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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 4/6/26 has been entered.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, 21 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by REDMOND et al. (US 20170258498 A1).
REDMOND discloses a bone anchor fig. 1 comprising: a shaft comprising a distal end; a distal toggle element 42 rotatably coupled to the distal end fig. 2 such that the distal toggle element is rotatable between: a stowed orientation fig. 1 in which the distal toggle element is insertable into a bone through an aperture formed in a cortex of the bone fig. 3; and a deployed orientation fig. 4 in which the distal toggle element is positioned to abut an interior surface of the cortex around the aperture; and a flange 98, 106 comprising a shoulder that is moveable distally toward the distal toggle element to abut an exterior surface of the cortexi fig. 4 wherein the distal toggle element 42 is configured to rotate about a rotation pin 62, fig. 1 comprising an axis that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the shaft, wherein the flange 98, 106 is configured to threadably receive the shaft (para. 71), wherein the distal toggle element comprises a disengagement feature 90, fig. 1 configured to be actuated to rotate the distal toggle element from the deployed orientation to the stowed orientation, wherein the flange 98 further comprises a drive feature 106 configured to receive torque from a drive instrument to move the shoulder toward the distal toggle element. And with the distal toggle element in the deployed orientation fig. 4, a distance between the flange and the distal toggle element is just enough for the cortex to lie between them fig. 4, wherein the shaft is sufficiently short so that, in the deployed orientation, the distal toggle element is positioned to abut the interior surface of the cortex fig. 4.
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.
4. Claim(s) 3, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REDMOND in view of Errico et al. (US 11918262 B2).
REDMOND fails to teach that the bone anchor configured to receive an implant device to secure the implant device to a bone, and a construct portion of a poly-axial tulip configured to be polyaxially adjustably coupled to a proximal end of the shaft and configured to receive a rod configured to be coupled to a second bone anchor, wherein the poly-axial tulip is further configured to receive a fastener configured to secure the rod within the poly-axial tulip.
Errico teaches a construct portion of a poly-axial tulip 20, fig. 6 configured to be polyaxially adjustably coupled to a proximal end of the shaft and configured to receive a rod (col. 12, lines 10-14) configured to be coupled to a second bone anchor (col. 1, lines 29-34), wherein the poly-axial tulip is further configured to receive a fastener configured to secure the rod within the poly-axial tulip (col. 12, lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use a poly-axial tulip of Errico with the shaft of REDMOND in order to facilitating attachment of other surgical devices thereto such as a rod and other bone screw to effectively immobilize the spinal column.
4. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REDMOND in view of Ciccone et al. (US 20050222575 A1).
REDMOND fails to teach the shaft comprises a non-circular cannulation, wherein the first actuator is configured to be slidably received within the non-circular cannulation, wherein the first actuator comprises a counter-torque feature of an inserter.
Ciccone teaches shaft comprises a non-circular cannulation 162, (para. 62), wherein the actuator 343 is configured to be slidably received within the non-circular cannulation 162, wherein the actuator comprises a counter-torque feature (external hex 344) of an inserter.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the cannulation and the first actuator of REDMOND with a hex shape (counter-torque feature as claimed) so the cannulation of screw may wedge against the hex portion causing an interference between the surfaces that may provisionally axially lock them together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16, 25-28 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 21-24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of REDMOND.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH RAAFAT BOLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5537. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
/SAMEH R BOLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights