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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1) as being anticipated by Schwab (Pat. No. US 7,942,902).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-7, Schwab discloses a bone anchor 20 for securing a spinal rod 52 to a bone structure, the bone anchor 20 comprising: a threaded shank 22; and a housing 28 comprising: a base coupled to the threaded shank 22 (figure 1); a pair of upstanding arms spaced apart forming a channel 32 dimensioned to fit a portion of the spinal rod (figure 1 and 2); and a tether connector 30 on a given arm of the pair of upstanding arms (figure 1 and 2). The tether connector 30 comprises: a post member extending outwardly from the given arm; and a lumen extending through the post member (figure 1). The channel 32 does not intersect the lumen (figure 1). The bone anchor 20 further comprises: a locking element 36 that is attachable to the housing between the pair of upstanding arms (figure 2). The locking element 36 comprises an upper portion that mates with the pair of upstanding arms and a lower portion that engages with a given portion of the spinal rod 52 (figures 1 and 2). Each arm of the pair of upstanding arms comprises a locking engagement feature 34 configured to engage with a housing engagement feature of the locking element 36 as the locking element is advanced via rotation between the pair of upstanding arms (figure 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-14, Schwab discloses a vertebral fixation system (figure 2) comprising: a spinal rod 52; a first bone anchor 20 including: a threaded shank 22; and a housing 28 (figure 1) including: a base coupled to the threaded shank; a pair of upstanding arms spaced apart forming a channel 32 dimensioned to fit a portion of the spinal rod (figures 1 and 2); and a tether connector 30 on a given arm of the pair of upstanding arms; and a tether 54 configured to engage the tether connector (figure 2). The tether connector 30 comprises: a post member extending outwardly from the given arm; and a lumen extending through the post member (figure 1). The channel 32 does not intersect the lumen (figure 1). The first bone anchor 20 further comprises: a locking element 36 that is attachable to the housing between the pair of upstanding arms (figure 2). The locking element 36 comprises an upper portion that mates with the pair of upstanding arms and a lower portion that engages with a given portion of the spinal rod 52 (figures 1 and 2). Each arm of the pair of upstanding arms comprises a locking engagement feature 34 configured to engage with a housing engagement feature of the locking element 36 as the locking element is advanced via rotation between the pair of upstanding arms (figure 1). The system further comprising a plurality of second bone anchors 20 (figure 2; col. 4, lines 35-48). The plurality of second bone anchors 20 are fixed angled screws (figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (Pat. No. US 7,942,902) in view of Hestad (Pub. No. US 20100057126 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Schwab discloses the claimed invention except wherein the housing is coupled to the threaded shank in a multi-axial configuration in which the housing can rotate and pivot relative to the threaded shank.
Hestad teaches wherein a housing 30 of a bone anchor is coupled to the threaded shank 20 in a multi-axial configuration in which the housing 30 can rotate and pivot relative to the threaded shank 20 for the purpose of providing a bone anchor which can better accommodate a patient’s anatomy (paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the bone anchor disclosed by Schwab such that the housing is coupled to the threaded shank in a multi-axial configuration in which the housing can rotate and pivot relative to the threaded shank, as taught by Hestad, for the purpose of providing a bone anchor which can better accommodate a patient’s anatomy.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (Pat. No. US 7,942,902) in view of Currier (Pat. No. US 5403314).
Regarding claim 15, Schwab discloses the claimed invention except wherein the system further comprises a plurality of hook-type bone anchors.
Currier teaches wherein a vertebral fixation system further comprises a plurality of hook type bone anchors for the purpose of connecting the rod to the thoracic vertebrae (col. 2, lines 53-61).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system disclosed by Schwab to further comprise a plurality of hook type bone anchors, as taught by Currier, in order to provide a means for connecting the rod to the thoracic vertebrae, or to any vertebrae in which a hook would be a more suitable attachment means.
Regarding claim 16, Schwab discloses the claimed invention, except wherein the system further comprises a plurality of transverse connectors.
However, Currier teaches wherein a vertebral fixation system comprises a dual rod 26 system which spans both sides of the vertebral column and wherein the system further comprises a plurality of transverse connectors 31 spanning the two spinal rods 26 (figure 1), for the purpose of providing stability and correction to both sides of the spine (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system disclosed by Schwab to comprise a dual rod system which spans both sides of the vertebral column and wherein the system further comprises a plurality of transverse connectors spanning the two spinal rods, as taught by Currier, for the purpose of providing stability and correction to both sides of the spine (figure 1).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Schwab discloses wherein the system further comprises a plurality of second bone anchors 20, wherein the plurality of second bone anchors are fixed angled screws (figure 2; col. 4, lines 35-48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO form 892.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynnsy Summitt whose telephone number is (571)270-7856. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8am until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Robert, at (571) 272-4719. 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.
/LYNNSY M SUMMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights