DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, figures 6a, b, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that figures 9a-w should be included in species 1. This is found persuasive because these features are disclosed in figures 6a, b and figures 9a-w (see applicant’s remarks, page 7).
Claims 14-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/2/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold et al U.S 2020/0297497.
Claim 1: Arnold et al disclose a sacroiliac fusion system for treating a patient as best seen in figure 1, see paragraph 60, comprising: an implant body (plate 3) having a medial side configured to engage a sacrum 53, fig. 7 of a patient, a lateral side configured to engage an ilium 54 of the patient, a distal portion, and a proximal portion having an opening (it is noted that plate 3 side that receives screw 2 to engage ilium 54, see paragraphs 60-61) configured to receive a screw 2; and a screw having a distal portion and proximal portion, wherein the distal portion comprises a threaded portion (it is noted that screw 2 extends through plate 4 into the sacrum with the transverse pin 1 and screw 2 are threaded through hole in plate 3, see paragraph 61) configured to engage bone of the patient and the proximal portion is configured engage the opening in the proximal portion of the implant body.
Claims 2-3: Arnold et al disclose wherein the screw 2 engages both the ilium 54 and the sacrum 53 of the patient; wherein the screw is a first screw 2 configured to engage the sacrum, and wherein the system further comprises a second screw (transverse pin 1, fig. 8) configured to engage the ilium 54.
Claims 4-5: Arnold et al disclose wherein the proximal portion of the screw locks rigidly to the opening in the implant body (screw 2 is threaded into hole holding in plate 3 thus lock tightly, see paragraph 61); wherein the implant body is comprised of a porous structure configured for bony ingrowth (bone growth inducing material 31 which is porous structure, see paragraph 71).
Claims 6-7: Arnold et al disclose wherein the implant body has a window configured to contain bone graft (transverse pin 1 shown forming a window for bone growth inducing material 31-bone graft, see paragraph 71); wherein the implant body has an hourglass shaped cross-section comprising a narrow section configured to be on the superior and inferior sides of the implant, and a narrowest point configured to be located at a sacroiliac joint of the patient (it is noted that wider cross sections at each end and a narrower intermediate portion in fig. 1 and the narrowest point configured to be located at a SI joint of the patient, see figures 7-8).
Claims 8-10: Arnold et al disclose wherein the screw is a first screw 2, wherein the system further comprises a second screw (transverse pin 1 is considered as second screw )configured to engage the ilium 54 and the sacrum 53, and wherein the second screw( pin 1) is substantially perpendicular to a long axis of the implant body (see figures 1, 8); wherein the second screw comprises a threaded portion configured to engage the implant body (figures 1, 8, see paragraph 61); wherein a head of the second screw compresses the ilium 54 to the implant body (see figures 7-8, paragraphs 61, 70-71).
Claims 11-13: Arnold et al disclose wherein a head of the second screw compresses the sacrum to the implant body (it is noted that the pin 1 with head and threaded into hole of plate 3 to sacrum 53 with the compressing, see figures 1, 7, 8)
; wherein the head of the second screw (transverse pin 1 is as the second screw) compresses the ilium 54 to the sacrum 53; wherein the screw is a first screw 2, wherein the system further comprises a second screw configured to engage the ilium and the sacrum, and wherein the second screw (transverse pin 1) engages a long axis of the implant body at an acute angle (see figures 1, 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (6:30-4:30).
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/VI X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights