Detailed Action
This is the first office action on the merits for US application number 19/481,068.
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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “said anvil is an internally hollow cylinder within which the striker element and, inside the striker element, the pusher element are contained” in claim 1 lines 14 and 15, “wherein the anvil is completely contained within said containment sleeve” of claim 5, and “said pusher element is connected to said striker element only by said coil springs” of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 should read “An orthopedic impacting device comprising:” and the body of the claim should begin on the following line.
Claim 1 lines 10-11 should read “said motion transmitting system comprises a pusher element[[,] adapted to move”.
Claim 17 lines 5-6 should read “and an extracted extraction position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an actuating device” in claim 1 line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of two elastic elements” in claim 1 line 11 and “means of a pair of coil springs” in claim 12 line 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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(s) 1-18 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “an actuating device” in lines 1-2 as there appears to be no structural description of the term provided to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the intended scope and equivalents thereof. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to as trigger as appears to be supported by Applicant’s figures and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 1 recites/recite the limitation "the motion from the electric motor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “a motion transmitting system adapted to transfer [[the]] motion from the electric motor”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “means of two elastic elements” in line 11 and to what the “means” are intended to refer if not the elastic elements. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “said striker element with two elastic elements”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “said anvil is an internally hollow cylinder within which the striker element and, inside the striker element, the pusher element are contained” in lines 14 and 15 with regards to the unusual comma usage and the intended effect as to what structures are intended to be claimed to be “inside” and “contained”. That is, it is unclear with noun is being modified with the phrase “inside the striker element” and appears to contract what is shown in Applicant’s figures, in particular figures 3 and 6 where the pusher 6 is shown to be partially received within the striker 5 and the pusher 6 is positioned partially within anvil 4. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “said anvil is an internally hollow cylinder within which the striker element is contained, wherein said pusher element is received within said striker element.” in lines 14 and 15.
Claim(s) 5 is/are unclear with regards to a position where “the anvil is completely contained within said containment sleeve” in lines 4-5 and where such is supported in the original disclosure as page 11 lines 5-10 discloses that the completely retracted pushing position where the anvil 4 is completely contained withing device 1 is shown in Fig 7 but review of Fig. 7 shows that anvil 4 extends externally of the containment sleeve 8; where to be contained is “To have in it, to hold; to comprise, enclose.” (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/contain_v?tab=meaning_and_use&tl=true#8420977) and it does not appear that Applicant has provided an alternate definition. It appears that Applicant is meaning something other than contained, but what is intended to be claimed is unclear. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the anvil being more recessed within the containment sleeve when in the retracted position than when in the extended position and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 7 is/are unclear with regards to “comprises a worm screw cooperating with a nut-screw” in lines 2-3 where page 9 the specification provides that element 10 is the worm screw and element 11 is the nut-screw and yet the broadly shown structures in Fig. 3 do not appear to represent a worm screw or an engagement with a structure as the terms are typically used nor does 11 appear to represent a structure that is a nut or a screw to enable one to determine what might be intended as a “nut-screw”. That is, while Applicant has technically shown the claimed worm gear and nut-screw, it is completely unclear as to what the intended structures are and how they can be reasonably construed to represent to ordinary usage of a worm gear and the apparently unknown nut-screw based on an internet search. One might guess that Fig. 3 with an ordinary electric motor comprises a threaded shaft 10 with a bushing or spacer 11, but such does not appear to be described in the specification. Claim 7 is further unclear with regards to the axial oscillation in both travel directions and support for oscillation in at least two directions, irregular comma usage, and missing nouns following “centre”. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein said motion transmitting system said oscillation between a top dead center (TDC) position located near a first open end of said containment sleeve and a bottom dead center (BDC) position located near a second end of said containment sleeve.”
Claim(s) 10 is/are unclear with regards to “a head of said pusher element” in line 3 that is in addition to the “pusher element having a head portion” in claim 9 lines 3-4 from which claim 10 depends. Examiner suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 11 is/are unclear with regards to “said pusher element is connected to said striker element only by said coil springs” in lines 1-2 when such is shown to be connected by an unlabeled element of a material different from the head portion in at least Fig. 4 as illustrated below on an enlarged portion of Fig. 4. Examiner suggests amending to clarify.
PNG
media_image1.png
1158
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are unclear with regards to “which in turn drags said striker element” and which portion of the preceding phrase this is intended to modify. Claim(s) 12 is/are unclear with regards to “means of a pair of coil springs” in line 5 and to what the “means” are intended to refer if not the pair of coil springs. Claim 12 is further unclear with “like a sling effect” as it appears to include a feature not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein said motion transmitting system transforms rotary motion of said electric motor into a linear oscillatory motion of said pusher element, wherein said pusher element drags said striker elementa pair of coil springs is capable of enhancing
Claim(s) 13 recites/recite the limitation "the direction of linear oscillatory motion" in line 2 and “the direction of rotation” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is also unclear as to a disclosure of “linear oscillatory motion” in line 2 that is in addition to “axial oscillatory motion” of claim 7 line 4. Further, claim 13 is/are unclear with regards to the purported “worm screw” in line 3 as detail with regards to claim 7 above. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein [[the]]a direction of the axial oscillatory motion is determined by [[the]]a direction of rotation of the motor.”.
Claim(s) 14 is/are unclear with regards to “parallel to each other, defining bases” in line 3 and “said first wall of said striker element impacting against said first pushing surface of said anvil , when said anvil is in a retracted position within said containment sleeve and said pusher element is in a top dead center (TDC) position, to push said anvil outwardly of said impacting device” in lines 4-7 and the irregular comma usage and which phrases are intended to modify which other phrases. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein said striker element has a cylindrical shape with a first wall and a second wall opposite to the first wall, [[and]] parallel to each other, and defining bases of said striker element; said first wall of said striker element impacting against said first pushing surface of said anvil[[,]] when said anvil is in a retracted position within said containment sleeve and said pusher element is in a top dead center (TDC) position[[,]] to push said anvil outwardly of said impacting device.
Claim(s) 15 is/are unclear with regards to the irregular comma usage and which phrases are intended to modify which other phrases as well as the missing noun after “center”. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “said second wall of said striker element impacts against said second extraction surface of said anvil[[,]] when said anvil is in a position at least partially extracted from said containment sleeve and said pusher element is in a bottom dead center (BDC)[[,]] position to pull said anvil and cause it to retract within said impacting device.”.\
Claim(s) 16 is/are unclear with regards to “a pusher element” in lines 1-2 that is in addition to the pusher element of claim 2 line 10 from which claim 16 depends and where support can be found for both recited pusher elements which were previously both mapped as element 6. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein [[a]]the pusher element performs an oscillation”.
Claim(s) 17 is/are unclear with regards to “it” in line 2 and to which structure this is intended to refer, the irregular comma usage, and antecedent basis support for “said outer springs”. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein [[it]]the device comprises a pair of outer springs[[,]] placed around said anvil, said outer springs positioned between an outer surface of said anvil and an inner surface of said containment sleeve; said outer springs being adapted to maintain said anvil in a neutral position, wherein the neutral position is an intermediate position between a retracted pushing position and an extracted extraction position.”.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
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 of this title, 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) 1-8 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittrich et al. (US 2024/0024012, hereinafter “Dittrich”).
As to claims 1-8 and 14-18, Dittrich discloses an orthopedic impacting device (300, Figs. 3-10 and similarly shown structures of similar embodiments of Figs. 1A and 1B) comprising: an electric motor (146), an actuating device/trigger (352), an anvil (416, 401, 412, 330, Figs. 4A-7 and 9A-9C) that can be removably associated (via 330, ¶98) to a surgery tool (“instrument” of ¶98) to be introduced or extracted (¶s 97, 98, 103, and 104), a striker element (434, 432, i.e. enlarged portions at the right end of 122 as shown in Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C, Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C) capable of interact with said anvil (Figs. 9A and 9B) capable of promoting introduction or extraction of the surgery tool (¶s 97, 98, 103, and 104), a motion transmitting system (142) capable of transferring motion from the electric motor to the striker element (Figs. 1A, 1B, 4B, 5A, and 9A-9C); wherein: said anvil has two abutment surfaces (left-facing surface of 412 as shown in Figs. 9A-9C, right facing surface of 416 as shown in Figs. 5B and 9A-9C, Figs. 5B and 9A-9C) interacting with said striker element (Figs. 9A and 9B, ¶s 103 and 104), said two abutment surfaces comprising one first pushing surface (left-facing surface of 412 as shown in Figs. 9A-9C, Figs. 5B and 9A-9C) and one second extraction surface (right facing surface of 416 as shown in Figs. 5B and 9A-9C, Figs. 5B and 9A-9C), said motion transmitting system comprises a pusher element (as defined) capable of moving said striker element (Figs. 1A, 1B, 4B, 5A, and 9A-9C) with two elastic elements (409, 408) capable of amplifying thrust exerted by the striker element selectively on one of said two abutment surfaces of said anvil (Figs. 1A, 1B, 4B, 5A, and 9A-9C), and said anvil is an internally hollow cylinder (portion 401, Fig. 4A, ¶101) within which the striker element is contained (as defined, Figs. 5B and 9A-9C. As to claim 2, Dittrich discloses that the orthopedic impacting device comprises a containment sleeve (right portion of 302 as shown in Fig. 4B, Fig. 4B) within which said anvil, said striker element, and said pusher element are housed (Fig. 4B). As to claim 3, Dittrich discloses that said pusher element, said striker element, and said anvil are capable of linearly moving with oscillatory motion along a longitudinal axis of said orthopedic impacting device (horizonal as shown in Fig. 4B and 9A-9C, Figs. 4B and 9A-9C, ¶s 80, 103, 104, and 115). As to claim 4, Dittrich discloses that said containment sleeve has a first open end (right end as shown in Fig. 4B, Fig. 4B), through which said anvil slides and exits at least partially (when 304 and 306 are removed, Fig. 4B, ¶99), and a second end (left end as shown in Fig. 4B, Fig. 4B) connected to a compartment (320) within which said electric motor and, at least partially, said motion transmitting system are contained (Fig. 4B). As to claim 5, Dittrich discloses that said anvil is capable of oscillating along a longitudinal axis of said orthopedic impacting device (horizonal as shown in Fig. 4B, Fig. 4B) within said orthopedic impacting device (Figs. 4B and 9A-9C, ¶s 80, 103, 104, and 115) between a retracted pushing position (Fig. 9A), wherein the anvil is completely contained within said containment sleeve (Fig. 9A, ¶118), and an extracted pulling position (Fig. 9B), wherein the anvil is at least partially external to said containment sleeve (Fig. 9B, ¶118). As to claim 6, Dittrich discloses that said first pushing surface and said second extraction surface are parallel to each other (Fig. 4B), define bases of the cylinder constituting said anvil (Fig. 4B)and are orthogonal to said longitudinal axis of said orthopedic impacting device (Fig. 4B), said first pushing surface being placed near a first open first end of said containment sleeve (right end as shown in Fig. 4B, Fig. 4B). As to claim 7, Dittrich discloses said motion transmitting system operatively associated with said pusher element (Figs. 4A-5B and 9A-9C) capable of promoting axial oscillation of said pusher element (Figs. 4A-5B and 9A-9C), said oscillation between a top dead center (TDC) position (Fig. 9B) located near a first open end of said containment sleeve (right end as shown in Fig. 4B, Fig. 4B) and a bottom dead center (BDC) position (Fig. 9A) located near a second end of said containment sleeve (left end as shown in Fig. 4B, Fig. 4B). As to claim 8, Dittrich discloses that said striker element is moved by said pusher element (Figs. 4A-5B and 9A-9C) capable of oscillating along with said pusher element within said anvil (Figs. 4A-5B and 9A-9C, ¶s 80, 103, 104, and 115). As to claim 14, Dittrich discloses that said striker element has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 6D) with a first wall (right facing surface of 432 as shown in Figs. 5B and 9A-9C, Figs. 5B and 9A-9C) and a second wall (left facing surface of 434 as shown in Figs. 5B and 9A-9C, Figs. 5B and 9A-9C) opposite to the first wall (Figs. 5B and 9A-9C), parallel to each other (Figs. 5B and 9A-9C), and defining bases of said striker element (Figs. 5B and 9A-9C); said first wall of said striker element impacting against said first pushing surface of said anvil (Fig. 9B) when said anvil is in a retracted position within said containment sleeve (Fig. 9B) and said pusher element is in a top dead center (TDC) position capable of pushing said anvil outwardly of said impacting device (Figs. 9A-9C). As to claim 15, Dittrich discloses that said second wall of said striker element impacts against said second extraction surface of said anvil (Fig. 9A) when said anvil is in a position at least partially extracted from said containment sleeve (Fig. 9B) and said pusher element is in a bottom dead center (BDC) position capable of pulling said anvil and cause it to retract within said impacting device (Figs. 9A-9C). As to claim 16, Dittrich discloses that the pusher element performs an oscillation (Figs. 4A-5B and 9A-9C, ¶s 80, 103, 104, and 115) along a longitudinal axis of the orthopedic impacting device (horizontal as show in Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C, ¶s 80, 103, 104, and 115) having a constant excursion amplitude within a containment sleeve (right portion of 302 as shown in Fig. 4B, Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C), the interaction and impact of said striker element against said first or said second abutment surface of said anvil depends on a position of the anvil relative to said containment sleeve (Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C). As to claim 17, Dittrich discloses that the device comprises a pair of outer springs (408, 409) placed around said anvil (Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C), said outer springs positioned between an outer surface of said anvil (Figs. 5B and 9A-9C) and an inner surface of said containment sleeve (Figs. 5B and 9A-9C); said outer springs being capable of maintaining said anvil in a neutral position (Fig. 9C), wherein the neutral position is an intermediate position (Fig. 9C) between a retracted pushing position (Fig. 9A) and an extracted extraction position (Fig. 9B). As to claim 18, Dittrich discloses that said first wall of said striker element has a circular impact surface (Fig. 6D), while said second wall of said striker element has an annular impact surface (Figs. 5B and 6D).
Dittrich is silent to said pusher element is received within said striker element.
Dittrich, in an alternate embodiment, teaches a similar orthopedic impacting device (200, Fig. 2) comprising: an electric motor (246), an anvil (210, 232, 214), a striker element (230, 226) capable of interacting with said anvil (Fig .2, ¶s 87 and 88), a motion transmitting system (235) capable of transferring the motion from the electric motor to the striker element (Fig. 2, ¶91); wherein: said anvil has two abutment surfaces (right facing surface of 232 as shown in Fig. 2, left facing surface of 214 as shown in Fig. 2, Fig. 2) interacting with said striker element (¶s 87 and 88), said motion transmitting system comprises a pusher element (as defined, i.e. 235) capable of moving said striker element (Fig. 2, ¶91), and said anvil is internally hollow (Fig. 2) within which the striker element is contained (as defined, Fig. 2), wherein said pusher element is received within said striker element (as defined, Fig. 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to replace the pusher and modify the corresponding interfaces with the motor and the striker element as disclosed by Dittrich with the pusher and modify the corresponding interface contours with the motor and the striker element as taught by Dittrich, in an alternate embodiment, in order to provide a known alternate coupling configuration between a motor and a striker element (Dittrich Fig. 2; Dittrich Fig. 5A).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dittrich in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0020536, hereinafter “Johnson”).
As to claim 12, the combination of Dittrich discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as said motion transmitting system transforms motion of said electric motor into a linear oscillatory motion of said pusher element (Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C, ¶s 80, 103, 104, and 115), wherein said pusher element drags said striker element in translation along a longitudinal axis (horizontal as shown in Fig. 4B, Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C), wherein elastic expansion action of a pair of coil springs (408 and 409) is capable of enhancing an impact force of said striker element against one of the two abutment surfaces of said anvil (Figs. 4B-5B and 9A-9C, ¶105).
The combination of Dittrich is silent to the motion of the electric motor being rotary.
Johnson teaches a similar orthopedic impacting device (10, Figs. 1, ¶8) comprising: an electric motor (82, Fig. 1, ¶s 8, 10, and 13), an actuating device/trigger (34), an anvil (98, 50, Fig. 1, ¶s 11 and 12) that can be removably associated to a surgery tool to be introduced or extracted (Fig. 1), a striker element (90) capable of to interact with said anvil (Fig. 1) capable of promoting introduction of the surgery tool (Fig. 1, ¶13), a motion transmitting system (86, 94, Fig. 1, ¶10) capable of transfering the motion from the electric motor to the striker element (Fig. 1, ¶s 10 and 13); wherein: said anvil has an abutment surface (134) interacting with said striker element (Fig. 1, ¶s 10 and 13), said abutment surface comprising one first pushing surface (as defined, Fig. 1), said motion transmitting system comprises a pusher element (94) capable of moving said striker element (Fig. 1, ¶s 10 and 13), and said anvil is an internally hollow cylinder (Fig. 1, ¶10) within which the striker element is contained (Fig. 1), wherein said pusher element is received within said striker element (Fig. 1); wherein said motion transmitting system transforms rotary motion of said electric motor (¶s 10 and 13) into a linear oscillatory motion of said pusher element (Fig. 1, ¶s 10 and 13), wherein said pusher element drags said striker element in translation along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, ¶s 10 and 13).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to replace the linear electric motor and output as disclosed by the combination of Dittrich with a rotary electric motor and output shaft as taught by Johnson in order to provide a known alternate type of motor for displacing an striker element (Johnson Fig. 1) to impact an orthopedic surgery tool (Johnson Fig. 1, abstract, ¶s 10 and 13).
As to claim 13, the combination of Dittrich discloses the invention of claim 7 as well as a direction of the axial oscillatory motion is determined by a direction of movement of the motor (Figs. 9A-9C).
The combination of Dittrich is silent to the motion of the electric motor being rotation.
Johnson teaches a similar orthopedic impacting device (10, Figs. 1, ¶8) comprising: an electric motor (82, Fig. 1, ¶s 8, 10, and 13), an actuating device/trigger (34), an anvil (98, 50, Fig. 1, ¶s 11 and 12) that can be removably associated to a surgery tool to be introduced or extracted (Fig. 1), a striker element (90) capable of to interact with said anvil (Fig. 1) capable of promoting introduction of the surgery tool (Fig. 1, ¶13), a motion transmitting system (86, 94, Fig. 1, ¶10) capable of transfering the motion from the electric motor to the striker element (Fig. 1, ¶s 10 and 13); wherein: said anvil has an abutment surface (134) interacting with said striker element (Fig. 1, ¶s 10 and 13), said abutment surface comprising one first pushing surface (as defined, Fig. 1), said motion transmitting system comprises a pusher element (94) capable of moving said striker element (Fig. 1, ¶s 10 and 13), and said anvil is an internally hollow cylinder (Fig. 1, ¶10) within which the striker element is contained (Fig. 1), wherein said pusher element is received within said striker element (Fig. 1); wherein the orthopedic impacting device comprises a containment sleeve (22) within which said anvil, said striker element, and said pusher element are housed (Fig. 1, ¶10); wherein said motion transmitting system operatively associated with said pusher element (Fig. 1, ¶13) capable of promoting axial oscillation of said pusher element (Fig. 1, ¶13), said oscillation between a top dead center (TDC) position located near a first open end of said containment sleeve (right end as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1) and a bottom dead center (BDC) position located near a second end of said containment sleeve (left end as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1); wherein a direction of the axial oscillatory motion is determined by a direction of rotation of the motor (¶13).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to replace the linear electric motor and output as disclosed by the combination of Dittrich with a rotary electric motor and output shaft as taught by Johnson in order to provide a known alternate type of motor for displacing an striker element (Johnson Fig. 1) to impact an orthopedic surgery tool (Johnson Fig. 1, abstract, ¶s 10 and 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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 if rewritten as suggested or consistent with the interpretation set forth in this Office action 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 for the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 11 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, as suggested or consistent with the interpretation set forth in this Office action and to include 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 AMY R SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 6-4.
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 or telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on (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.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights