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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 22 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 22 recites “convex V-shape” and “concave V-shape” where it is not entirely clear what this shape would be considering that a V shape is not considered a rounded shape but rather a tapered shape, where concave/convex implies a curvature. The drawings, especially Fig 27 do not provide a clear view for a convex/concave V shape is. As such term is unclear. For examination purposes, the examiner will treat these limitations as something U-shaped as it is similar in shape to a “V” and has a concave/convex aspect to it (where rounding the tip of the “V” would produce a u-type shape).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gromeck US 12,496,098, which claims priority to 63/256,722 (hereinafter ‘722 relied upon for this rejection).
Regarding Claim 18, Gromeck ‘722 discloses an external fixation system for securing a first bone of a patient relative to a second bone of the patient, the external fixation system comprising:
a plurality of bone anchoring bodies (see Fig below), each of which is configured to be secured to at least one of the first bone and the second bone (secured via bone pins #46), the plurality of bone anchoring bodies comprising:
a first bone anchoring body (see Fig below) having a first shape (examiner notes that depending on the view or where the shape is taken from, the bone anchoring body defines a number of shapes, a first shape is seen in Fig 6); and
a second bone anchoring body (see Fig below) having a second shape different from the first shape (examiner notes that depending on the view or where the shape is taken from, the bone anchoring body defines a number of shapes, a second shape is seen in Fig 6 and as seen in Fig 6-7, the shapes are different)(examiner notes that specific shapes are not being claimed nor is applicant claiming where the shapes are taken from);
a strut assembly having a variable length (see Fig below, Fig 2, pg 9 lines 9-14); and
a plurality of strut attachment assemblies (#26, Fig 12, see Fig below), each of which is configured to removably couple with any of the plurality of bone anchoring bodies in a modular fashion and to the strut assembly to secure any of the bone anchoring bodies to the strut assembly (as seen in Fig 12 below, pg 11 lines 23-30, when knob #56 is unthreaded, the strut attachment assemblies can be disassembled such that it can be removed from respective arms #34, #32 of the bone anchoring bodies, likewise the strut attachment assembly can coupled to any one of the arms #34, #32),
wherein the plurality of strut attachment assemblies comprise a plurality of clamps and a plurality of clamp fasteners (see Fig below, each assembly has a clamp and fastener), and the plurality of bone anchoring bodies comprise a plurality of arms (#32, #34 see Fig below) configured to receive the plurality of clamp fasteners to removably couple the plurality of strut attachment assemblies to the plurality of arms in the modular fashion (see Fig below, Fig 12, pg 11 lines 23-30).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
1104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Gromeck ‘722 discloses the plurality of arms comprise a third shape(as seen in Fig 12, where there is a convex shape, see also Fig 8-9) formed thereon configured to mate with a fourth shape (Fig 12 where there is a concave u-shape) formed on the plurality of strut attachment assemblies, wherein the third shape and the fourth shape are configured to align the plurality of arms with the plurality of strut attachment assemblies when coupled together in the modular fashion (as seen in Fig 1, 12).
Regarding Claim 22, Gromeck ‘722 discloses the third shape formed on the plurality of arms comprises a convex V-shape (as discussed in claim 21 above, Fig 8-9m 12 where the third shape is a convex U-shape, see 112 rejection above); and the fourth shape formed on the plurality of strut attachment assemblies comprises a concave V-shape (as discussed in claim 21 above, Fig 8-9m 12 where the third shape is a concave U-shape, see 112 rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gromeck US 12,496,098, which claims priority to 63/256,722 in view of Meyers US 2014/0066931.
Gromeck ‘722 discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the first bone anchoring body comprises a first pin clamp body (#28, Fig 6) with openings that receive bone pins (#46) but does not disclose a first plurality of pin lock collets, each of which is configured to receive a bone pin and lock the bone pin in place relative to the first pin clamp body.
Myers discloses a bone anchoring body comprises a pin clamp body (see Fig below) comprising a plurality of pin lock collets (see Fig below, paragraph 112), each of which is configured to receive a bone pin and lock the bone pin in place relative to the pin clamp body (paragraph 112) where the pin lock collets allow the trajectory of the bone pin is adjustable to connected with targeted bone portions (paragraph 112).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Gromeck ‘722 to have the pin clamp body include a plurality of pin lock collets in view of Meyers above because the pin lock collets allow the trajectory of the bone pin is adjustable to connected with targeted bone portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
Claims 1-17 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5032. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 6pm 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.
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights