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 applicant’s communication filed 03/23/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 – 18 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 17, and 18 are amended.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/23/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 10 and 13 in the previous action dated 12/31/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 03/23/2026. Specifically, the objection to claim 10, regarding the phrase “legs 16”, and the objection to claim 13, regarding the phrase “a length (D) said needle (28) protrudes …is 0.2-1.2mm”, have been withdrawn as the appropriate corrections have been made. However, new objections have been set forth below in light of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
The rejection of claims 2, 17, and 18 under U.S.C 35 112(b) regarding indefiniteness, recited in the previous action dated 12/31/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 03/23/2026. Specifically, the rejection of claim 2, regarding the lack of clarity in the phrase "one or more sloping shoulders that are joined at curved portion" and the rejections of claims 17 and 18 for the lack of antecedent basis for “the legs”, have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Examiner’s note: the rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by Bowman (US 2007/0162055 A1) recited below is the same rejection set forth in the previous Non-Final Office action with the exception of an annotated Fig. 3 of Bowman inserted herein for the purpose of further clarifying the Examiner’s interpretation of the prior art.
Claims 1 – 3, 8, 9, and 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowman (US 2007/0162055 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Bowman discloses a surgical fixation tool (graft fixation device) (abstract, paragraphs [0013], [0054], and Figs. 3,4) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0013] the “graft fixation device” is a combination of the fixation device and the insertion device) comprising:
at least one fixation member (prongs 270 on Fig. 3 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) which protrudes from a leg (wide cylindrical portions of the prongs 270 extending from the base plate from which narrower portions the prongs protrude as shown in Fig. 3; designated in annotated Fig. 3) of a proximal grasping portion (instrument 250) (paragraph [0054] and Figs. 3,4), said at least one fixation member (left or right prong 270 on Fig. 3; designated in annotated Fig. 3) comprising a needle (narrow portion of the prong 270 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) with a sharp tip (pointed tip 277 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) at a distal end of a needle shaft (shaft portion of prong 270 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) (paragraph [0054] and Figs. 3,4), wherein said needle (left or right prong 270 on Fig. 3 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) designated in annotated Fig. 3) assembled on said needle shaft (as shown in Fig. 4) that comprises one or more sloped support surfaces (frustoconical end 30 – Fig. 1) that are sloped with respect to said needle shaft (as shown in Fig. 4).
Annotated Fig. 3 of Bowman
PNG
media_image1.png
710
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bowman discloses wherein said at least one fixation member (prongs 270) comprises a pair of fixation members (prongs 270) each of which protrudes from a corresponding leg (see annotated Fig. 3) of said proximal grasping portion (instrument 250) (paragraph [0075] and Figs. 3,4), wherein said legs (see annotated Fig. 3) are separated by a channel (see designated annotated Fig. 3) and said tips (tips 277) of said fixation members (prongs 270) are separated by a gap (the empty space between the two tips 277 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) (Figs. 3/4).
Regarding claim 8, Bowman discloses wherein said gap is fixed (Fig. 3) (Examiner’s note: the prongs do not move relative to each other, and thus the tips of the prongs do not move relative to each other, therefore, the empty space between the tips (i.e., the gap) between them is fixed).
Regarding claim 9, Bowman discloses wherein said gap (the empty space between the two tips 277) is adjustable (Examiner’s note: as the fixation member 10 is passed over the prongs, the empty space between the tips (i.e., the gap) is made smaller (i.e., adjusted)).
Regarding claim 15, Bowman discloses wherein said needle (prongs 270 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) is fixed with respect to said support structure (fixation device 10 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0054] and shown in Fig. 4, the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure) is mounted to the prongs and moves with the prongs 270 to the desired location, therefore, the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure) is considered to be fixed relative to the prongs 270 (i.e., the needle) while mounted).
Regarding claim 16, Bowman discloses wherein said needle (prongs 270 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) is adjustable with respect to said support structure (fixation device 10 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) (Examiner’s note: the prongs 270 are delivered through the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure), it is the Examiner’s position that as the prongs (i.e., the needles) are delivered through the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure) they are being moved and therefore adjusted laterally with respect to the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure)).
Regarding claim 17, Bowman discloses wherein said support structure (fixation device 10) is fixed with respect to said legs (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0054] and shown in Fig. 4, the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure) is mounted to the instrument 250 and moves with the instrument 250 to the desired location, therefore, the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure) is considered to be fixed relative to the legs of the instrument 250 while mounted).
Regarding claim 18, Bowman discloses wherein said support structure (fixation device 10) is adjustable with respect to said legs (Examiner’s note: the prongs 270 are delivered through the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure), it is the Examiner’s position that as the prongs (i.e., the needle), and thus the legs connected thereto, are delivered through the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure) they are being moved and therefore adjusted laterally with respect to the fixation device 10 (i.e., the support structure)).
Regarding claim 1, (alternate interpretation – changes italicized below) Bowman discloses a surgical fixation tool (graft fixation device) (abstract, paragraph [0054], and Figs. 3,4) comprising:
at least one fixation member (prongs 270 on Fig. 3 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) which protrudes from a leg (wide cylindrical portions extending from the base plate from which the prongs protrude as shown in Fig. 3 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) of a proximal grasping portion (instrument 250) (paragraph [0054] and Figs. 3,4), said at least one fixation member (left prong 270 on Fig. 3) comprising a needle (prong 270 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) with a sharp tip (pointed tip 277 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) at a distal end of a needle shaft (shaft portion of prong 270 and designated in annotated Fig. 3) (paragraph [0054] and Figs. 3,4), wherein said needle (left prong 270 on Fig. 3) protrudes distally from a support structure (graft fixation device 10) assembled on said needle shaft (Fig. 4) that comprises one or more sloped support surfaces (slopped shoulders on retention member 50 – Fig. 1) that are sloped with respect to said needle shaft (Fig. 4).
Annotated Fig. 3 of Bowman
PNG
media_image1.png
710
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, (alternate interpretation) Bowman discloses wherein said one or more sloped support surfaces (slopped shoulders on retention member 50 – Fig. 1) comprise one or more sloping shoulders (slopped shoulders on retention member 50 – Fig. 1) that are joined at a curved portion (central section 55) (Examiner’s note: as shown in Fig. 1, central section 55 is curved around its circumference and connects the two slopping shoulders; thus the central section meets the limitations as claimed).
Regarding claim 14, (alternate interpretation) Bowman discloses wherein said one or more sloped support surfaces (slopped shoulders on retention member 50 – Fig. 1) comprise more than one sloped surfaces (slopped shoulders on retention member 50 – Fig. 1) and wherein an angle between said sloped support surfaces (slopped shoulders on retention member 50 – Fig. 1) is 10o-180o (Examiner’s note: as shown in Fig. 1, the two slopped shoulders are 180 degrees apart from each other).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (US 2007/0162055 A1) (previously cited), as applied to claims 1 and 3, and further in view of Fischer (US 5,290,259) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the surgical fixation device of claims 1 and 3.
However, Bowman is silent regarding [claims 4 and 6] (i) a protector member for covering said fixation members, wherein said protector member is formed with hollow receiving members, one for each of said fixation members, and a tongue that protrudes axially outwards between said hollow receiving members.
As to the above, Fischer teaches a double syringe system with a two fixation members (distal ends 36 of the syringe barrel; which equate to the prongs 270 of Bowman) and a protector member (cap 37) for covering said fixation members (distal ends 36 of the syringe barrel) (col. 6 lines 30 – 37 and Fig. 1), wherein said protector member (cap 37) is formed with hollow receiving members (both apertures shown in Fig. 1), one for each of said fixation members (col. 6 lines 30 – 37 and Fig. 1), and a tongue (strap / tether 39) that protrudes axially outwards between said hollow receiving members (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Bowman to incorporate a protection member based on the teachings of Fischer, for the purpose of protecting the prongs sharp tips of the device when not in use and for the purpose of protecting the user from being accidently injured via the sharp tipped prongs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (US 2007/0162055 A1) (previously cited) in view of Fischer (US 5,290,259) (previously cited), as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Woehr et al (US 2003/0144627 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the surgical fixation device of claim 4.
However, Bowman is silent regarding (i) said protector member is formed with at least one window for viewing said at least one fixation member while said protector member covers said at least one fixation member.
As to the above, Woehr teaches a protective member (protective cap 180) for covering a needle (needle 12) wherein the protective member (protective cap 180) is formed via a transparent material (paragraph [0122]) for viewing said needle (needle 12) while said protector member covers said needle (needle 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the protective member of Bowman in view of Fischer to be comprised of a transparent material, as taught by Woehr, because transparent material is a known material known to be used in making a protective covering for needles, and it should be understood that Fischer and Woehr are known references in the art that teach a cap for protruding elements (col. 6 lines 30 – 37 and Fig. 1 – Fischer ; paragraph [0122] – Woehr); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified cap of Bowman in view of Fischer being able to function as intended to properly protect the protruding elements when not in use. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (US 2007/0162055 A1) (previously cited), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kaganov et al (GB 2,417,208 A) (PDF version attached) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the surgical fixation tool of claim 1.
However, Bowman is silent regarding (i) wherein said at least one fixation member comprises a sensor configured to sense contact with a tissue or a parameter of a tissue.
As to the above, Kaganov teaches a fixation device (intraluminal prosthesis attachment system and fasteners) comprising a fixation member (fastener applier 27; which equates to the prongs 270 of Bowman) with a tip (tip of the applier 27; which equate to the tip of the prongs 270 of Bowman) and a force sensor thereon for the purpose of detecting the contact between the system and the tissue, so that the user can determine that the desire degree of contact has been made prior to the release of the anchor (which equates to the fixation element 10 of Bowman) (abstract and page 22 lines 5 – 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the prongs (i.e., the fixation member) of Bowman to incorporate a contact sensor, based on the teachings of Kaganov, for the purpose of aiding the user in accurately placing the fixation device 10 of Bowman (page 22 lines 5 – 12 – Kaganov).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (US 2007/0162055 A1) (previously cited), as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Sengun et al (US 2016/0310260 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the surgical fixation tool of claim 3.
However, Bowman is silent regarding (i) wherein said gap is flexible and said legs are flexible.
As to the above, Sengun teaches a fixation device (bicep repair device) comprising a pair of fixation members (prongs 404 and 406; which equate to the prongs 270 of Bowman) comprising a shaft (prongs 404 and 406) and tips at the end thereof (Fig. 1B/4A) and a gap separating the tips (empty space between the tips of the prongs 404 and 406), wherein the fixation members (prongs 406 and 404) are made out of a flexible material (Nitinol) such that the gap therebetween is flexible (abstract, paragraphs [0060 – 0065] and Figs. 1B,4A/B) (Examiner’s note: because the prongs are flexible and can bend, the gap therebetween is flexible, in that it can change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the prongs, which includes the wider cylindrical portions (i.e., the legs), of Bowman to be comprised of Nitinol, as taught by Sengun, because Nitinol material is a known material known to be used in making prongs used in fixing anchors to the body, and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified prongs of Bowman being able to function as intended. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143. It should be understood that with the modification above, the entirety of the prongs are made up of Nitinol, which means that the legs are made up of Nitinol; and because Nitinol is a flexible material, the legs and thus the gap that is between the tips of the prongs will be flexible. Therefore, the combination encompasses the limitations above.
Claims 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (US 2007/0162055 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the surgical fixation tool of claim 1. Additionally, it should be understood that Bowman discloses the gap as claimed (see Fig. 4).
However, Bowman is silent regarding (i) the dimensions of the gap, wherein the gap is 2-24 mm.
As to the above, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the width of the gap would result in a difference in function of the Bowman device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the gap of Bowman, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed gap size. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the gap size “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 7mm – 10mm, specification at para. [0024]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap of Bowman to have size be within 2 to 24mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the Examiner is looking at the device as a whole, such that the change in the gap between the tips of the prongs also changes the size of the fixation device 10; and based off of paragraph [0056] the fixation device can be optimized for the particular location of use, such that the size varies).
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the surgical fixation tool of claim 1. Additionally, Bowman discloses wherein the needle (prongs 270) comprise a pencil point (paragraph [0054]) which subtends at some angle (see Figs. 3,4).
However, Bowman is silent regarding (i) wherein the pencil point subtends an angle of 7o-150o.
As to the above, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle that the tip subtends would result in a difference in function of the Bowman device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the prongs/ tips of the prongs of Bowman, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angle. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 18o to 22o, specification at para. [0025]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tips of Bowman to have a subtended angle be within the range of 7o-150o as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the Examiner is looking at the device as a whole, such that the change in the gap between the tips of the prongs also changes the size of the fixation device 10; and based off of paragraph [0056] the fixation device can be optimized for the particular location of use, such that the size varies).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the surgical fixation tool of claim 1. Additionally, Bowman discloses wherein the needle (prongs 270) protrude distally from said support structure (fixation device 10) (Fig. 4).
However, Bowman is silent regarding (i) the length of the protrusion being within the range of 0.2-1.2 mm.
As to the above, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the length of protrusion would result in a difference in function of the Bowman device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the length of the protrusion of the prongs of Bowman, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed length. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the length “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 0.05-2 mm, specification at para. [0025]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify length of protrusion of the prongs of Bowman to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the Examiner is looking at the device as a whole, such that the change in the gap between the tips of the prongs also changes the size of the fixation device 10; and based off of paragraph [0056] the fixation device can be optimized for the particular location of use, such that the size varies).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically:
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Bowman apparently discloses a graft fixation device that includes implantation members connected by a rod-like retention member. See Bowman, Fig. 1 and the accompanying description. The fixation device itself comprises the implantation members (20) that are inserted into bone. The prongs (270) cited by the Examiner are not part of the fixation device. Instead, Bowman apparently explains that these prongs belong to an insertion instrument used to place the fixation device into bone. The fixation device is temporarily mounted onto the prongs of the insertion instrument during the implantation procedure, after which the insertion instrument is removed. See Bowman, e.g., the description of the insertion instrument and associated figures (including Fig. 3 and Fig. 11). Thus, the prongs 270 are components of the insertion tool and are not structural elements of the graft fixation device that remains in the patient after implantation. In contrast, claim 1 requires that the surgical fixation tool itself comprise at least one fixation member including a needle. Accordingly, Bowman apparently fails to disclose: a fixation member comprising a needle as part of the surgical fixation tool.”, as stated in the rejection above, in paragraph [0013] Bowman describes the “graft fixation device” (designated as the “surgical fixation tool” by the Examiner in the rejection above) as a combination of the “fixation tool” and the “insertion device”, therefore, the designation by the Examiner wherein the “graft fixation device” of Bowman comprises the “prongs” is accurate. Furthermore, simply because pieces of a combined device can be removed or are removed at some point in time does not suggest that said pieces aren’t a part of the combined system when in the combined state. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Claim 1 requires that: a needle protrudes distally from a support structure assembled on the needle shaft, and the support structure comprises sloped support surfaces that are sloped with respect to the needle shaft. In the present invention, the support structure is mounted on the needle shaft and includes sloped shoulders that surround the needle shaft and define the interaction between the tool and the tissue. The needle tip protrudes beyond the support structure. Bowman apparently does not disclose such a structure. The implantation members of Bowman are unitary anchor bodies having ridged outer surfaces and frustoconical ends. The conical surfaces form part of the anchor body itself and are not support structures assembled on a needle shaft. Nor does Bowman disclose sloped support surfaces arranged relative to a needle shaft as required by claim 1.”, the Examiner notes that as detailed in the rejection above, and shown in Fig. 4 of Bowman, the needle(s) does/do protrude distally from the support structure (i.e., the fixation device 10), Figs. 1 – 4 further show the designated slopped surfaces being sloped relative to the needles. Additionally, the term “support structure” does not limit the claimed structure to any specific function or construct; additionally, the channels of the “support structure” (i.e., the fixation device 10) when surrounding the “needles” (i.e., the prongs 270) do provide structural support as they cover said “needles” (i.e., the prongs 270). Furthermore, the Examiner is reading the limitation “a support structure assembled on said needle shaft that comprises one or more sloped support surfaces” in light of Applicant’s Specification wherein the “support structure” comprises the “one or more sloped support surfaces” (See Page 5 paragraph [0003] and Fig. 7A); not wherein the “needle shaft(s)” comprise the “one or more sloped support surfaces. Therefore, under the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims, the structure of Bowman meets the limitations as claimed. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Apparently, Bowman's implantation members are bone anchors designed to be inserted into previously formed bore holes in bone and retained using ridges on their outer surfaces. These structures differ fundamentally from the claimed fixation members, which include needles protruding from support structures mounted on the needle shafts.”, although the Examiner Acknowledges there are differences in the structure of the prior art and Applicant’s device, the Examiner notes that the claims as currently written are broad and do not require any more structure than what is currently written and the structure Bowman reads on the claimed structure as currently written based on BRI. The Examiner suggests further limiting the claims to differentiate, structurally or functionally, from the device of Bowman and similar devices.
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights