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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (Figs. 2A-R) in the reply filed on December 1, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it is not clear what features in each species are considered to be distinct. This is not found persuasive because the species have different configurations of housing (some receive restriction pins while others do not; some have an external thread while others do not), adapter (some are split into halves while others are not; some have textured surface features; some interact with restriction pins extending through the housing), and spacer (some have a single longitudinal concave channel; some have protrusions received by the adapter; some include multiple concave indents; some do not include any radial protrusions).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 26, 27, and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species as indicted by Applicant, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 1, 2025.
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (nonelected Species G and nonelected Species H include restriction pins; elected Species B does not), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 1, 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 17, and 22-25 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “arc” should be “are” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “ident” should be “indent” (line 6). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “at” should be deleted from “arranged at along” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “arc” should be “are” (line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 depends from cancelled claim 4 and therefore is not further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Because claim 3 introduces flat longitudinal surfaces, the Examiner is interpreting claim 5 as depending from claim 3.
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 5 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the longitudinal recesses" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as none of claims 1-3 recite longitudinal recesses (see the rejection above, where the Examiner stated that claim 5 is being interpreted as depending from claim 3). For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting claim 5 as reciting “wherein each of the longitudinal halves comprises a longitudinal recess, and wherein the longitudinal recesses are configured…”
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 2007/0270832 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 2006/0217716 A1).
Claim 1. Moore discloses a composite material device for connecting an orthopedic rod to a pedicle screw, the device comprising:
a housing (coupling mechanism 10) having a substantially annular body (see Figs. 2 and 3, which show that coupling mechanism 10 is substantially annular in shape) and comprising:
two opposite concave indents (see Fig. 2 inset) at a proximal end (see Fig. 2 inset) of the housing and in a longitudinal direction along the housing, the concave indents being configured to receive an orthopedic rod (stabilization member 30); and
an internal thread (internal threads 12) on an internal surface of a proximal portion (see Fig. 2 inset) of the housing;
an adapter (seat 13) configured to lock at least a portion of a pedicle screw head (anchor head 41) within a distal portion (see Fig. 2 inset) of the housing (when the system is fully assembled, seat 13 in conjunction with coupling mechanism 10 and additional components acts to lock anchor head 41 within coupling mechanism 10); and
an internal bolt (set screw member 20) comprising an external thread (external threads 21) configured to mate with the internal thread of the housing, the internal bolt being configured to be screwed into the proximal portion of the housing so as to lock the orthopedic rod between the adapter and the internal bolt (see Fig. 1);
wherein the internal bolt comprises composite materials (see para. 0034, which states that set screw member 20 can be fabricated from a carbon fiber composite material) (Figs. 1-12; paras. 0030-0038).
[AltContent: textbox (Distal Portion)][AltContent: textbox (Proximal End)][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)][AltContent: textbox (Proximal Portion)]
Claim 11. Moore discloses a spacer (saddle member 50) configured to be inserted into the housing between the adapter and the internal bolt (see Fig. 4) so that, when the internal bolt is screwed into the proximal portion of the housing, the internal bolt presses the spacer against the orthopedic rod between the adapter and the spacer (see Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-12; paras. 0030-0038).
Claim 12. Moore discloses wherein the spacer is substantially flat (see Figs. 6, 7, 9, and 10) and has an upper flat surface (proximal interface surface 54) and a bottom flat surface (see Fig. 9 inset; see also Fig. 10), wherein the spacer comprises a concave indent (distal interface surface 51) on the bottom flat surface thereof, and wherein the concave indent extends along a longitudinal dimension of the spacer (see Fig. 9) and is configured to receive a portion of the orthopedic rod (see Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-12; paras. 0030-0038).
PNG
media_image3.png
252
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom Flat Surface)]
Claim 17. Moore discloses wherein the spacer is connected at its center point (defined by hole 52) to a distal end (locking nub 23) of the internal bolt (Figs. 1-12; paras. 0030-0038).
Moore fails to disclose wherein the housing and the adapter comprise composite materials (claim 1).
Baker teaches a composite material device comprising: a housing (seat 102); an adapter (locking element 108); and an internal bolt (retaining element 110); wherein the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (see para. 0031, which states that seat 102, locking element 108, and retaining element 110 can be made from well-known biocompatible materials, such as carbon composite materials) (Fig. 1; para. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Moore such that the housing and the adapter comprise composite materials (claim 1), as suggested by Baker, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 2007/0270832 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 2006/0217716 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Fang et al. (US 2011/0066187 A1).
Claim 13. Moore discloses wherein the spacer comprises:
a central circular portion (see Fig. 9 inset) configured to be tightly inserted into an interior of the housing (see Fig. 4); and
two opposite radial protrusions (see Fig. 9 inset) radially protruding from opposing sides of the central circular portion (Figs. 1-12; paras. 0030-0038).
PNG
media_image3.png
252
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Circular Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Radial Protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Radial Protrusion)]
Moore and Baker fail to teach wherein the radial protrusions are configured to be tightly inserted into the first concave indent and the second concave indent of the housing (claim 13).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Radial Protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Radial Protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Circular Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)]Fang teaches a device comprising: a housing (head portion 14) comprising two opposite concave indents (see Fig. 2 inset) configured to receive an orthopedic rod (connecting member 22); an internal bolt (threaded screw 36) configured to mate with the housing; and a spacer (insert 38) connected to the internal bolt (via boss 40 as shown in Fig. 3) and configured to be inserted into the housing, wherein the spacer comprises a concave indent (concave lower surface 44) extending along a longitudinal dimension of the spacer and configured to receive a portion of the orthopedic rod, wherein the spacer comprises a central circular portion (see Fig. 2 inset) and two opposite radial protrusions (see Fig. 2 inset) protruding from opposite sides of the central circular portion, wherein the radial protrusions are configured to be tightly inserted into the first concave indent and the second concave indent of the housing (see Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Moore such that the radial protrusions are configured to be tightly inserted into the first concave indent and the second concave indent of the housing (claim 13), as suggested by Fang, as such a configuration ensures that the concave indent of the spacer remains aligned with the concave indents of the housing during assembly, thereby ensuring that the concave indent of the spacer remains aligned with the orthopedic rod.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 2007/0270832 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 2006/0217716 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lange et al. (US 2008/0262548 A1).
Claim 22. Moore in view of Baker teaches wherein the housing comprises carbon composite materials (see para. 0031 of Baker, which states that seat 102, which is the housing, can be made from well-known biocompatible materials, such as carbon composite materials).
Claim 24. Moore in view of Baker teaches wherein the internal bolt comprises carbon composite materials (see para. 0031 of Baker, which states that retaining element 110, which is the internal bolt, can be made from well-known biocompatible materials, such as carbon composite materials).
Moore and Baker fail to teach wherein the housing comprises composite material fibers being arranged along at least a portion of the housing in at least one of: an axial direction of the housing, a radial direction of the housing, a clockwise helical direction along the housing, a counterclockwise helical direction along the housing, or any combination thereof (claim 22), wherein the housing comprises two or more layers of composite material fibers, wherein the composite material fibers in at least a portion of the two or more layers are arranged in different direction with respect to each other (claim 23), wherein the internal bolt comprises composite material fibers being arranged at along at least a portion of the internal bolt in at least one of: an axial direction of the internal bolt, a radial direction of the internal bolt, a clockwise helical direction along the internal bolt, a counterclockwise helical direction along the internal bolt, or any combination thereof (claim 24), and wherein the internal bolt comprises two or more layers of composite material fibers, wherein the composite material fibers in at least a portion of the two or more layers are arranged in different direction with respect to each other (claim 25).
Lange teaches a structure (rod R) comprising composite material fibers (fibers 30, which are carbon fibers as stated in para. 0043) being arranged along at least a portion of the structure, wherein the composite material fibers comprise two or more layers (ply 26, ply 27, and ply 28) of composite material fibers, wherein the composite material fibers are arranged in an axial direction of the structure (see para. 0043, which states that fibers 30 of ply 26 and ply 28 are parallel to the longitudinal axis of rod R) and a radial direction of the structure (see para. 0043, which states that fibers 30 of ply 27 are crossed and oblique to the longitudinal axis of rod R) such that the composite material fibers are arranged in different directions with respect to each other, wherein such a configuration results in varying stiffness along the structure (see para. 0043) (Fig. 11; para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Moore such that the housing comprises composite material fibers being arranged along at least a portion of the housing in at least one of: an axial direction of the housing, a radial direction of the housing, a clockwise helical direction along the housing, a counterclockwise helical direction along the housing, or any combination thereof (claim 22), the housing comprises two or more layers of composite material fibers, wherein the composite material fibers in at least a portion of the two or more layers are arranged in different direction with respect to each other (claim 23), the internal bolt comprises composite material fibers being arranged at along at least a portion of the internal bolt in at least one of: an axial direction of the internal bolt, a radial direction of the internal bolt, a clockwise helical direction along the internal bolt, a counterclockwise helical direction along the internal bolt, or any combination thereof (claim 24), and the internal bolt comprises two or more layers of composite material fibers, wherein the composite material fibers in at least a portion of the two or more layers are arranged in different direction with respect to each other (claim 25), as suggested by Lange, in order to vary the stiffness along the housing and the internal bolt, thereby allowing the housing and the internal bolt to be manufactured in a way to better accommodate varying stresses acting on them during assembly and use.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US 2013/0144346 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 2006/0217716 A1).
Claim 1. Jackson discloses a device for connecting an orthopedic rod to a pedicle screw, the device comprising:
a housing (receiver 10) having a substantially annular body (see Figs. 5-7, which show that receiver 10 is substantially annular in shape) and comprising:
two opposite concave indents (see Fig. 5 inset) at a proximal end (see Fig. 5 inset) of the housing and in a longitudinal direction along the housing, the concave indents being configured to receive an orthopedic rod (rod 21); and
an internal thread (guide and advancement structure 72) on an internal surface of a proximal portion (see Fig. 5 inset) of the housing;
an adapter (retainer pieces 12 and 13) configured to lock at least a portion of a pedicle screw head (shank upper portion 8) within a distal portion (see Fig. 5 inset) of the housing (see Figs. 47-50); and
PNG
media_image7.png
326
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)][AltContent: textbox (Proximal End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Proximal Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal Portion)]an internal bolt (closure structure 18) comprising an external thread (guide and advancement structure 172) configured to mate with the internal thread of the housing, the internal bolt being configured to be screwed into the proximal portion of the housing so as to lock the orthopedic rod between the adapter and the internal bolt (see Fig. 50) (Figs. 1-52; paras. 0079-0114).
Claim 2. Jackson discloses wherein the adapter comprises two longitudinal halves (retainer pieces 12 and 13) being configured to embrace and lock at least a portion of the pedicle screw head therebetween (see Fig. 50) and to be tightly inserted into the distal portion of the housing when embracing the pedicle screw head (see Fig. 50) (Figs. 1-52; paras. 0079-0114).
Claim 3. Jackson discloses wherein each of the longitudinal halves of the adapter comprises a flat longitudinal surface (lower end surface 119 of retainer piece 12 and lower end surface 121 of retainer piece 13) and a curved longitudinal surface (convex spherical surface 126 of retainer piece 12 and convex spherical surface 126’ of retainer piece 13) (Figs. 1-52; paras. 0079-0114).
Claim 5. Jackson discloses wherein the longitudinal recesses (radiused surface 128 of retainer piece 12 and radiused surface 128’ of retainer piece 13) of the longitudinal halves are configured to receive and lock at least a portion of the pedicle screw head when the longitudinal halves are in a proximity to each other (see para. 0092; see also Fig. 50) and are aligned with respect to their flat longitudinal surfaces (see Fig. 49) (Figs. 1-52; paras. 0079-0114).
Claim 6. Jackson discloses wherein the curved longitudinal surface of each of the longitudinal halves tapers in the longitudinal direction of the respective longitudinal halve (see Fig. 49, which shows that radiused surfaces 128 and 128’ taper inward toward the lower end of retainer pieces 12 and 13),
wherein an internal surface (inner surface 100) of the distal portion of the housing tapers in the longitudinal direction of the housing (see Fig. 49), and
wherein the tapering of the internal surface of the distal portion of the housing mates with the tapering of curved longitudinal surfaces of the longitudinal halves (see Fig. 49) (Figs. 1-52; paras. 0079-0114).
Jackson fails to disclose wherein the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (claim 1).
Baker teaches a composite material device comprising: a housing (seat 102); an adapter (locking element 108); and an internal bolt (retaining element 110); wherein the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (see para. 0031, which states that seat 102, locking element 108, and retaining element 110 can be made from well-known biocompatible materials, such as carbon composite materials) (Fig. 1; para. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jackson such that the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (claim 1), as suggested by Baker, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanger et al. (US 2011/0093021 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 2006/0217716 A1).
Claim 1. Fanger discloses a device for connecting an orthopedic rod to a pedicle screw, the device comprising:
a housing (receiver member 16 and insert 24, in combination) having a substantially annular body (see Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9, which show that receiver member 16 and insert 24 are substantially annular in shape) and comprising:
two opposite concave indents (see Fig. 4 inset) at a proximal end (see Fig. 2 inset) of the housing and in a longitudinal direction along the housing, the concave indents being configured to receive an orthopedic rod (spinal fixation element 18); and
an internal thread (internal thread 76) on an internal surface of a proximal portion (see Fig. 2 inset) of the housing;
an adapter (bearing 20) configured to lock at least a portion of a pedicle screw head (proximal head 12) within a distal portion (see Fig. 2 inset) of the housing (see Fig. 2); and
an internal bolt (closure mechanism 32) comprising an external thread (see para. 0034, which states that closure mechanism 32 is a set screw that engages with internal thread 76) configured to mate with the internal thread of the housing, the internal bolt being configured to be screwed into the proximal portion of the housing so as to lock the orthopedic rod between the adapter and the internal bolt (see Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-9; paras. 0020-0030 and 0032-0034).
PNG
media_image9.png
312
256
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Proximal Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Proximal End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal Portion)]
Claim 2. Fanger discloses wherein the adapter comprises two longitudinal halves (bearing components 60A and 60B) being configured to embrace and lock at least a portion of the pedicle screw head therebetween (see Fig. 2) and to be tightly inserted into the distal portion of the housing when embracing the pedicle screw head (see Fig. 2) (Figs. 1-9; paras. 0020-0030 and 0032-0034).
Claim 7. Fanger discloses wherein each of the longitudinal halves of the adapter comprises a concave indent (see Fig. 1 inset) extending in a transverse dimension at a proximal end of the respective longitudinal halve and being configured to receive a portion of the orthopedic rod (see Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-9; paras. 0020-0030 and 0032-0034).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave Indent)][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)]
Fanger fails to disclose wherein the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (claim 1).
Baker teaches a composite material device comprising: a housing (seat 102); an adapter (locking element 108); and an internal bolt (retaining element 110); wherein the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (see para. 0031, which states that seat 102, locking element 108, and retaining element 110 can be made from well-known biocompatible materials, such as carbon composite materials) (Fig. 1; para. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fanger such that the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (claim 1), as suggested by Baker, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garamszegi (US 2008/0045953 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 2006/0217716 A1).
Claim 1. Garamszegi discloses a device for connecting an orthopedic rod to a pedicle screw, the device comprising:
a housing (coupling element 115) having a substantially annular body (see Fig. 3, which show that coupling element 115 is substantially annular in shape) and comprising:
two opposite concave indents (U-shaped channels 315) at a proximal end (see Fig. 4 inset) of the housing and in a longitudinal direction along the housing, the concave indents being configured to receive an orthopedic rod (rod 120); and
an internal thread (see para. 0075, which states that projections 310 of coupling element 115 include threads) on an internal surface of a proximal portion (see Fig. 4 inset) of the housing;
an adapter (saddle 320) configured to lock at least a portion of a pedicle screw head within a distal portion (see Fig. 4 inset) of the housing (see Fig. 4); and
an internal bolt (compression nut 410) comprising an external thread (see para. 0075, which states that compression nut 410 includes threads) configured to mate with the internal thread of the housing, the internal bolt being configured to be screwed into the proximal portion of the housing so as to lock the orthopedic rod between the adapter and the internal bolt (see Fig. 4) (Figs. 3, 4, 6A, and 6B; paras. 0065-0086).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Proximal End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Proximal Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal Portion)]
Claim 8. Garamszegi discloses wherein the housing and the adapter are configured to at least limit rotational and axial motion of the adapter with respect to the housing when the adapter is received within the housing (see para. 0086, which states that the configuration of projections 335 of saddle 320 and apertures 340 of coupling element 115 limits rotational and axial motion of saddle 320 within coupling element 115 such that only slight movement is possible) (Figs. 3, 4, 6A, and 6B; paras. 0065-0086).
Garamszegi fails to disclose wherein the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (claim 1).
Baker teaches a composite material device comprising: a housing (seat 102); an adapter (locking element 108); and an internal bolt (retaining element 110); wherein the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (see para. 0031, which states that seat 102, locking element 108, and retaining element 110 can be made from well-known biocompatible materials, such as carbon composite materials) (Fig. 1; para. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Garamszegi such that the housing, the adapter, and the internal bolt comprise composite materials (claim 1), as suggested by Baker, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANNA N HARVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00am-5:00pm 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 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.
/JULIANNA N HARVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights