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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed 6/16/2025 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant argues that the 35 USC 103 rejections to the claims should not be maintained in view of “Applicant respectfully submits that Westin is silent with regards to a lock configured to lock a spring in a compressed state as recited in claim 17. Westin does not mention a lock that locks the spring in a compressed state, let alone disclose a spring that "does not bias the sleeve when in the compressed state" and that "decompresses and moves in a first direction that causes the sleeve to move in the first direction from the second sleeve position to the first sleeve position" when the lock releases the spring from the compressed state," as recited in claim 17” However, Westin teaches in col 4 Line 49-51 During this retraction of sheath 14, bevel points 21a and 21b are held securely in engagement with bone 60 by the resiliency of spring 26 and Col 6 Line 6-9 forward movement of drill bit 44 into bone 60 causes spring 26 to become compressed by forcing sheath 14 in a rearward direction causing collar 22 to compress spring 26 against the base of end cap 28. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues “Regarding claims 18 and 20, Applicant respectfully submits that Westin makes no mention of "a platform, wherein the platform comprises a rail coupled to the sleeve, and wherein the sleeve is configured to move between the first sleeve position and the second sleeve position by travelling along the rail," as recited in claim 18, or "a platform configured to receive the sleeve, wherein the sleeve is extended away from the platform and covers the surgical instrument when in the first sleeve position and is positioned in the platform when in the second sleeve position," as recited in claim 20.” However, Westin teaches a bone drill 40 (sleeve) in a first and second position in Fig. 3 and 4 with the shield 12 (platform). Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues “Mire further defines the thresholds to "... correspond to the location in bone structure 906 in which implant 73 is to be implanted into bone structure 906 in a position desired by the surgeon as well as in a position that will avoid affecting the neural integrity of the patient," see Mire, paragraph 101. However, a location in an image of bone structure which defines a safe or target threshold, as taught by Mire, is not indicative of a breaching state in which the surgical instrument has actually breached tissue by more than a threshold thickness as recited in claim 1. Mire appears silent with respect to a signal indicating a breaching state in which the surgical instrument has breached tissue by more than a threshold thickness.” However, Mire teaches [0088] because surgical instrument 136 of surgical tool 100 carries an electric signal, surgical tool 100 is capable of generating neurological responses during a surgical procedure if surgical instrument 136 or implant 73 is positioned within a predetermined distance of a neural element. In the case of spinal surgeries, as set forth below, this allows a surgeon to precisely determine and take appropriate action to avoid potentially harmful contact with neural elements. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westin (US 5667509 A)
Regarding claim 17, Westin teaches A protection assembly comprising: (Abstract: A bone drill enclosed by a retractable sheath, the sheath having bevel points at its distal end for engaging the bone and a spring at its proximal end for resiliently urging the distal end against the surface of the bone while allowing the sheath to be retracted as the drill penetrates the bone.)
a sleeve movable between a first sleeve position and a second sleeve position, wherein the sleeve covers a surgical instrument when in the first sleeve position and does not cover the surgical instrument when in the second sleeve position; (Fig. 3 and 4 drill tip 45)
a spring configured to bias the sleeve to the first sleeve position; and (Col 2 Line 21-23 The shield is spring biased and retractable to allow the bone drill to be extended beyond the end of the shield and thereby penetrate the underlying bone.)
a lock configured to lock the spring in a. (Col 4 Line 40-51 Or, to state it more accurately, drill bit 44 extends beyond distal end 13 causing sheath 14 to compress spring 26 (FIG. 2) thereby resulting in the aforesaid retraction of sheath 14 relative to the forward extension of drill bit 44. The depth of penetration of drill bit 44 into bone 60 is limited by the total available distance between the proximal end of sheath 14 and the end of tubular boss 29. The actual depth of penetration is indicated visually by the passage of indicia 15 inside housing 24. During this retraction of sheath 14, bevel points 21a and 21b are held securely in engagement with bone 60 by the resiliency of spring 26.)
Regarding claim 18, Westin teaches The protection assembly of claim 17, wherein the protection assembly further comprises a platform, wherein the platform comprises a rail coupled to the sleeve, and wherein the sleeve is configured to move between the first sleeve position and the second sleeve position by travelling along the rail. (Col 4 Line 29-51 Referring now to FIGS. 3 and 4, distal end 13 of sheath 14 is shown with bevel points 21a and 21b in engagement with the surface of bone 60. As shown in FIG. 3, drill tip 45 is also pressed against bone 60. Advantageously, the resiliency of spring 26 (FIG. 2) allows drill shaft 42 to be telescopically pushed incrementally into the body of sheath 14 thereby accommodating the engagement of bevel points 21a and 21b securely with the surface of bone 60. With bevel points 21a and 21b securely engaged against bone 60, the drill motor (not shown) is activated causing drill tip 45 to penetrate bone 60. As drill bit 44 penetrates bone 60, sheath 14 is retracted relative to bone drill 40. Or, to state it more accurately, drill bit 44 extends beyond distal end 13 causing sheath 14 to compress spring 26 (FIG. 2) thereby resulting in the aforesaid retraction of sheath 14 relative to the forward extension of drill bit 44. The depth of penetration of drill bit 44 into bone 60 is limited by the total available distance between the proximal end of sheath 14 and the end of tubular boss 29. The actual depth of penetration is indicated visually by the passage of indicia 15 inside housing 24. During this retraction of sheath 14, bevel points 21a and 21b are held securely in engagement with bone 60 by the resiliency of spring 26)
Regarding claim 20, Westin teaches The protection assembly of claim 17, further comprising a platform configured to receive the sleeve, wherein the sleeve is extended away from the platform and covers the surgical instrument when in the first sleeve position and is positioned in the platform when in the second sleeve position. (Fig. 3 and 4 drill tip 45)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 20080243125 A1) in view of Mire (US 20090299439 A1) in further view of Kostrzewski (US 20150100066 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guzman teaches A protection system comprising: ([0077] The bone saw blade assembly includes a bone saw blade 118 and a bone saw blade guard 120.)
a protection assembly configured to transition a surgical instrument between a first state and a second state; ([0074] Referring now to FIG. 6, in one embodiment, the surgical tool 58 is embodied as a bone saw tool 100. The bone saw tool 100 includes a bone saw 102 and a bone saw blade assembly 104 [0082] As illustrated in FIGS. 8, 10, and 16, when the slats 130, 134 are in the retracted position, the cutting teeth 119 of the bone saw blade 118 are exposed [0083] As illustrated in FIGS. 9, 11, and 17, when the slats 130, 134 are moved to the extended position, the cutting teeth 119 of the bone saw blade 118 are covered by the slats 130, 134)
a processor; and (Fig. 6 processor 40)
a memory storing data for processing by the processor, the data, when processed, causes the processor to: (Fig. 6 memory 42 [0063] the computer 12 illustratively includes a processor 40 and a memory device 42)
cause the protection assembly to transition the surgical instrument from the first state to the second state when the signal is received. ([0121] However, if the computer 12 determines that the bone saw tool 100 is outside the cutting region as determined in process step 902, the computer 12 activates the bone saw guard 120 (or the cutting depth guard 800) of the bone saw tool 100 in process step 916. To do so, the computer 12 may transmit a signal to the bone saw tool 100 via the communication link 112. In response, the bone saw 102 of the bone saw tool 100 activates the guard actuator 116 to cause the bone saw blade guard 120 (or the cutting depth guard 800) to be moved to the extended position such that the cutting effectiveness of the bone saw blade 118 is reduced. That is, the guard actuator 116 and the saw guard hub(s) cooperate to move the bone saw blade guard 120 to the extended position)
Guzman does not expressly disclose but Mire discloses receive a signal indicating a breaching state in which the surgical instrument has breached tissue by more than a threshold thickness; and ([0005] a wireless signal is sent to the surgical tool instructing the surgical tool to cease supplying power to the motor, thereby stopping the motor from rotating the surgical instrument. If the surgical navigation system detects that the implant is about to breach a safe threshold or has breached a safe threshold, a wireless signal is sent to the surgical tool to cease supplying power to the motor, thereby once again stopping the motor from rotating the surgical instrument. [0102] safe or target thresholds 910 are defined on images 908 using NAV system 902. During implantation of implant 73 into bone structure 906, if a safe threshold 910 is breached or about to be breached, navigation software application 904 will instruct transceiver 814 to transmit a wireless signal to surgical tool 100 instructing surgical tool 100 to stop.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Mire with a reasonable expectation of success by providing a surgical tool that is utilized during surgical procedures to implant a device in a bone structure as taught by Mire ([0004]).
Guzman does not expressly disclose “a robot” but Kostrzewski discloses surgical instrument of a robot (Fig. 2 C [0081] the robotic arm 208 that holds tool 210)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Kostrzewski with a reasonable expectation of success by providing a robot arm with an end effector for precise positioning of a surgical tool as taught by Kostrzewski (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Mire discloses The protection system of claim 1, wherein the threshold thickness corresponds to a distance from a tip of the surgical tool to a boundary of soft tissue. ([0005] a wireless signal is sent to the surgical tool instructing the surgical tool to cease supplying power to the motor, thereby stopping the motor from rotating the surgical instrument. If the surgical navigation system detects that the implant is about to breach a safe threshold or has breached a safe threshold, a wireless signal is sent to the surgical tool to cease supplying power to the motor, thereby once again stopping the motor from rotating the surgical instrument. [0102] safe or target thresholds 910 are defined on images 908 using NAV system 902. During implantation of implant 73 into bone structure 906, if a safe threshold 910 is breached or about to be breached, navigation software application 904 will instruct transceiver 814 to transmit a wireless signal to surgical tool 100 instructing surgical tool 100 to stop. [0088] because surgical instrument 136 of surgical tool 100 carries an electric signal, surgical tool 100 is capable of generating neurological responses during a surgical procedure if surgical instrument 136 or implant 73 is positioned within a predetermined distance of a neural element. In the case of spinal surgeries, as set forth below, this allows a surgeon to precisely determine and take appropriate action to avoid potentially harmful contact with neural elements.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Mire with a reasonable expectation of success by providing a surgical tool that is utilized during surgical procedures to implant a device in a bone structure as taught by Mire ([0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Mire discloses The protection system of claim 1, wherein the tissue comprises hard tissue or soft tissue. ([0005] a wireless signal is sent to the surgical tool instructing the surgical tool to cease supplying power to the motor, thereby stopping the motor from rotating the surgical instrument. If the surgical navigation system detects that the implant is about to breach a safe threshold or has breached a safe threshold, a wireless signal is sent to the surgical tool to cease supplying power to the motor, thereby once again stopping the motor from rotating the surgical instrument. [0102] safe or target thresholds 910 are defined on images 908 using NAV system 902. During implantation of implant 73 into bone structure 906, if a safe threshold 910 is breached or about to be breached, navigation software application 904 will instruct transceiver 814 to transmit a wireless signal to surgical tool 100 instructing surgical tool 100 to stop.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Mire with a reasonable expectation of success by providing a surgical tool that is utilized during surgical procedures to implant a device in a bone structure as taught by Mire ([0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Guzman teaches The protection system of claim 1, wherein the first state comprises a working state ([0120] in process step 912, the computer 12 determines if the bone saw tool 100 is within the cutting region as determined in process step 202. To do so, the computer is configured to compare the location of the bone saw tool 100 as determined in process step 908 to the cutting region. If the computer 12 determines that the bone saw tool 100 is within the cutting region, the algorithm 900 advances to process step 914 wherein the computer 12 allows the operation of the bone saw tool 100. That is, the bone saw tool 100 may be used by the surgeon to cut the relevant bone of the patient in process step 914.) and the second state comprises a non-working state. ([0122] the bone saw 102 may also be configured to stop operation in process step 918 when the bone saw tool 100 is not within the cutting region. That is, if the bone saw tool 100 receives the signal from the computer 12 indicating that the bone saw tool 100 is no longer within the cutting region, the bone saw 102 is configured to halt the bone saw blade 118 or otherwise stop oscillating the blade 118. In this way, the operation of the bone saw 102 is halted and the bone saw guard 120 is activated whenever the bone saw tool 100 is outside the cutting region.)
Claims 5-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 20080243125 A1) in view of Mire (US 20090299439 A1) in further view of Kostrzewski (US 20150100066 A1) in further view of Westin (US 5667509 A)
Regarding claim 5, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection system of claim 1, wherein the first state corresponds to the surgical instrument being in a first position(Fig 3 drill tip 45) and the second state corresponds to the surgical instrument being in a second position(Fig. 4 drill tip 45), and wherein the protection assembly comprises:
a platform configured to receive the surgical instrument; (Fig 3 shield 12)
a compressible structure configured to bias the surgical instrument to the second position; and (Col 2 Line 21-23 The shield is spring biased and retractable to allow the bone drill to be extended beyond the end of the shield and thereby penetrate the underlying bone.)
a lock configured to lock the compressible structure in a compressed state, wherein when the lock releases the. (Col 3 Line 59-65 Spring 26 is mounted between collar 22 and end cap 28 when end cap 28 is secured to housing 24. A tubular boss 29 extends coaxially from the face of end cap 28 and serves as a retainer for spring 26 as well as being an abutment surface for the end of sheath 14 when distal end 13 of sheath 14 is pressed against bone 60 causing spring 26 to be compressed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Regarding claim 6, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection system of claim 5, wherein the surgical instrument is extended when in the first position and retracted when in the second position. (Fig. 3 and 4 drill tip 45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Regarding claim 7, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection system of claim 5, wherein causing the protection assembly to move the surgical instrument from the first position to the second position comprises causing the lock to release the compressible structure from the compressed state. (Col 4 Line 40-51Or, to state it more accurately, drill bit 44 extends beyond distal end 13 causing sheath 14 to compress spring 26 (FIG. 2) thereby resulting in the aforesaid retraction of sheath 14 relative to the forward extension of drill bit 44. The depth of penetration of drill bit 44 into bone 60 is limited by the total available distance between the proximal end of sheath 14 and the end of tubular boss 29. The actual depth of penetration is indicated visually by the passage of indicia 15 inside housing 24. During this retraction of sheath 14, bevel points 21a and 21b are held securely in engagement with bone 60 by the resiliency of spring 26.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Regarding claim 9, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection system of claim 1, wherein the protection assembly comprises:
a sleeve configured to move between a first sleeve position and a second sleeve position, wherein the sleeve covers the surgical instrument when in the first sleeve position and does not cover the surgical instrument when in the second sleeve position, wherein the second sleeve position corresponds to the first state of the surgical instrument and the first sleeve position corresponds to the second state of the surgical instrument; (Fig. 3 and 4 drill tip 45 and shield 12)
a compressible structure configured to bias the sleeve to the first sleeve position; and (Col 2 Line 21-23 The shield is spring biased and retractable to allow the bone drill to be extended beyond the end of the shield and thereby penetrate the underlying bone.)
a lock configured to lock the compressible structure in a compressed state, wherein the compressible structure does not bias the sleeve when in the compressed state, and wherein when the lock releases, the compressible structure changes from the compressed state to a decompressed state and moves, the sleeve from the second sleeve position to the first sleeve position. (Col 3 Line 59-65 Spring 26 is mounted between collar 22 and end cap 28 when end cap 28 is secured to housing 24. A tubular boss 29 extends coaxially from the face of end cap 28 and serves as a retainer for spring 26 as well as being an abutment surface for the end of sheath 14 when distal end 13 of sheath 14 is pressed against bone 60 causing spring 26 to be compressed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Regarding claim 10, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection system of claim 9, wherein the protection assembly further comprises a platform, wherein the sleeve is disposed on the platform, and wherein the sleeve is extended away from the platform and covers the surgical instrument when in the first sleeve position and is positioned in the platform when in the second sleeve position. (Fig.1-4 Col line The actual depth of penetration is indicated visually by the passage of indicia 15 inside housing 24. During this retraction of sheath 14, bevel points 21a and 21b are held securely in engagement with bone 60 by the resiliency of spring 26.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 20080243125 A1) in view of Mire (US 20090299439 A1) in further view of Kostrzewski (US 20150100066 A1) in further view of Westin (US 5667509 A) in further view of Muse (US 20190282244 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Muse discloses The protection system of claim 5, wherein the lock comprises an electro-mechanical device. ([0144] a locking pin may be used to prevent relative movement of the proximal cap 302 and the housing 300 after the torsion spring 314 has been wound.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Muse with a reasonable expectation of success by providing a desired amount of torsion as taught by Muse ([0129]).
Claims 11-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 20080243125 A1) in view of Westin (US 5667509 A)
Regarding claim 11, Guzman teaches A protection assembly comprising: ([0077] The bone saw blade assembly includes a bone saw blade 118 and a bone saw blade guard 120.)
a platform configured to support a surgical instrument, the surgical instrument configured to move between a first position and a second position; ([0082] As illustrated in FIGS. 8, 10, and 16, when the slats 130, 134 are in the retracted position, the cutting teeth 119 of the bone saw blade 118 are exposed [0083] As illustrated in FIGS. 9, 11, and 17, when the slats 130, 134 are moved to the extended position, the cutting teeth 119 of the bone saw blade 118 are covered by the slats 130, 134.)
Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses a compressible structure coupled to the surgical instrument and configured to bias the surgical instrument to the second position; and (Col 2 Line 21-23 The shield is spring biased and retractable to allow the bone drill to be extended beyond the end of the shield and thereby penetrate the underlying bone.)
a lock configured to lock the compressible structure in a locked state, wherein the compressible structure does not bias the surgical instrument when in the locked state, and wherein when the. (Col 4 Line 40-51 Or, to state it more accurately, drill bit 44 extends beyond distal end 13 causing sheath 14 to compress spring 26 (FIG. 2) thereby resulting in the aforesaid retraction of sheath 14 relative to the forward extension of drill bit 44. The depth of penetration of drill bit 44 into bone 60 is limited by the total available distance between the proximal end of sheath 14 and the end of tubular boss 29. The actual depth of penetration is indicated visually by the passage of indicia 15 inside housing 24. During this retraction of sheath 14, bevel points 21a and 21b are held securely in engagement with bone 60 by the resiliency of spring 26.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Regarding claim 12, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection assembly of claim 11, wherein the
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Regarding claim 14, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection assembly of claim 11, wherein the surgical instrument is extended when in the first position and retracted when in the second position. (Fig. 3 and 4 drill tip 45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Regarding claim 15, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection assembly of claim 11, wherein the platform comprises a first end opposite a second end. (Fig. 3 distal end 13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Regarding claim 16, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Westin discloses The protection assembly of claim 15, wherein the surgical instrument is extended away from the first end and past the second end when in the first position and retracted towards the first end when in the second position. (Fig. 3 and 4 drill tip 45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Westin with a reasonable expectation of success by including a bone drill shielded to preclude loose tissue from becoming entangled with the rotating bone drill as taught by Westin (Col 1 Line 61-65).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guzman (US 20080243125 A1) in view of Westin (US 5667509 A) in further view of Muse (US 20190282244 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Muse discloses The protection assembly of claim 11, wherein the compressible structure comprises a spring and the lock comprises a solenoid that holds a lever. (Fig. 7 [0144] a locking pin may be used to prevent relative movement of the proximal cap 302 and the housing 300 after the torsion spring 314 has been wound. [0232]-[0234] The torsion spring that fit within the body of the unit, and provided the desired number of turns, and torsion, was determined to be: Table 1 and Table 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Muse with a reasonable expectation of success by providing a desired amount of torsion as taught by Muse ([0129]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westin (US 5667509 A) in view of Muse (US 20190282244 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Guzman does not expressly disclose but Muse discloses The protection assembly of claim 17, wherein the lock is a solenoid. . (Fig. 7 [0144] a locking pin may be used to prevent relative movement of the proximal cap 302 and the housing 300 after the torsion spring 314 has been wound. [0232]-[0234] The torsion spring that fit within the body of the unit, and provided the desired number of turns, and torsion, was determined to be: Table 1 and Table 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guzman with the teachings of Muse with a reasonable expectation of success by providing a desired amount of torsion as taught by Muse ([0129]).
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 SARAH TRAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6642. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm M-F.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/S.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights