Detailed Action
This is the final office action for US application number 18/480,105. Claims are evaluated as filed on July 16, 2026.
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 claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, and 13-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 “wherein the at least two cut slots each include a depth extending between the front portion and the rear portion” in claim 1 lines 4-5 with “wherein a depth of a first cut slot of the at least two cut slots is different from a depth of a second cut slot of the at least two cut slots” in claim 1 lines 11-13 with “wherein the first cut slot has a larger depth than the second cut slot from the front surface to the rear surface” in claim 1 lines 15-16, and “at least one cut slot comprises….at least one exit slot” in claim 17 lines 9-13 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(s) 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 line 10 should read “a second horizontal dimension”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 19 to use terminology consistent with claim 1 as:
“a first horizontal dimension extending between a medial edge and a lateral edge of the first cut slot;” in lines 8-9, and
“a second horizontal dimension extending between a medial edge and a lateral edge of the second cut slot;” in lines 14-15, and
“the first horizontal dimension is equal to the second horizontal dimension” in lines 16-17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8-11, and 13-18 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to the many claimed “depths” of the at least two cut “slots” in lines 5-16 relative to the structures shown and described in the original disclosure. As provided in claim 1,
“wherein the at least two cut slots each include a depth extending between the front portion and the rear portion” in lines 4-5
“wherein a depth of a first cut slot of the at least two cut slots is different from a depth of a second cut slot of the at least two cut slots” in lines 11-13
“wherein the first cut slot has a larger depth than the second cut slot from the front surface to the rear surface” in lines 15-16
That is, each of the two cut slots include a depth (lines 4-5), a depth of a first cut slot of the at least two cut slots (line 12), a depth of a second cut slot of the at least two cut slots (lines 12-13), the first cut slot has a larger depth (line 16), and the second cut slot from the front surface to the rear surface (line 16), i.e. a total of 6 depths for what appear to be two slots. However, not a single figure is provided that shows a cross-sectional view that enables one to view an entirety of the depth or potential varying depths of any slot. Instead, the side profiles of Figs. 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 appear to show where the slots shown on the front surface in Figs. 3, 7, 11, 15, 19 meet the rear surface. Further, the specification discloses that “the cut slots 106, 108 may include various depths which further define lateral ranges of motion of the cutting instruments received therein, and which may also be impacted by the presence/absence of the exit slot 104 or another similar/analogous component.” (¶62) and that “FIGS. 1-4, the exit slot 104 is shown to be in fluid communication with a cut slot 106 disposed on the front surface of the front portion 102, wherein the cut slot 106 extends through the surgical guide 100 from the front portion 102 to the rear portion… the surgical guide 100 may include multiple exit slots 104, where each exit slot 104 corresponds to one or more of the slots disposed on the front portion 102 of the surgical guide 100. For example, the surgical guide 100 may include an exit slot corresponding to a cut slot 108, wherein the cut slot 108 is disposed below the cut slot 106. Further, in some aspects the surgical guide 100 may include two or more of the exit slot 104, wherein one or more of the exit slot 104 may be of various sizes (e.g., width, height, depth, etc.)” (¶61). Similar disclosures can be found in paragraphs 66, 67, 71, 72, 76, 77, 81, and 82 for the other embodiments. Thus, it appears that there is no disclosure of the at least two cutting slots having a total of 6 depths nor does it appear that Applicant has provided a definition of ‘slot’ that differs from the ordinary meaning, e.g. “narrow opening or groove” or “a narrow passage or enclosure” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slot). Instead, using the ordinary meanings of terms, based on the original disclosure of the embodiment of Figs. 1-4, it appears that there are disclosed two cutting slots (106, 108) that each have an opening in the front surface (Figs. 2 and 4) and an opening in the rear surface (104, Fig. 3, ¶61). Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as:
“a front portion comprising a front surface;
a rear portion opposite the front portion, the rear portion comprising a rear surface;
at least two cut slots extending from the front portion to the rear portion, each comprising:
a medial edge,
a lateral edge,
an inferior edge connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge
a superior edge connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge
a horizontal dimension extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge,
a vertical dimension extending between the inferior edge and the superior edge, and
a depth extending in fluid communication from the front surface to the rear surface,
wherein [[a]]the depth of a first cut slot of the at least two cut slots is larger than [[a]]the depth of a second cut slot of the at least two cut slots
a pair of projections…”.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are unclear with regards to “the at least two cut slots comprises a first cut slot comprising a first horizontal dimension and a second cut slot comprising a second horizontal dimension” in lines 1-3 and if the first and second cut slots are in addition to, as claimed, or in reference to the first and second cut slots of claim 1 lines 12-13 as well as if the first and second horizontal dimensions are in addition to, as claimed, or in reference to the horizontal dimensions of each slot of claim 1 lines 8-9. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “ of the first cut slot is equal to the of the second cut slot.” in claim 11.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are unclear with regards to “a depth of the first cut slot is greater than a depth of the second cut slot” in lines 1-2 and these depths that are in addition to those of claim 1 lines 5, 12, and 16 and where support can be found for each cut slot having three depths as claimed. Further, if all the claimed depths are disclosed as a depth of each cut slot, it is unclear how this can be reasonably construed to be further limiting over claim 1 lines 15-16, which provides that “wherein the first cut slot has a larger depth than the second cut slot from the front surface to the rear surface”. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the same depth and scope of claim 1, i.e. “[[a]]the depth of the first cut slot is greater than [[a]]the depth of the second cut slot”, and suggests cancelling claim 14 and amending claims 15 and 16 to depend from claim 1 as such does not further limit over claim 1.
Claim(s) 16 is/are unclear with regards to “a depth of the second cut slot” in lines 2-3 and this depth that is recited in addition to those of claim 1 lines 5, 12, and 16 and claim 14 lines 1-2 and where support can be found the second cut slot having four depths as claimed. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “the second cut slot is defined in superior and inferior directions for an entirety of [[a]]the depth of the second cut slot”.
Claim(s) 17 is/are unclear with regards to the “the at least one cut slot comprises….at least one exit slot” in lines 9-13 as to how the shown devices can be reasonably construed to have a slot comprising a slot, i.e. a “narrow opening or groove” or “a narrow passage or enclosure” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slot) comprising; where line 5 provides that “at least one cut slot extending from the front surface to the rear surface” and line 12 provides that “at least one exit slot extending from the rear surface toward the front surface”. The specification discloses that “FIGS. 1-4, the exit slot 104 is shown to be in fluid communication with a cut slot 106 disposed on the front surface of the front portion 102, wherein the cut slot 106 extends through the surgical guide 100 from the front portion 102 to the rear portion… the surgical guide 100 may include multiple exit slots 104, where each exit slot 104 corresponds to one or more of the slots disposed on the front portion 102 of the surgical guide 100. For example, the surgical guide 100 may include an exit slot corresponding to a cut slot 108, wherein the cut slot 108 is disposed below the cut slot 106. Further, in some aspects the surgical guide 100 may include two or more of the exit slot 104, wherein one or more of the exit slot 104 may be of various sizes (e.g., width, height, depth, etc.)” (¶61). Similar disclosures can be found in paragraphs 66, 67, 71, 72, 76, 77, 81, and 82 for the other embodiments. Thus, it appears that in order for “at least one cut slot extending from the front surface to the rear surface” in line 5 and “at least one exit slot extending from the rear surface toward the front surface” in line 12 where the cut slot and exit slot are disclosed to be in fluid communication (¶61) for the shown structure, e.g. Figs. 2-4, that the cut slot and the exit slot are a single continuous structure/slot, i.e. a passageway for insertion of a saw (¶60). Using the ordinary meanings of terms, based on the original disclosure of the embodiment of Figs. 1-4, it appears that there are disclosed two cutting slots (106, 108) that each have an opening/entrance in the front surface (Figs. 2 and 4) and an opening/exit in the rear surface (104, Fig. 3, ¶61). Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein the at least one cut slot comprises a horizontal dimension extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge, and wherein the at least one cut slot comprises at least one exit at the rear surface and extending toward the front surface,”
Claim 17 lines 12-13 is further unclear with regards to “open medial and lateral edges” in line 13 and how an edge can physically be an edge and be open; where “the line where an object or area begins or ends” or “a line or line segment that is the intersection of two plane faces (as of a pyramid) or of two planes” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edge). Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “the at least one exit defined by the superior edge and [[an]]the inferior edge and the at least one exit being open medially and laterally of the horizontal dimension;”.
Claim(s) 18 is/are unclear with regards to “a first horizontal dimension” in line 4 and “a second horizontal” in line 10 that are in addition to the “the at least one cut slot comprises a horizontal dimension extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge” and the intent and support for a total of three horizontal dimensions. Similarly, claim 18 is unclear with regards to “a first exit slot” in line 8 and “a second exit slot” in line 14 that are in addition to “at least one exit slot” of claim 17 line 12 and the intent and support for a total of three exit slots as well as the slot comprising a slot as detailed above for claim 17. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein the at least one cut slot comprises:
a first cut slot
and
a second cut slot
of the first cut slot has a larger depth than the of the second cut slot.”.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 8-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
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 of this title, 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, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 5,569,260) in view of Mauldin et al. (US 2018/0289380, hereinafter “Mauldin”).
As to claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14-16, Petersen discloses a surgical guide (30, Figs. 4-10) comprising: a front portion (top/upper portion of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5) comprising a front surface (top/upper surface of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, i.e. right-facing surface as shown in Figs. 8 and 9, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9); a rear portion (bottom/lower portion of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5) opposite the front portion (as defined, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9), the rear portion comprising a rear surface (bottom/lower surface of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, i.e. left-facing surface as shown in Figs. 8 and 9, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9); at least two cut slots (76, 78) extending from the front portion to the rear portion (Fig. 8), the at least two cut slots each comprising: a medial edge (left edge of 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6), a lateral edge (right edge of 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6), an inferior edge (upper edge of 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 6), a superior edge (lower edge of 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 6), a horizontal dimension (Fig. 6) extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 6), a vertical dimension (Fig. 6) extending between the inferior edge and the superior edge (Fig. 6), and a depth (Fig. 8) extending in fluid communication from the front surface to the rear surface (Fig. 8), wherein the depth of a first cut slot of the at least two cut slots (78, Fig. 8, i.e. see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 8) is larger than the depth of a second cut slot of the at least two cut slots (76, Fig. 8, i.e. see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 8); and a pair of projections (81, 83) extending from the front portion on opposite ends of the at least two cut slots (Fig. 5), wherein the at least two cut slots extend between two projections of the pair of projections (Fig. 6), wherein the pair of projections have a depth (Figs. 5 and 8), and wherein the depth of the pair of projections is smaller than a depth of a central portion of the surgical guide where the at least two cut slots are positioned (Figs. 5 and 8, i.e. see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 8), wherein each of the pair of projections comprises at least one lobe (Figs. 5-8) extending from each projection of the pair of projections (Figs. 5-8), and wherein the at least one lobe protrudes from a lower portion of each projection of the pair of projections (Figs. 5-8) and extends from a bottom surface of the surgical guide (Figs. 5-8), wherein the bottom surface extends between the front surface and the rear surface (Figs. 5-8). As to claim 2, Petersen discloses that the front portion is integral with the rear portion of the surgical guide (Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9). As to claim 6, Petersen discloses that each of the pair of projections comprises at least one through hole (85s in the lobes of the projections, Figs. 5-7). As to claim 8, Petersen discloses that each of the at least one through hole is disposed at least partially within the at least one lobe of each of the pair of projections (Figs. 5-7). As to claim 10, Petersen discloses that the first cut slot is disposed above the second cut slot (as defined, Figs. 5-9). As to claim 11, Petersen discloses that the horizontal dimension of the first cut slot is equal to the horizontal dimension of the second cut slot (Figs. 6 and 7). As to claim 14, Petersen discloses that wherein the depth of the first cut slot is greater than the second depth of the second cut slot (as defined, Figs. 8 and 9). As to claim 15, Petersen discloses that the first cut slot is defined in superior and inferior directions for an entirety of the depth of the first cut slot (Figs. 5-9), and wherein the first cut slot is defined in medial and lateral directions for at least a portion of the depth of the first cut slot (Figs. 5-9). As to claim 16, Petersen discloses that the second cut slot is defined in superior and inferior directions for an entirety of the depth of the second cut slot (Figs. 5-9), and wherein the second cut slot is defined in medial and lateral directions for at least a portion of the depth of the second cut slot (Figs. 5-9).
Petersen is silent to the pair of projections extending laterally from the front portion.
Mauldin teaches as similar surgical guide (612, Fig. 14) comprising: a front portion (Fig. 14) comprising a front surface (Fig. 14); a rear portion (Fig. 14) opposite the front portion (as defined), the rear portion comprising a rear surface (Fig. 14); a cut slot (Fig. 14) extending from the front portion to the rear portion (Fig. 14), the cut slot comprising: a medial edge (Fig. 14), a lateral edge (Fig. 14), an inferior edge (Fig. 14) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a superior edge (Fig. 14) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a horizontal dimension (Fig. 14) extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a vertical dimension (Fig. 14) extending between the inferior edge and the superior edge (Fig. 14), and a depth (Fig. 14) extending in fluid communication from the front surface to the rear surface (Fig. 14); and a pair of projections (see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 14, Fig. 14) extending laterally from the front portion on opposite ends of the cut slot (Fig. 14), wherein the cut slot extends between two projections of the pair of projections (Fig. 14), wherein the pair of projections have a depth (Fig. 14), wherein each of the pair of projections comprises at least one lobe (Fig. 14) extending from each projection of the pair of projections (Fig. 14), and wherein the at least one lobe protrudes from a lower portion of each projection of the pair of projections (Fig. 14) and extends from a bottom surface of the surgical guide (Fig. 14), wherein the bottom surface extends between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 14). As to claim 6, Mauldin teaches that each of the pair of projections comprises at least one through hole (Fig. 14). As to claim 8, Mauldin teaches that each of the at least one through hole is disposed at least partially within the at least one lobe of each of the pair of projections (Fig. 14).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to relocate/reposition the pair of projections as disclosed by Petersen to extend laterally from the front portion as taught by Mauldin since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and one would have been so motivated in order to select a known location for openings for mounting pins for attaching to bone (Mauldin Fig. 14; Petersen Fig. 9, col. 5 lines 23-35) to provide angulation to facilitate retention (Petersen col. 5 lines 23-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
924
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen and Mauldin in view of Sayger et al. (US 2021/0251670, hereinafter “Sayger”).
As to claims 9 and 13, the combination of Petersen and Mauldin discloses the invention of claim 1.
The combination of Petersen and Mauldin is silent to each of the at least two cut slots comprise at least a portion of a perimeter of an aperture that overlaps with a perimeter of the cut slots, and at least a portion of the perimeter of the aperture does not overlap with the perimeter of the cut slots. As to claim 13, Petersen is silent to the aperture comprises a pair of apertures such that the guide comprises two apertures.
Sayger teaches a similar surgical guide (100, Figs. 2A-2D and 8-14) comprising: a front portion (upper portion of 105 as shown in Fig. 2D, Figs. 2A-2D) comprising a front surface (Figs. 2A, 2C, and 2D); a rear portion (lower portion of 105 as shown in Fig. 2D, Figs. 2A-2D) opposite the front portion (as defined, Figs. 2A-2D), the rear portion comprising a rear surface opposite the front surface (Figs. 2B and 2D); and at least two cut slots (125, 130) extending from the front portion to the rear portion (Fig. 2D), the at least two cut slots each comprising: a medial edge (Fig. 2C), a lateral edge (Fig. 2C), an inferior edge (Fig. 2C) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 2C), a superior edge (Fig. 2C) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 2C), a horizontal dimension (Fig. 2C)extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 2C), a vertical dimension (Fig. 2C) extending between the inferior edge and the superior edge (Fig. 2C), and a depth (Fig. 2D) extending in fluid communication from the front surface to the rear surface (Fig. 2D); wherein each of the at least two cut slots comprise at least a portion of a perimeter of an aperture (109s) that overlaps with a perimeter of the cut slots (Figs. 2A-2D, ¶60 discloses use for visualization or monitoring of the alignment of the guide), and at least a portion of the perimeter of the aperture does not overlap with the perimeter of the cut slots (Figs. 2A-2D). As to claim 13, Sayger teaches that the aperture comprises a pair of apertures (as defined, Figs. 2A-2D) such that the guide comprises two apertures (Figs. 2A-2D).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the first and second cutting slots as disclosed by the combination of Petersen and Mauldin by adding a pair of apertures as taught by Sayger in order to provide an opening to facilitate x-ray visualization and/or any other suitable surgical imaging procedure to confirm and/or monitor the alignment of the cut guide during a procedure (Sayger ¶60).
As to claim 19, Petersen discloses a surgical guide (30, Figs. 4-10) comprising: a front portion (top/upper portion of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5) having a front surface (top/upper surface of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, i.e. right-facing surface as shown in Figs. 8 and 9, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9); a rear portion (bottom/lower portion of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5) opposite the front portion (as defined, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9) and comprising a rear surface (bottom/lower surface of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, i.e. left-facing surface as shown in Figs. 8 and 9, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9) opposite the front surface (as defined, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9); a first cut slot (78) providing fluid communication between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 8, col. 5 lines 44-52), the first cut slot comprising: a first depth (Figs. 8 and 9) extending from the front portion to the rear portion (Figs. 8 and 9); and a first lateral/horizonal dimension (Figs. 6 and 7) extending between a medial edge (left edge of 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) and a lateral edge (right edge of 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) of the first cut slot (Fig. 6); and a second cut slot (76) providing fluid communication between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 8, col. 5 lines 44-52), the second cut slot comprising: a second depth (Figs. 8 and 9) extending between from front portion to the rear portion (Figs. 8 and 9); a second lateral/horizonal dimension (Figs. 6 and 7) extending between a medial edge (left edge of 76 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) and a lateral edge (right edge of 76 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) of the second cut slot (Fig. 6); wherein the first depth is greater than the second depth (Figs. 8 and 9, i.e. see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 8) and the first lateral/horizonal dimension is equal to the second lateral/horizonal dimension (Figs. 4-7), and a pair of projections (81, 83) extending from the front portion on opposite ends of the first and second cut slots (as defined, Figs. 6 and 7), wherein the first and second cut slots extend between two projections of the pair of projections (Fig. 6), wherein the pair of projections have a depth (Figs. 5, 8, and 9), and wherein the depth of the pair of projections is smaller than a depth of a central portion of the surgical guide where the first and second cut slots are positioned (Figs. 5, 8, and 9 show that lobes 81 and 83 have a smaller depth, Figs. 5, 8, and 9, i.e. see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 8), wherein each of the pair of projections comprises at least one lobe (Figs. 5-8) extending from a lower portion of each projection of the pair of projections (Figs. 5-8).
Petersen is silent to the pair of projections extending laterally from the front portion and the first cut slot comprises a first aperture extending from the front surface to the rear surface, and wherein the second cut slot comprises at least one second aperture extending from the front surface to the rear surface.
Mauldin teaches as similar surgical guide (612, Fig. 14) comprising: a front portion (Fig. 14) comprising a front surface (Fig. 14); a rear portion (Fig. 14) opposite the front portion (as defined), the rear portion comprising a rear surface (Fig. 14); a cut slot (Fig. 14) extending from the front portion to the rear portion (Fig. 14), the cut slot comprising: a medial edge (Fig. 14), a lateral edge (Fig. 14), an inferior edge (Fig. 14) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a superior edge (Fig. 14) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a horizontal dimension (Fig. 14) extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a vertical dimension (Fig. 14) extending between the inferior edge and the superior edge (Fig. 14), and a depth (Fig. 14) extending in fluid communication from the front surface to the rear surface (Fig. 14); and a pair of projections (see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 14, Fig. 14) extending laterally from the front portion on opposite ends of the cut slot (Fig. 14), wherein the cut slot extends between two projections of the pair of projections (Fig. 14), wherein the pair of projections have a depth (Fig. 14), wherein each of the pair of projections comprises at least one lobe (Fig. 14) extending from each projection of the pair of projections (Fig. 14), and wherein the at least one lobe protrudes from a lower portion of each projection of the pair of projections (Fig. 14) and extends from a bottom surface of the surgical guide (Fig. 14), wherein the bottom surface extends between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 14).
Sayger teaches a similar surgical guide (100, Figs. 2A-2D and 8-14) comprising: a front portion (upper portion of 105 as shown in Fig. 2D, Figs. 2A-2D) having a front surface (Figs. 2A, 2C, and 2D); a rear portion (lower portion of 105 as shown in Fig. 2D, Figs. 2A-2D) opposite the front portion (as defined, Figs. 2A-2D), and comprising a rear surface opposite the front surface (Figs. 2B and 2D); and at least two cut slots (125, 130) extending from the front portion to the rear portion (Fig. 2D), a first cut slot (130) providing fluid communication between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 2D), the first cut slot comprising: a first depth (Figs. 2A-2D); and a first lateral/horizontal dimension (Figs. 2A-2D); and a second cut slot (125) providing fluid communication between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 2D), the second cut slot comprising: a second depth (Figs. 2A-2D); and a second lateral/horizontal dimension (Figs. 2A-2D); wherein the first cut slot comprises a first aperture (109s) extending from the front surface to the rear surface (Figs. 2A-2D, ¶60 discloses use for visualization or monitoring of the alignment of the guide), and wherein the second cut slot comprises at least one second aperture (Figs. 2A-2D) extending from the front surface to the rear surface (Figs. 2A-2C, ¶60 discloses use for visualization or monitoring of the alignment of the guide).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to relocate/reposition the pair of projections as disclosed by Petersen to extend laterally from the front portion as taught by Mauldin since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and one would have been so motivated in order to select a known location for openings for mounting pins for attaching to bone (Mauldin Fig. 14; Petersen Fig. 9, col. 5 lines 23-35) to provide angulation to facilitate retention (Petersen col. 5 lines 23-35). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the first and second cutting slots as disclosed by Petersen by adding the first aperture and the second aperture taught by Sayger in order to provide an opening to facilitate x-ray visualization and/or any other suitable surgical imaging procedure to confirm and/or monitor the alignment of the cut guide during a procedure (Sayger ¶60).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 5,569,260) in view of Carroll et al. (US 2010/0217338, hereinafter “Carroll”) and Mauldin et al. (US 2018/0289380, hereinafter “Mauldin”).
As to claims 17 and 18, Petersen discloses a surgical guide (30, Figs. 4-10) comprising: a front portion (top/upper portion of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5) comprising a front surface (top/upper surface of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, i.e. right-facing surface as shown in Figs. 8 and 9, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9); a rear portion (bottom/lower portion of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5) opposite the front portion (as defined, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9) and comprising a rear surface (bottom/lower surface of 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, i.e. left-facing surface as shown in Figs. 8 and 9, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9) opposite the front surface (as defined, Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 9); at least one cut slot (76, 78) extending from the front surface to the rear surface (Fig. 8) and providing fluid communication therebetween (Fig. 8), wherein the at least one cut slot comprises a medial edge (left edge of 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6), a lateral edge (right edge of 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) opposite the medial edge (as defined, Fig. 6), an inferior edge (upper edge of 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge on a first end (Fig. 6), and a superior edge (lower edge of 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 6, Fig. 6) opposite the inferior edge (as defined, Fig. 6) and connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge on a second end (Fig. 6), and wherein the at least one cut slot comprises a horizontal dimension (Fig. 6) extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 6), and wherein the at least one cut slot comprises at least one exit (Fig. 8) at the rear surface (Fig. 8) and extending toward the front surface (Fig. 8), the at least one exit defined by the superior edge and the inferior edge (Fig. 8); and a pair of projections (81, 83) extending from the front portion on opposite ends of the at least one cut slot (Fig. 5), wherein the at least one cut slot extends between two projections of the pair of projections (Fig. 6), wherein the pair of projections have a depth (Figs. 5 and 8), and wherein the depth of the pair of projections is smaller than the a depth of a central portion of the surgical guide where the at least one cut slot is positioned (Figs. 5 and 8, i.e. see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 8), wherein each of the pair of projections comprises at least one lobe (Figs. 5-8) extending from each projection of the pair of projections (Figs. 5-8), and wherein the at least one lobe protrudes from a lower portion of each projection of the pair of projections (Figs. 5-8), wherein the at least one lobe extends from the surgical guide in a direction perpendicular to the at least one cut slot (Figs. 5-8). As to claim 18, Petersen discloses that the at least one cut slot comprises: a first cut slot (78) and a second cut slot (76), wherein the exit of the first cut slot has a larger depth than the exit of the second cut slot (Fig. 8).
Petersen is silent to the at least one exit being open medially and laterally of the horizontal dimension and the pair of projections extending laterally from the front portion.
Carroll teaches a similar surgical guide (20, Figs. 8-11, ¶55) comprising: a front portion (upper portion of 29/49 as shown in Fig. 8, Fig. 8) comprising a front surface (Fig. 10); a rear portion (lower portion of 29/49 as shown in Fig. 8, Fig. 8) opposite the front portion (as defined, Figs. 8-10) and comprising a rear surface (Fig. 9) opposite the front surface (as defined, Figs. 8-10); at least one cut slot (52) extending from the front surface to the rear surface (Figs. 8-10, ¶56 discloses use for passage of a typical surgical saw for bone resection) and providing fluid communication therebetween (Figs. 8-10, ¶56), wherein the at least one cut slot comprises a medial edge (Fig. 10), a lateral edge (Fig. 10) opposite the medial edge (Fig. 10), an inferior edge (Fig. 10) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge on a first end (Fig. 10), and a superior edge (Fig. 10) opposite the inferior edge (Fig. 10) and connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge on a second end (Fig. 10), and wherein the at least one cut slot comprises a horizontal dimension (Fig. 10) extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 10), and wherein the at least one cut slot comprises at least one exit (Figs. 8 and 9) at the rear surface (Figs. 8 and 9) and extending toward the front surface (Figs. 8 and 9), the at least one exit defined by the superior edge and the inferior edge (Figs. 8 and 9) and the at least one exit being open medially and laterally of the horizontal dimension (Figs. 8 and 9).
Mauldin teaches as similar surgical guide (612, Fig. 14) comprising: a front portion (Fig. 14) comprising a front surface (Fig. 14); a rear portion (Fig. 14) opposite the front portion (as defined), the rear portion comprising a rear surface (Fig. 14); a cut slot (Fig. 14) extending from the front portion to the rear portion (Fig. 14), the cut slot comprising: a medial edge (Fig. 14), a lateral edge (Fig. 14), an inferior edge (Fig. 14) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a superior edge (Fig. 14) connecting the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a horizontal dimension (Fig. 14) extending between the medial edge and the lateral edge (Fig. 14), a vertical dimension (Fig. 14) extending between the inferior edge and the superior edge (Fig. 14), and a depth (Fig. 14) extending in fluid communication from the front surface to the rear surface (Fig. 14); and a pair of projections (see illustration of enlarged portion of Fig. 14, Fig. 14) extending laterally from the front portion on opposite ends of the cut slot (Fig. 14), wherein the cut slot extends between two projections of the pair of projections (Fig. 14), wherein the pair of projections have a depth (Fig. 14), wherein each of the pair of projections comprises at least one lobe (Fig. 14) extending from each projection of the pair of projections (Fig. 14), and wherein the at least one lobe protrudes from a lower portion of each projection of the pair of projections (Fig. 14) and extends from a bottom surface of the surgical guide (Fig. 14), wherein the bottom surface extends between the front surface and the rear surface (Fig. 14).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the at least one exit as disclosed by Petersen to be open medially and laterally of the horizontal dimension as taught by Carroll in order to permit the surgeon to decide whether to make a conservative resection or a more aggressive resection depending upon the clinical situation involved (Petersen col. 5 lines 49-52) via a known cutting slot configuration for passage of a saw (Carroll ¶56). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to relocate/reposition the pair of projections as disclosed by Petersen to extend laterally from the front portion as taught by Mauldin since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and one would have been so motivated in order to select a known location for openings for mounting pins for attaching to bone (Mauldin Fig. 14; Petersen Fig. 9, col. 5 lines 23-35) to provide angulation to facilitate retention (Petersen col. 5 lines 23-35).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 6:30am-4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights