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 Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12 September 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended and claims 17 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1-16, 18, and 20 currently stand pending in the application.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim objections listed in the previous action, but further claim objections are presented below.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the relevant rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which is accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 September 2025, with respect to the drawing objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant drawing objections have been withdrawn. However, further drawings objections are presented below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 September 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to claim 14, Applicant contends that the screw tail should refer to the head end of the cannulated screw as shown in FIGS. 4 and 7 of the drawings. Examiner respectfully submits that amendment to claim 14 to recite that the head end of the cannulated screw is in an internal rectangular or hexagonal shape may comprise new matter, since both the original claims and the specification recite that it is the tail that has the internal rectangular or hexagonal shape, while also, by Applicant’s admission, the drawings do not appear to show the claimed subject matter that the tail has the internal rectangular or hexagonal shape (see drawing objection below). Since there appears to be conflict between what is recited in the claims/specification and what is shown in the drawings, cancellation of the limitation and/or claim is suggested.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant contends that neither Lin (US 6,013,078) nor Hendricksen (US 2010/0292733) discloses multiple universal locking holes provided inside the head end of the cannulated screw. Examiner respectfully submits that Hendricksen is relied upon to teach providing complementary threads on the fastening screw (external threads) and the hole in the cannulated screw (internal threads) in Gittings (US 2010/0292731) to provide secure engagement between the screws, where this threaded hole in the cannulated screw would be a locking hole due to the threads, and is universal because it has broad use for fixation of various types of bone, at least as much as the instant invention. Lin is relied upon to teach providing two universal locking holes to the system of Gittings, so that the fastening screw can be inserted into the cannulated screw at different oblique angles to allow for fixation into different areas of bone/tissue depending on the bone quality or other properties of adjacent tissue and to allow for the cable to take different positions, since the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and since Lin teaches that multiple threaded through holes can be provided in the head of a fastener. Applicant contends that Gittings does not disclose that the multiple universal locking holes are distributed at an equal interval around the cannulated screw and angles of the holes are different from each other. The different angles are taught by Lin, and the distribution at an equal interval is obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant’s arguments as to the other modifying references do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The arguments describe the general concept of each reference but not how the claims avoid the references.
Applicant contends that Gittings and Hendricksen lock the suture in position by clamping between the anchors. Applicant contends that Gittings and Hendricksen are both are operated in small spaces and providing multiple universal locking holes would make the anchors extremely complex. Examiner respectfully submits that providing extra holes in the cannulated screw does not require extra fastening screws (one fastening screw can be used alternatively in each of the multiple holes for flexibility in fixation locations), and therefore the functioning of Gittings as interpreted by Applicant would remain the same, with the suture able to be clamped between the fastening screw and the cannulated screw when the fastening screw is inserted into one of the holes. The structure in Hendricksen that is pointed out by Applicant (see Arguments, page 12; e.g. floating elements and inner anchors) as being overly complicated is not applied to Gittings; rather, Hendricksen is relied upon to teach providing complementary threads to the fastening and cannulated screws disclosed in Gittings.
Applicant contends that claim 1 can achieve unexpected beneficial technical effects over the prior art. Examiner respectfully submits that because the prior art discloses the limitations of claim 1, as recited in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, the prior art would also achieve the same beneficial technical effects, such as allowing fixation of the traction cable at a specific angle and better fixation effect of the obliquely extending fastening screw.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the screw tail of the cannulated screw is in an internal rectangular or hexagonal shape (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper antecedence. Appropriate correction is required. The following amendments are suggested:
Claim 20 / lines 2-4: “wherein the system comprises an even number of the cannulated screws and the fastening screws system comprises a number of the traction cables, with free ends of each of the traction cables [[are]] correspondingly connected to a pair of the cannulated screws and the fastening screws”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 5, the limitation “wherein an end face of the head end of the cannulated screw is provided with a positioning slot” is not supported by the specification as originally filed, which does not disclose a positioning slot in the same embodiment as multiple universal locking holes. The positioning slots 110 are shown in the first embodiment in FIG. 4 (par. [0059]) and the multiple universal locking holes are shown in the second embodiment in FIG. 7, where no positioning slots are shown.
As to claim 7, the limitation “wherein an end face of the head end of the cannulated screw is provided with a spline groove” is not supported by the specification as originally filed, which does not disclose a spline groove in the same embodiment as multiple universal locking holes. The spline groove 120 is shown in the first embodiment in FIG. 4 (par. [0062]) and the multiple universal locking holes are shown in the second embodiment in FIG. 7, where no spline groove is shown.
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.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
As to claim 14, the limitation “a screw tail” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this refers to the tail end of the cannulated screw previously recited in claim 1, or to a different screw tail. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted in the former instance, as the tail end of the cannulated screw, and amendment as such to claim 14 is suggested.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0292731 to Gittings et al. (hereinafter, “Gittings”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0292733 to Hendricksen et al. (hereinafter, “Hendricksen”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,013,078 to Lin.
As to claim 1, Gittings discloses a cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture (interpreted as language of intended use; the system is fully capable of being for patella fracture if so applied to the bone of the patella), wherein the cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture comprises a cannulated screw (501) (par. [0082]), FIG. 10A, a fastening screw (502), and a traction cable (504; fully capable of traction when tensioned), wherein a head end of the fastening screw is fixedly connected to the traction cable, FIG. 10A; wherein a hole (503) is provided inside the head end of the cannulated screw; and the tail end of the fastening screw extends, in a state of being screwed to the cannulated screw, relatively to a longitudinal axis of the cannulated screw from the hole, FIG. 10B.
As to claim 8, Gittings discloses the cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture according to claim 1, wherein a radial dimension of the head end of the cannulated screw is greater than a diameter (at a distal tip) of the cannulated screw, FIG. 10A.
As to claim 18, Gittings discloses the cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture according to claim 1, wherein an angle of a center axis of the hole relative to the longitudinal axis of the cannulated screw is within a range of 0-45 degrees, FIG. 10B.
As to claim 20, Gittings discloses the cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture according to claim 1, wherein a number of the cannulated screws and the fastening screws is an even number (one of each results in a total number of two), and the traction cables are correspondingly connected in pairs at free ends of the traction cables (free ends of the traction cable connect pairs of the cannulated screw and the fastening screw, FIG. 10A).
Gittings is silent as to a tail end of the cannulated screw is provided with external threads (claim 1); the head end of the cannulated screw is provided with external threads (claim 16).
Hendricksen teaches the exterior of an anchor can include external threads to enhance retention in bone or other tissue by enhancing friction or to mechanically engage the surrounding bone or tissue and resist proximal movement of the anchor after it has been fully inserted (par. [0116]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gittings’ cannulated screw with external threads along its length (including along the tail end and the head end) to enhance retention of the cannulated screw in bone/tissue and to prevent unintentional backout as taught by Hendricksen, since the cannulated screw is the outermost component of the system and contacts and is embedded in the surrounding bone/tissue.
Gittings is silent as to a head end of the cannulated screw is provided with internal threads; a tail end of the fastening screw is threadedly connected to the cannulated screw through the internal threads; the hole is a universal locking hole (claim 1).
Hendricksen teaches a tail end of a fastening screw (7712) is threadedly connected to internal threads (7724) in a head end of a cannulated screw (7702) (par. [0150]), FIGS. 52A-52B, to provide secure engagement between two nesting screw components.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide complementary threads on the fastening screw (external threads) and the hole in the cannulated screw (internal threads) in Gittings to provide secure engagement between the screws, as taught by Hendricksen. This threaded hole in the cannulated screw would be a locking hole due to the threads, and is universal because it has broad use for fixation of various types of bone, at least as much as the instant invention. The tail end of the fastening screw extends relatively to a longitudinal axis of the cannulated screw from the universal locking hole, and an angle of a center axis of the universal locking hole relative to the longitudinal axis of the cannulated screw is within a range of 0-45 degrees, Gittings FIG. 10B.
Gittings is silent as to wherein multiple universal locking holes are provided; the tail end of the fastening screw extends from one of the multiple universal locking holes, and wherein the multiple universal locking holes are distributed at an equal interval around the cannulated screw in a circumferential direction, and angles of the multiple universal locking holes relative to the longitudinal axis of the cannulated screw are different from each other (claim 1).
Lin teaches a cannulated fastener (1) and a fastening screw (2) threadedly connected at an oblique angle to the cannulated fastener, FIGS. 1-2, where the threaded through hole for the fastening screw can be provided in a number of two or more to be used with two or more fastening screws to provide an even more reliable securing effect to the fastener (col. 2 / lines 39-42).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two universal locking holes to the system of Gittings, so that the fastening screw can be inserted into the cannulated screw at different oblique angles to allow for fixation into different areas of bone/tissue depending on the bone quality or other properties of adjacent tissue and to allow for the cable to take different positions, since the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and since Lin teaches that multiple threaded through holes can be provided in the head of a fastener. Multiple fastening screws can be provided for use with the multiple universal locking holes, as also obvious for the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device and to increase fixation strength, or the fastening screw disclosed in Gittings can be used alternatively in each of the multiple holes for flexibility in fixation locations, so that the tail end extends from one of the holes.
It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the two holes at an equal interval around the cannulated screw in a circumferential direction in order to provide better variation in fixation positions and to prevent interference between the two holes, and it would be “obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (hole spacing), with a reasonable expectation of success (fixation). The angles of inclination of the multiple oblique holes relative to the longitudinal axis of the cannulated screw would then be different from each other since they are angled in different directions from the longitudinal axis.
As to claim 3, Gittings is silent as to wherein the head end of the fastening screw is of a straight prism, and the traction cable is fixedly connected to an end face of the straight prism.
Hendricksen teaches the head end of the fastening screw (7712) is of a straight prism (rectangular shape), FIG. 52A, and the traction cable is fixedly connected to an end face of the straight prism (via a knot abutted against the end face), FIG. 52A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fastening screw in Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin as a straight prism (rectangular shape) as taught by Hendricksen, with the traction cable fixedly connected to an end face of the straight prism via a knot abutted against the end face, to provide a place on the head end of the fastening screw where the cable can be securely attached to prevent unintentional loosening or separation of the cable from the fastening screw.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gittings in view of Hendricksen and Lin (hereinafter, “Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin”), as applied to claims 1, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,728,136 to Thal.
Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin are silent as to wherein the head end of the fastening screw is integrally molded with the traction cable.
As to claim 1, Thal teaches a cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture (interpreted as language of intended use; the system is fully capable of being for patella fracture if so applied to the bone of the patella), wherein the cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture comprises a cannulated screw (84), FIG. 6, a fastening screw (86), and a traction cable (88), FIG. 9, wherein a head end (proximal end portion) of the cannulated screw is provided with internal threads (col. 6 / lines 48-67), and a tail end (distal end portion) of the cannulated screw is provided with external threads (col. 6 / lines 48-67); a tail end (distal end portion) of the fastening screw is threadedly connected to the cannulated screw through the internal threads (col. 6 / lines 48-67); and a head end of the fastening screw is fixedly connected to the traction cable (col. 3 / lines 7-10), FIG. 6.
As to claim 2, Thal teaches the cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture according to claim 1, wherein the head end of the fastening screw is integrally molded with the traction cable (col. 3 / lines 7-10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally mold the head end of the fastening screw with the traction cable to obviate the need for the fastening screw to have means for attachment of the cable/suture thereto, to prevent unintentional loosening or separation of the cable from the fastening screw, and to provide ease of manufacture (molded of the same material).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gittings in view of Hendricksen and Lin (hereinafter, “Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin”), as applied to claims 1, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 9,089,324 to McCaw et al. (hereinafter, “McCaw”).
As to claims 4 and 15, Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin are silent as to wherein the traction cable is made by multiple steel cables wound in a spiral fashion (claim 4); and wherein the traction cable is a metallic steel cable or a cable made of a composite material (claim 15).
McCaw teaches that a suture can be a braid of steel (col. 5 / lines 56-61).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin’s suture (traction cable) as a braid of steel, comprising multiple steel cables wound in a spiral fashion (at least portions of each strand in a braid is in a spiral shape), since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. The steel cable sutures would have strength for tensioning and avoid breakage.
Claims 5-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gittings in view of Hendricksen and Lin (hereinafter, “Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin”), as applied to claims 1, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 2007/0043379 to Sullivan, JR. et al. (hereinafter, “Sullivan”).
As to claims 5, 6, and 12, Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin are silent as to wherein an end face of the head end of the cannulated screw is provided with a positioning slot, and the positioning slot extends outwardly in a radial direction of the cannulated screw from an inner cavity of the cannulated screw (claim 5); wherein multiple positioning slots are provided, wherein the multiple positioning slots are distributed at an equal interval around the cannulated screw in a circumferential direction (claim 6); wherein the positioning slot is provided as an arc-shaped slot to attach and connect with the traction cable (claim 12).
Sullivan teaches a bone screw (30), FIGS. 2-3, comprising an end face (32a) (par. [0021]) of a head end of the screw provided with a positioning slot (32b), FIG. 2, for engaging with a driver (40), and the positioning slot extends outwardly in a radial direction of the screw from an inner cavity (32d) of the screw (par. [0022]), FIG. 3; wherein multiple positioning slots (32b, 32c) are provided, wherein the multiple positioning slots are distributed at an equal interval around the screw in a circumferential direction, FIG. 2; wherein the positioning slot is provided as an arc-shaped slot (arc-shaped at its bottom), FIG. 3, fully capable of attaching and connecting with a traction cable (interpreted as language of intended use).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an end face of the head end of the cannulated screw in Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin with positioning slots extending outwardly in a radial direction of the screw from an inner cavity of the screw, as taught by Sullivan, to engage with a complementary driver for ease of insertion of the screw into the bone. The driver has a projection that is inserted into the inner cavity for initial engagement, and then rotated until blades are aligned with and received in the positioning slots (Sullivan, par. [0023]-[0024]), resulting in an interference fit achievable with one hand to locate the screw at the bone and drive the screw into the bone. The slots are fully capable of attaching and connecting with a traction cable that is received therein after the screw is driven into the bone.
As to claim 7, Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin are silent as to wherein an end face of the head end of the cannulated screw is provided with a spline groove, and an inner cavity of the cannulated screw is communicated with a groove bottom of the spline groove.
Sullivan teaches a bone screw (30), FIGS. 2-3, comprising an end face (32a) (par. [0021]) of a head end of the screw provided with a spline groove (32b, 32c) (par. [0021]), FIG. 2, for engaging with a driver (40), and an inner cavity (32d) of the screw is communicated with a groove bottom of the spline groove (par. [0022]), FIGS. 2-3.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an end face of the head end of the cannulated screw in Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin with a spline groove and an inner cavity communicated with a groove bottom of the spline groove, as taught by Sullivan, to engage with a complementary driver for ease of insertion of the screw into the bone. The driver has a projection that is inserted into the inner cavity for initial engagement, and then rotated until blades are aligned with and received in the spline groove (Sullivan, par. [0023]-[0024]), resulting in an interference fit achievable with one hand to locate the screw at the bone and drive the screw into the bone.
Claims 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gittings in view of Hendricksen and Lin (hereinafter, “Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin”), as applied to claims 1, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0198274 to Frushell et al. (hereinafter, “Frushell”).
As to claims 9, 10, and 13, Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin are silent as to wherein the cannulated screw-cable locking system for patella fracture further comprises an operating hook, wherein the operating hook is fixedly connected to a free end of the traction cable (claim 9); wherein the operating hook is curved (claim 10); wherein an arc-shaped bending angle of the operating hook is set at 30 degrees (claim 13).
Frushell teaches a traction cable (130) fixed to an anchor (105) and comprising an operating hook (135) (par. [0075]), FIG. 19, wherein the operating hook is fixedly connected to a free end of the traction cable; wherein the operating hook is curved, FIG. 19.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin’s traction cable (suture) with a curved operating hook fixedly connected to its free end, to facilitate passage of the cable through the soft tissue without excessive damage to the tissue.
It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set an arc-shaped bending angle of the operating hook at 30 degrees, since Frushell appears to show at least part of the hook has an arc-shaped bending angle of 30 degrees, and since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gittings in view of Hendricksen and Lin (hereinafter, “Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin”), as applied to claims 1, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,016,874 to Maffei et al. (hereinafter, “Maffei”).
As to claim 11, Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin are silent as to wherein a side wall of the fastening screw is provided with an elastic pin and an inner wall of the cannulated screw is provided with a pinhole, and by inserting the elastic pin into the pinhole, a self-locking fixation between the fastening screw and the cannulated screw is achieved.
Gittings contemplates that the fastening screw can be locked within the cannulated screw with detent mechanisms (par. [0083]).
Maffei teaches a detent mechanism for locking concentric components together comprises an elastic pin (22, 23; elastic due to the spring 23) that is inserted into a pinhole (25) in the outer component for self-locking fixation (col. 3 / lines 18-28).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin’s system with a locking mechanism to lock the fastening screw in engagement with the cannulated screw, as contemplated by Gittings, to prevent backout of the fastening screw and loosening of the traction cable. As taught by Maffei, this locking would be achieved by providing an elastic pin (combination of ball and spring to result in a pin with elastic properties) extending out from a side wall of the fastening screw, and providing an inner wall of the cannulated screw with a pinhole at a position where the elastic pin can snap into the pinhole upon complete seating of the fastening screw in the cannulated screw, so that a self-locking fixation can occur between the fastening screw and the cannulated screw upon complete engagement, thereby preventing backout of the fastening screw and loosening of the traction cable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gittings in view of Hendricksen and Lin (hereinafter, “Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin”), as applied to claims 1, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 8,002,811 to Corradi et al. (hereinafter, “Corradi”).
As to claim 14, Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin are silent as to wherein a screw tail of the cannulated screw is in an internal rectangular or hexagonal shape.
Corradi teaches a cannulated bone screw comprising an internal rectangular lumen (18) (col. 5 / lines 44-46) for receiving torque from a driving tool (col. 6 / lines 13-16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cannulated screw in Gittings/Hendricksen/Lin with an internal rectangular lumen for receiving torque from a complementarily shaped driving tool, for ease of insertion of the screw into the bone. The internal rectangular lumen, extending through the cannulated screw, would provide the screw tail (distal end) of the cannulated screw with an internal rectangular shape.
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 TRACY L KAMIKAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-7276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:30 PM.
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.
/TRACY L KAMIKAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3775