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) 1, 15 and claims depending therefrom 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 § 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 – 2, 4 – 6 and 8 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holcom (US Pub. 2005/0062026) in view of Antonsson et al. (US Pat. 4222382).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 13, Holcom discloses a device [abstract, Figs. 1 – 5 and Fig.5 above], comprising:
an elongated body [defined by at least a body portion of 10] comprising a handle portion [at least a gripping portion of 13] and a screw engaging portion [at least a portion by 12], the screw engaging portion being configured to engage a screw [at least a portion by 12 capable of engaging a fastener, i.e. 65, Figs. 5. Note: the screw is not part of the claimed device, and the device of Holcom exhibits substantially identical structure to that claimed and is intended to be used with a fastener, and therefore inherently capable of being used with a surgical screw], the handle portion being disposed at an angle to the screw engaging portion, the angle being greater than 90 degrees [Fig.5 above, defining an obtuse angle],
wherein the handle portion is substantially flat [Fig.4],
wherein the screw engaging portion comprises a bifurcated protrusion that comprises a first part and a second part, the first and second parts defining a generally V-shaped groove [at least two parts defining V-groove 71, Fig. 5 above], and wherein the device is made of stainless steel [col.2/II. 26 – 55].
Holcom does not disclose wherein the bifurcated protrusion has an exterior surface that is biocompatible being stainless steel.
Antonsson teaches an analogous device [abstract, Figs. 1 – 4] formed at least in part of biocompatible material being stainless steel [¶19], and configured to engage surgical fastener [Fig.1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Holcom and Antonsson, and construct the device of Holcom from biocompatible grade stainless steel in view of Antonsson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a device made of a biocompatible material that can be used with an anatomy without causing irritation.
The combination of Holcom and Antonsson discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Holcom discloses:
Claim 2, wherein the handle portion has a first longitudinal axis and the screw engaging portion has a second longitudinal axis, wherein the first longitudinal axis is not coincident with the second longitudinal axis [Fig.5 above].
Claim 4, though Holcom does not explicitly disclose wherein the angle is about 120 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to construct the device with an obtuse angle being about 120 degrees, since 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5, wherein the first part has a first edge that faces the second part and the second part has a second edge that faces the first part, wherein the first edge or the second edge comprises a bevel that forms a cutting surface [Fig.4, bevel edges of 68 forming the V-shape, which is capable of cutting object].
Claim 6, wherein both the first edge and the second edge comprise a bevel that forms a cutting surface [Fig.4, bevel edges of 68 forming the V-shape, which is capable of cutting object].
Claim 8, wherein the screw engaging portion defines a plane, and the first part or the second part is coextensive of the plane [Fig.5 above, defined by an imaginary plane relative to the parts, in such a way at least one of the parts is not or is coextensive].
Claim 9, The device of claim 8, wherein the first or the second part is not coextensive of the plane [Fig.5 above, defined by an imaginary plane relative to the parts, in such a way at least one of the parts is not or is coextensive].
Claim 10, wherein either the first part or the second part tapers to a point [Fig.4, above, due to bevel 42 or due to the V-shaped groove].
Claim 11, wherein the first part and second part taper to spaced-apart points [Fig.4, due to bevel 42 or due to the V-shaped groove].
Claim 12, Holcom discloses wherein a distance between the spaced apart points is shown [Fig.2b].
Although, the combination of Holcom and Antonsson does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the spaced-apart points is about 3 mm to about 13 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to construct the device having a distance between the spaced-apart points is about 3 mm to about 13 mm for the sake of providing a device having a desired configuration and dimension for the intended use, since 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 14, wherein the handle portion has a first length, wherein the screw engaging portion has a second length, wherein the first length is greater than the second length [Fig.5 above].
Claims 15 and 16, Holcom discloses a device [abstract, Figs. 1 – 5 and Fig.5 above], comprising:
an elongated body [defined by at least a body portion of 10] comprising a handle portion [at least a gripping portion of 13] and a screw engaging portion [at least a portion by 12], the screw engaging portion being configured to engage a screw [at least a portion by 12 capable of engaging a fastener, i.e. 65, Figs. 5. Note: the screw is not part of the claimed device, and the device of Holcom exhibits substantially identical structure to that claimed and is intended to be used with a fastener, and therefore inherently capable of being used with a surgical screw], the handle portion being disposed at an angle to the screw engaging portion, the angle being greater than 90 degrees [Fig.5 above, defining an obtuse angle],
wherein the handle portion is substantially flat [Fig.4],
wherein the screw engaging portion comprises a bifurcated protrusion that comprises a first part and a second part, the first and second parts defining a generally V-shaped groove [at least two parts defining V-groove 71, Fig. 5 above] and wherein the screw engaging portion defines a plane, wherein one of the first or the second part is coextensive of the plane [Fig.5 above, defined by an imaginary plane relative to the parts, in such a way the parts not to be or to be coextensive].
Holcom does not disclose wherein the bifurcated protrusion has an exterior surface that is biocompatible being stainless steel.
Antonsson teaches an analogous device [abstract, Figs. 1 – 4] formed at least in part of biocompatible material being stainless steel [¶19], and configured to engage surgical fastener [Fig.1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Holcom and Antonsson, and construct the device of Holcom from biocompatible grade stainless steel in view of Antonsson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a device made of a biocompatible material that can be used with an anatomy without causing irritation.
The combination of Holcom and Antonsson discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Holcom discloses:
Claim 17, an impact-receiving element disposed on a distal end of said handle portion configured to receive forcible contact from an impact apparatus [at least a portion by 15, defines an impact-receiving element].
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 SAMUEL S. HANNA whose telephone number is (571)270-3248. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/SAMUEL S HANNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775