle through drive screw internal threading (194) and central axel external threading (118) (see paragraph [0070] and Fig. 4), such that rotation of the drive screw draws the central axle upward or downward depending on clockwise or counterclockwise drive screw rotation, respectively (see Figs. 3 and 4 and paragraphs [0070-[0075]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the references disclose similar external fixation clamps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J PLIONIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. EST.
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, Eduardo Robert, can be reached on 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.
/NICHOLAS J PLIONIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights