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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 1, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed July 29, 2026. As directed by the amendment: Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 21 and 22 were cancelled. Claims 1-20, 23, and 24 are presently pending in this application.
Examiner’s Note
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.
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, 2, 4-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Neil et al. (US 2017/0265881), herein referred to as O’Neil.
Regarding claim 1, O’Neil discloses a surgical device (100) (figure 1), comprising a cannula (110+116), having an inner diameter (figures 1-7), an outer diameter (figures 1-7), a first opening (114) (¶31) disposed on a first end (figure 9), and a second opening (122) disposed on a second end (figure 4), an auger (108), fully disposed within the cannula (110+116) (figure 4), including a flighting (138) arranged around an auger shaft (108) (figure 4), wherein the auger shaft (108) is aligned concentrically to the cannula (110+116) (figure 4) and a material holding area (144) in communication with the first opening (114) (¶41 and figure 9).
Regarding claim 2, O’Neil discloses wherein the first opening (114) is arranged in a first plane (considered as an arbitrary first plane) perpendicular to a rotational axis of the auger (108) and the second opening (122) is arranged in a second plane (considered as an arbitrary second plane) parallel to the first plane (figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 4, O’Neil discloses wherein the auger shaft (108) is connected to a rotational mechanism (102) (¶30).
Regarding claim 5, O’Neil discloses further comprising a cutting tip (130) mounted to the auger shaft (108) and in communication with the second opening (122) (figure 6), wherein the auger (108) is disposed between the second opening (122) and the first opening (114).
Regarding claim 6, O’Neil discloses wherein the cutting tip (130) is selectively attachable to the auger shaft (108) (figure 6).
Regarding claim 7, O’Neil discloses further comprising a handle (112) in which a portion of the first end of the cannula (110) is secured (figure 9), wherein the handle (112) includes the material holding area (144).
Regarding claim 10, O’Neil discloses wherein the material holding area (144) includes an access panel (140 or 142) that is selectively openable (¶46) to allow removal or addition of material to the material holding area from outside of the surgical device (considered functional).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (US 2017/0265881) in view of Cronin et al. (US 2011/0282381), herein referred to as Cronin.
Regarding claim 11, O’Neil’s surgical device discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks further comprising a material magazine that is selectively removable from the material holding area.
However, Cronin teaches a material magazine (922) that is selectively removable (¶258) from a material holding area (920) (figure 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil’s surgical device with a material magazine that is selectively removable from the material holding area as taught by Cronin, since such a modification would provide a saline solution or a medical fluid component to the surgical site (¶260).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (US 2017/0265881).
Regarding claim 12, O’Neil’s surgical device discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks a detailed description on wherein the outer diameter is less than or equal to 9 millimeters.
However, the prior art discovering optimum or workable ranges involves routine experimentation in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil’s surgical device with wherein the outer diameter is less than or equal to 9 millimeters, since the prior art discovering optimum or workable ranges involves routine experimentation in the art.
Regarding claim 13, O’Neil’s surgical device discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks a detailed description on wherein a capacity of the material holding area is greater than a volume of the cannula.
However, it is known that discovering an optimum value/size involves routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil’s surgical device with wherein a capacity of the material holding area is greater than a volume of the cannula, since it is known that discovering an optimum value/size involves routine skill in the art and such a modification would be advantageous in order to collect/store the desired amount of material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are 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 16-20, 23, and 24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: After further search and consideration it is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipated nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, the prior art of record does not teach, the following limitation(s) in combination with the remaining claimed limitation such as but not limited to "A method, comprising: conveying the bone tissue from the bone target to a holding area via an auger disposed in a cannula, wherein the auger is co-rotated with the cutting tip, removing the cutting tip from the cannula; feeding material in the holding area to the auger in a direction substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the auger".
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the reference Pfleuger has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SI MING KU whose telephone number is (571)270-5450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-6pm.
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.
/SI MING KU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
