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 in response to the amendment filed July 15, 2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims were amended. Claims 3-4, 7, 12-13, 16, 18-20 were previously withdrawn. As such, claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 14-15 remain under consideration in the instant application.
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, 6, 8-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoenly et al. (US 2012/0232599), hereinafter “Schoenly”.
Regarding claim 1, Schoenly discloses a device for insertion into bone (99d, FIGS. 4A-4C), comprising: a body (104) extending along a longitudinal axis (L) and including at least one broach (122); at least two cutting edges (118) extending along the body and defining at least one cutting face (106) therebetween, wherein the at least two cutting edges converge at an end of the body to form a point (116) in alignment with the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 2, Schoenly discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one cutting face is planar (FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 6, Schoenly discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one broach has an outer surface that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis (FIG. 4A).
Regarding claim 8, Schoenly discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the at least one broach is at least partially interrupted by one of the at least one cutting face (FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 9, Schoenly discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the at least one broach is fully interrupted by one of the at least one cutting face (FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 10, Schoenly discloses an anchor (99d) for insertion into a bone, comprising: a body (108); a tip (104) coupled to the body and extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the tip includes at least one broach (122); and at least two cutting edges (118) extending along the tip and defining at least one cutting face (106) therebetween, wherein the at least two cutting edges converge at an end of the tip to form a point (116) in alignment with the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 14, Schoenly discloses the anchor of claim 11, wherein the tip and the body are integrally formed (FIG. 4B).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenly in view of Fiechter et al. (US 2011/0257689), hereinafter “Fiechter”.
Regarding claim 15, Schoenly discloses an anchor (99d) for insertion into a bone as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection above, except wherein the tip is formed from a first material and the body is formed from a second material that is different than the first material. Fiechter teaches an anchor (2, FIG. 2) for insertion into a bone comprising: a body (3’); a tip (7) coupled to the body and extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the tip is formed from a first material and the body is formed from a second material that is different than the first material (¶16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the harder tip of Fiechter with the anchor of Schoenly, for the purpose of piercing the bone more easily. In this case, one would form the tip of Schoenly with a harder material than used in the body.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant's argument that Schoenly fails to disclose “at least one broach”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner previously defined “broach” as “an elongated, tapered, serrated cutting tool for shaping and enlarging holes” (Dictionary.com). Applicant agrees with this definition but argues that Schoenly does not disclose a “serrated cutting tool”. However, Applicant’s invention also fails to disclose serrations in the elected embodiment of Figures 1-3. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Schoenly fails to form a “cutting tool”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. The device of Schoenly is necessarily capable of cutting material that is softer than it. Schoenly further satisfies all of the explicitly claimed structural limitations. Therefore, the device of Schoenly meets the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA C CHANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5017. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, KEVIN TRUONG, 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 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.
/OLIVIA C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights