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 without traverse of Group I and Species A, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-24, 26, and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/9/2026. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 6-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6, line 2 recites KH 2 PO 4 and line 4 recites “ and…potassium phosphate ” . It is unclear if the potassium phosphate of line 4 is/can be the same as the potassium phosphate of line 2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Russell et al. US 2011/0060373 (hereafter referred to as Russell) . Regarding claim 1, Russell discloses a n orthopedic implant 1 , comprising an elongated member 2 (figs. 1A- 3 B) having a first end (right side) and a second end (left side) opposite the first end, wherein the elongated member is tapered at the second end (see fig.1A which shows the left side/end is tapered) such that a width of the second end is less than a width of the first end (fig.1A), a first channel 10 positioned on a first side of the elongated member and extending from the first end to the second end (fig.1A; “end” is considered portion/region not an edge and each channel extends from the left end to the right end), a second channel 10 positioned on a second side of the elongated member and extending from the first end to the second end (fig.1A; par.97 discloses two or three equally spaced external grooves), and one or more through holes 5 connecting the first channel to the second channel (holes 5 connect the channels 10 across the interior channel 4) . Regarding claim 2, see the plurality of holes 5 in at least fig.1A and 3A . Regarding claim 3, see fig.1A and 2A for the channels 10 being recessed in the sides of the elongated member. Regarding claim 4, see pars. 12 and 94 for at least titanium and PEEK. Regarding claim 14, see threads 7 in fig.1A. R egarding claim 15, see par.94 for a resorbable material such as ceramic-polymer mixtures. 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. Claim s 1-5 , 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. US 2018/0280589 (hereafter referred to as Morris) in view of Russell . Regarding claim 1, Morris discloses a n orthopedic implant 100 , comprising an elongated member 102 (figs. 1-2) having a first end (left side) and a second end (right side) opposite the first end, wherein the elongated member is tapered at the second end (see fig.1 which shows the right side/end is tapered) such that a width of the second end is less than a width of the first end (fig.1), and one or more holes 114 (fig.1; par.32). Morris discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but Morris does not disclose a first channel positioned on a first side of the elongated member and extending from the first end to the second end , a second channel positioned on a second side of the elongated member and extending from the first end to the second end , and one or more through holes connecting the first channel to the second channel. Russell teaches an orthopedic implant, in the same field of endeavor, wherein an elongated body comprises a first channel 10 positioned on a first side of the elongated member and extending from a first end to a second end (fig.1A; “end” is considered portion/region not an edge and each channel extends from the left end to the right end), a second channel 10 positioned on a second side of the elongated member and extending from the first end to the second end (fig.1A; par.97 discloses two or three equally spaced external grooves), and one or more through holes 5 connecting the first channel to the second channel (fig.1; holes 5 connect the channels 10 across the interior channel 4) for the purpose of equalized distribution of a flowable medium along the exterior surface of the screw and increased strength characteristics of the screw body (par.111) . 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 orthopedic implant of Morris to include through holes and first and second channels as taught by Russell in order to evenly distribute a flowable medium along the exterior surface of the screw while also increasing the strength characteristics of the implant body. Regarding claim 2, Morris discloses a plurality of holes 114 and Russell teaches a plurality of through holes to allow for even distribution of materials. Regarding claim 3, see fig.1A and 2A of Russell for the channels 10 being recessed in the sides of the elongated member. Regarding claim 4, see Morris par.31 for each of the claimed materials. Regarding claim 5, see Morris par.30 and fig.1 for cured osteostimulative material 106 on an exterior surface of the elongated member. Regarding claim 14, see Morris fig.1 for a plurality of threads. Regarding claim 15, Morris does not disclose that the elongated member is resorbable. However, Russell teaches the screw can be either a non-resorbable material such as titanium or a resorbable material (par.94). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the elongated body of Morris from a resorbable material as taught by Russell in order to allow for the implant to be absorbed and replaced with bone if desired and since it has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is an obvious extension of prior art teaching (In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07). Claims 6- 8 and 11- 1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Russell as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Diaz et al. US 2019/0125420 (hereafter referred to as Diaz) . Regarding claim 6, Morris in view of Russell discloses the orthopedic implant of claim 5 as discussed above. In par.39, Morris further teaches a cured osteostimulative material similar to the material of claim 6 , but Morris does not disclose the cured osteostimulative material further comprises poly-lactic acid and either magnesium phosphate or potassium phosphate. Diaz teaches an orthopedic implant, in the same field of endeavor, wherein poly-lactic acid and magnesium phosphate or potassium phosphate are used as an implant material for their biodegradable and bioactive properties (par.24). 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 cured osteostimulative material of Morris to include poly-lactic acid and either magnesium phosphate or potassium phosphate as taught by Diaz since Diaz teaches poly-lactic acid and either magnesium phosphate or potassium phosphate are suitable bioabsorbable and bioactive materials for stimulating bone growth and since it has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is an obvious extension of prior art teaching (In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 7, see Diaz par.24 for at least PLLA. Regarding claim 8, Morris teaches therapeutic agents including antibiotics in par.35. Regarding claim 11, see Morris par.30 for a coating thickness of 20-200 microns. While Morris does not specifically disclose a thickness of 200 microns to 50 mm, the range disclosed by Morris overlaps the claimed range, and it has been held that where the claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05I). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II A). Regarding claim 12, see Morris par.31 and fig.1A for the osteostimulative material 106 positioned in one or more of a plurality of grooves/valleys. Regarding claim 13, Morris does not disclose that the entirety of the elongated member comprises the cured osteostimulative material. However, Diaz teaches the entirety of the implant comprises a cured osteostimulative material (the PLA and magnesium/potassium phosphate as well as an added osteostimulative material ) for the purpose of allowing the implant to be fully absorbed and replaced by bone (par.25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the elongated body of Morris entirely from the resorbable cured osteostimulative material as taught by Diaz in order to allow for the implant to be fully absorbed and replaced with bone resulting in no void being left behind. Claim s 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Russell in view of Diaz as applied to claim s 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Lally US 2015/0314045 (hereafter referred to as Lally) . Regarding claim 9, Morris in view of Russell in view of Diaz discloses the implant of claim 8 , wherein Morris specifically disclosing antibiotics, but Morris in view of Russell in view of Diaz does not disclose any particular antibiotics as claimed in claim 9. Lally teaches a bone implant material, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the material may include antibiotics such as a mikacin, butirosin, dideoxykanamycin, fortimycin, gentamycin, kanamycin, lividomycin, neomycin, netilmicin, ribostamycin, sagamycin, seldomycin and epimers thereof, sisomycin, sorbistin, spectinomycin and tobramycin (par.71) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one of the known antibiotics taught by Lally for the antibiotic of Morris in view of Russell in view of Diaz since it has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is an obvious extension of prior art teaching (In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 10, Morris in view of Russell in view of Diaz discloses the implant of claim 6 as discussed above. Morris further discloses the cured osteostimulative material comprises a sugar (Morris par. 55 and claim 8), but Morris in view of Russell in view of Diaz does not disclose a particular type of sugar wherein the sugar comprises one of sugar alcohols, sugar acids, amino sugars, sugar polymers glycosaminoglycans, glycolipids, sugar substitutes and combinations thereof. Lally teaches a bone implant material, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the material may include sugars such as sucrose, sugar alcohols, sugar acids, amino sugars, sugar polymers glycosaminoglycans, glycolipids, sugar substitutes (par. 55 ) for the purpose of enhancing osteoproliferative properties and adhesive capabilities (par.54) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one of the known types of sugars taught by Lally for the sugar of Morris in view of Russell in view of Diaz since it has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is an obvious extension of prior art teaching (In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Martynova US 2017/0367840, Tohmeh et al. US 8,623,008, and Kohrs et al. US 5,609,636 disclose an orthopedic implant comprising an elongated member with a tapered end, two channels, and one or more holes connecting a first channel to a second channel. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MEGAN Y WOLF whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3071 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8am-2pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melanie Tyson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9062 . 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. /MEGAN Y WOLF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774