DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed July 7, 2026. By that response, claims 1, 5, 16, and 20 were amended. Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are pending. Claim 7 was previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter, though the scope of claim 7 was amended.
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 the rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 10-12 and 16-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Valentine (US 1,785,847); and claims 3, 8, and 20, under 35 USC 103 in view of Valentine; and claim 9 under 35 USC 103 in view of Valentine and Roberts (US 1,777,936); have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any single reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly presented rejections are necessitated by the amendments to the claims of July 7, 2026.
Examiner addresses the following since it continues to remain relevant in the new rejection: The arguments state that element 13 is not a cannulated screw, since a hole 16 is drilled into a standard, non-cannulated screw to permit use of the Valentine device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner understands a cannula to be a hole passing through a structure, and in this case, a screw. The fact that the hole 16 is drilled into the screw 13 does not cause 16 to not be a cannula, nor does it cause 13 to not become a cannulated screw when the cannula is drilled therein. Further, this is a preamble limitation, written as a functional limitation. Examiner understands the Valentine device to be capable of use with other screws besides the one screw 13 shown – including cannulated screws. Finally, the cannulated screw is not positively recited in the claim.
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) 1-8 and 10=12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentine (US 1,785,847) in view of Belanger (US 2,916,813).
Regarding claim 1, Valentine teaches a cannulated screw removal device as at figs. 1-3 (for removing a cannulated screw 13, with a cannula 16 formed therein) comprising:
an elongated shaft B comprising one or more threads, as seen in the figures, configured to secure the elongated shaft B to a cannula 16 of a cannulated screw 13; and
a collar A comprising:
a cannula 10 extending from a distal end of the collar A to a proximal end of the collar A, wherein the cannula 10 of the collar A is capable of receiving the elongated shaft B;
one or more protrusions 12 on the distal end of the collar A, the one or more protrusions 12 configured to engage with at least a portion of the cannulated screw 13 as seen at fig. 2,
wherein the collar A is configured to:
surround at least a portion of the elongated shaft B when the elongated shaft B is received within the cannula 10 of the collar A; and
in response to the torque applied to the collar A by a driver, deliver a torque to the portion of the cannulated screw 13 through the one or more protrusions 12.
Valentine fails to teach a recess on the proximal end of the collar A, the recess configured to engage a driver to apply a torque to the collar, wherein a portion of the elongated shaft B is configured to be removed to expose the recess. Rather, Valentine teaches an external recess, and B extending through the proximal end of the collar A.
Belanger teaches an extractor as best seen at fig. 3. The extractor includes an elongated shaft 17/21 having threads configured to secure the shaft 17/21 to a cannula in a structure 8; a collar 11 with a cannula 16 capable of receiving B; a recess formed therein within 18 capable of engaging a driver 21 (or another driver) to apply a torque to the collar 11 (by virtue of rotation of 17, attached thereto, and portion 21 capable of being removed to expose the recess in 18; the collar 11 being configured to surround a portion of the shaft 17 when received within he cannula.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Valentine to use a bolt like 17 of Belanger in place of the rod B. Such would have required modification of Valentine’s cannula 10 to include an enlarged section for receipt of the head 18 of the Belanger bolt 17 as seen clearly in fig. 3 of Belanger. One would have done so in order to provide for a more compact design having a shorter overall length for use in compact locations. A bolt for attachment to a threaded cannula is considered a functional equivalent to a threaded rod in that both permit selective threaded attachment between the portions.
Regarding claim 2, the elongated shaft 17/21 as taken from Belanger comprises: a stop head 18; and a cannulated screw engagement shaft at the threaded portion of 17 configured to be inserted into the cannula of the cannulated screw, wherein a diameter of the stop head 18 is larger than a diameter of the cannulated screw engagement shaft portion of 17.
Regarding claim 3, the cannula 10 of the collar A of Valentine as modified in rejecting claim 1 comprises: a first portion having a first diameter configured to receive at least a portion of the cannulated screw engagement shaft threads of 17; and a second enlarged portion having a second diameter and configured to receive the stop head 18, wherein the second diameter is greater than the first diameter (Valentine, as modified in rejecting claim 1 in view of Belanger).
Regarding claim 4, the cannulated screw engagement shaft of 17 comprises the one or more threads.
Regarding claim 5, the elongated shaft 17/21 further comprises a torque delivery shaft 21 connected to the stop head 18, wherein the stop head 18 is disposed between the cannulated screw engagement shaft 17 and the torque delivery shaft 21, and wherein the torque delivery shaft 21 is the portion of the elongated shaft 17/21 to be removed to expose the recess in 18.
Regarding claim 6, the torque delivery shaft 21 is removably coupled to the stop head 18.
Regarding claim 7, the combination suggests the limitations of claim 5, as above. Belanger’s screw 17 further includes a neck portion between the stop head 18 and torque delivery shaft at the threads of 17.
Belanger does not teach the neck portion having a lower torsional strength than the shaft, head, and shaft, 21.
Forming regions of screws to have different diameters in different regions is old and well known in the art. One would have modified Belanger’s bolt 17 as a matter of selection of desired material properties in particular regions of the bolt. One would have done so in order to cause, for instance, the bolt 17 to have a desired strength.
Regarding claim 8, the combination suggests he limitations of claim 1 as above, but does not teach use of left-handed threads. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the threads in a reversed, left-hand configuration. Threads are known to exist in only two arrangements – left and right hand. Both forms function identically to selectively retain and release components from one another in a threaded coupling. In an instance in which a tap was used with a left hand thread to form the cannula, it would have been obvious to utilize a left hand screw thread on the bolt 17.
Regarding claim 10, each of the one or more protrusions 12 comprises a tip as seen at figs. 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 11, the tip of each of the one or more protrusions 12 is sharply pointed.
Regarding claim 12, the tip of each of the one or more protrusions is on the left most side of the protrusion (tips can be on either side p.2, line 26-38).
Claim(s) 9 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentine in view of Belanger and Roberts (US 1,777,936).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Valentine and Belanger suggests the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not teach the one or more threads on 17 comprises one or more cutting grooves.
Roberts teaches a similar structure for removing a cannulated screw, with a shaft 1 having a tip 5/6 having a tap-like structure with cutting portions thereon for tapping a cannula R formed in a screw.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a tapping structure 5/6 as taught by Roberts to the threaded portion of shaft 17 of Belanger in order to tap the cannula 17 in the screw 13 without need for a second tool.
Regarding claim 16, Valentine teaches a cannulated screw removal collar A comprising:
a cannula 10 extending from a distal end of the cannulated screw removal collar to a proximal end of the cannulated screw removal collar (up/down in fig. 2), wherein the cannula 10 of the cannulated screw removal collar is configured to receive an elongated shaft B; and
one or more protrusions 12 configured to engage with at least a portion of a cannulated screw 13 (with cannula 16 formed therein), wherein the one or more protrusions 12 are disposed at a distal end portion of the collar A.
Valentine fails to teach the cannula 10 of the cannulated screw removal collar A including a first portion having a first diameter and configured to receive at least a portion of the elongated shaft; and a second portion having a second diameter greater than the first diameter; and fails to teach the cannulated screw removal collar A having a constant outer diameter from the proximal end to the distal end.
Belanger teaches an extractor as best seen at fig. 3. The extractor includes an elongated shaft 17/21 having threads configured to secure the shaft 17/21 to a cannula in a structure 8; a collar 11 with a cannula 16 capable of receiving B; a recess formed therein within 18 capable of engaging a driver 21 (or another driver) to apply a torque to the collar 11 (by virtue of rotation of 17, attached thereto, and portion 21 capable of being removed to expose the recess in 18; the collar 11 being configured to surround a portion of the shaft 17 when received within he cannula. The cannula includes a first diameter portion for receiving the threaded portion of 17; and a second diameter portion of a greater diameter for receiving the head 18.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Valentine to use a bolt like 17 of Belanger in place of the rod B. Such would have required modification of Valentine’s cannula 10 to include an enlarged section for receipt of the head 18 of the Belanger bolt 17 as seen clearly in fig. 3 of Belanger. One would have done so in order to provide for a more compact design having a shorter overall length for use in compact locations. A bolt for attachment to a threaded cannula is considered a functional equivalent to a threaded rod in that both permit selective threaded attachment between the portions.
The combination continues to fail to teach the collar having a constant outer diameter.
Roberts teaches a driver configuration at portion 2 on an extractor having distal protrusions 8 which provides a constant diameter across the entire tool.
It would have been obvious to modify Valentine to have a driver formed as taught by Roberts in order to provide a constant diameter. Such a driver is considered functionally equivalent to the driving flats formed on Valentine. One would have made the modification as a matter of design choice, improved ergonomics, and for providing a more compact design.
Regarding claim 17, each of the one or more protrusions 12 comprises a tip.
Regarding claim 18, the tip of each of the one or more protrusions 12 is sharply pointed as seen in fig. 1.
Regarding claim 19, the tip of each of the one or more protrusions 12 is on the left most side of the protrusion (tips can be on either side p.2, line 26-38)..
Regarding claim 20, the cannula of the cannulated screw removal collar comprises a driver engagement recess formed in 18 configured to engage with a 21, the recess being at the proximal end of the cannulated screw removal collar as modified in view of Belanger, and wherein a portion of the elongated shaft 21 is removed to expose the recess in 18.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-6PM
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, 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.
/DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights