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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/26/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 11 have been amended, no additional claims have been cancelled and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-5 and 17-19 are presently pending in this application, and currently examined in the Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 sets forth the parameter of “rotating the drill guide with respect to the handle such that a groove of the plurality of grooves of the drill guide engages a spring-loaded cap of the plurality of spring-loaded caps and movement of the drill guide in a proximal direction and a distal direction is prevented with respect to the handle” (emphasis added); however, this parameter was never set forth in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, the originally filed specification never discloses a method of repairing a tissue, with a tissue repair guide, comprising rotating the drill guide such that a groove engages a spring-loaded cap “and movement of the drill guide in a proximal direction and a distal direction is prevented”, as set forth in claim 11.
Examiner’s Notes
It is to be noted that in device/apparatus claims, such as claims 1-10 and 17, only the claimed structure of the final device bears patentable weight, and intended use/functional language is considered to the extent that it further defines the claimed structure of the final device (see MPEP 2114).
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourque et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0109136), as previously disclosed, hereinafter Bourque, in view of Smith (US Patent No. 9,161,764), as previously disclosed.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Bourque discloses a tissue repair guide (100), illustrated in Figure 1, comprising a handle (105); a drill guide (101) having a proximal end, a distal end, and a channel (108) extending from the proximal end to the distal end, the drill guide (101) configured to engage the handle (105), the drill guide comprising a plurality of grooves (218) formed between a plurality of protrusions (218); a plurality of spring-loaded caps (213) configured to engage the plurality of grooves (218) of the drill guide (101/201) to selectively lock the drill guide in place with respect to the handle (105/205), wherein the drill guide (101) is configured to move with respect to the a handle (105) such that a groove of the plurality of grooves (218) of the drill guide engages a spring-loaded cap of the plurality of spring-loaded caps (213), wherein the of spring-loaded cap (213) is configured to prevent movement of the drill guide in proximal and distal directions with respect to the handle when the of spring-loaded cap (213) engages the groove (218), illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 ([0021], Lines 1-4; [0026]; [0035] – [0037] & [0041] – To clarify, Bourque teaches that there may be more than one spring-loaded caps 213, thereby teaching a plurality; and the engagement of the surface of locking portion 217, of spring-loaded cap 213, against the surface of groove 218 enacts the ratchet mechanism to allow the spring-loaded cap to prevent movement of the drill guide in proximal and distal directions); and a reference member comprising a first arm (103), configured to engage the handle (105), and a second arm (102), having an engagement component (104) on a distal end to engage a patient’s bone, and an angle between the first arm (103) and the second arm (102), illustrated in Figure 1 ([0027]; [0029] & [0033]); but does not specifically disclose the drill guide being configured to move with respect to the a handle by rotation.
However, Smith teaches a tissue repair guide (100), in the same field of endeavor, comprising a handle (102), a drill guide (140), engaging the handle (102) and comprising a plurality of grooves (146), and a reference member (130); wherein the drill guide (140) is shaped such that rotation of the drill guide, with respect to the handle (102), results in a groove of the plurality of grooves (146), of the drill guide, engaging a securement component (148), illustrated in Figure 1 (Column 3, Lines 38-48).
In view of the teachings of Smith, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the shape of the drill guide, of the tissue repair guide of Bourque, to be modified such that rotation, of the drill guide with respect to the handle, results in the groove engaging with the spring-loaded cap, as taught by Smith; since doing so amounts to a mere change in shape/form, of the drill guide, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04), and both references teach art equivalent means for engaging a cap/securement component with grooves to move and lock the drill guide with respect to the handle.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the tissue repair guide of claim 1, wherein Bourque further teaches a reference member knob (K) configured to engage the handle (105/405) and the reference member (102/402), the reference member knob configured to adjust a position of the reference member relative to the handle (101/401), and wherein the reference member (102/402) comprises a curved opening (CO) configured to receive at least part of the reference member knob (K), illustrated in Figures 1, 4A, 4B and modified figure 4A, below (Bourque: [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
733
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the tissue repair guide of claim 1, wherein Bourque further teaches the engagement component (104/304) comprises curved components (C1&C2) extending laterally from the distal end of the reference member (102/302), illustrated in Figures 1, 3A, 3B and modified figure 3B, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
266
214
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the tissue repair guide of claim 1, wherein Bourque further teaches the engagement component (104) comprises an ovoid component (104) on the distal end of the reference member (102), illustrated in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 7, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the tissue repair guide of claim 1, wherein Bourque further teaches a drill bit (109) having a circular cross-section on a distal end of the drill guide (101), illustrated in Figure 1 (Bourque: [0029]).
Regarding claim 10, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the tissue repair guide of claim 1, wherein Bourque further teaches the engagement component (104/304) comprises a fork component (110/310), illustrated in Figures 1, 3A and 3B.
Regarding claim 11, Bourque discloses a method of repairing a tissue comprising providing a tissue repair guide (100/400) comprises a handle (105/405); a drill guide (101/401) having a proximal end, a distal end, and a channel (108) extending from the proximal end to the distal end, the drill guide (101/401) configured to engage the handle (105/405), the drill guide comprising a plurality of grooves (218) formed between a plurality of protrusions (218); a plurality of spring-loaded caps (213) configured to selectively lock the drill guide (101/401) in place with respect to the handle (105/405); a reference member (102/403) having a distal end and configured to engage the handle (105/405), the reference member comprising an engagement component (104) on the distal end configured to engage a bone; introducing the reference member (102/403) to a surgical site such that the engagement component (104) of the reference member engages a patient’s bone (421); introducing the drill guide (101/401) to a surgical site such that it engages the patient’s bone (421); moving the drill guide (101/401) with respect to the a handle (105) such that a groove of the plurality of grooves (218) of the drill guide engages a spring-loaded cap of the plurality of spring-loaded caps (213) and movement of the drill guide in proximal and distal directions is prevented with respect to the handle, illustrated in Figures 1, 2, 4A and 4B ([0021], Lines 1-4; [0026]; [0027]; [0029]; [0033]; [0035] – [0037]; [0041]; [0057] & [0058] – To clarify, Bourque teaches that there may be more than one spring-loaded caps 213, thereby teaching a plurality; and the engagement of the surface of locking portion 217, of spring-loaded cap 213, against the surface of groove 218 enacts the ratchet mechanism which prevents movement of the drill guide in proximal and distal directions); and advancing a drill pin through the channel of the drill guide such that a tunnel is formed in the patient’s bone, illustrated in Figures 4A and 4B ([0059] – [0065]); but does not specifically disclose moving the drill guide by rotation.
However, Smith teaches a tissue repair guide (100), in the same field of endeavor, comprising a handle (102), a drill guide (140), engaging the handle (102) and comprising a plurality of grooves (146), and a reference member (130); wherein the drill guide (140) is shaped such that rotation of the drill guide, with respect to the handle (102), results in a groove of the plurality of grooves (146), of the drill guide, engaging a securement component (148), illustrated in Figure 1 (Column 3, Lines 38-48).
In view of the teachings of Smith, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the shape of the drill guide, of the method of Bourque, to be modified, such that moving the drill guide with respect to the handle occurs by rotation, as taught by Smith; since doing so amounts to a mere change in shape/form, of the drill guide, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04), and both references teach art equivalent means for engaging a cap/securement component with grooves to move and lock the drill guide with respect to the handle.
Regarding claim 12, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the method of claim 11, wherein Bourque further teaches adjusting, with a reference member knob/feature or mechanism (K) configured to engage the handle (405) and the reference member (402), an angle of the reference member relative to the drill guide (401), illustrated in Figures 4A, 4B and modified figure 4A, above (Bourque: [0066]).
Regarding claim 15, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the method of claim 11, wherein Bourque further teaches forcing a drill bit/guide wire (109) having a circular cross-section on the distal end of the drill guide (101/401) into the patient’s bone, illustrated in Figures 1, 4A and 4B (Bourque: [0029]; [0057] & [0061]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourque in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bourque (US Patent No. 5,163,940), as previously disclosed, hereinafter Bourque'940.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the tissue repair guide of claim 1, but do not teach a securement component, specifically a ball plunger, configured to engage a divot of the drill guide.
However, Bourque’940 teaches a tissue repair guide (20), in the same field of endeavor, comprising a handle (22), a drill guide (32), a spring-loaded cap (176) configured to engage the drill guide (32) to selectively lock the drill guide in place, and a ball plunger (190) configured to engage a divot of the drill guide (32), illustrated in Figures 2, 8, 9 and 11; wherein the ball plunger prevents the drill guide from dislodging/falling out when the device/spring-loaded cap is unlocked (Column 5, Line 55 – Column 6, Line 18).
In view of the teachings of Bourque’940, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the tissue repair guide, of Bourque in view of Smith, to further comprise a securement component/ball plunger, configured to engage a divot of the drill guide, in order to aid in preventing the drill guide from dislodging/falling out when the spring-loaded caps are unlocked, as taught by Bourque’940.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourque in view of Smith as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Whittaker et al. (US PG Pub. 2002/0133165), as previously disclosed, hereinafter Whittaker.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the method of claim 11, wherein Bourque further teaches the engagement component (104) is ovoid, illustrated in Figures 1, 3A and 3B; but does not specifically teach advancing a suture through the drill guide, the elliptical engagement component and the tunnel.
However, Whittaker teaches a method of repairing tissue, in the same field of endeavor, comprising advancing a suture through a drill guide (140) and a tunnel (135), illustrated in Figure 23-26 ([0049]); a suture being a known way to attach a ligament/graft to repair tissue ([0006]).
In view of the teachings of Whittaker, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the method of repairing a tissue, of Bourque in view of Smith, to further comprise advancing a suture through the drill guide, the elliptical engagement component and the tunnel, in order to provide a way to attach a ligament/graft to repair the tissue, as taught by Whittaker.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourque in view of Smith as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lizardi et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0276884), as previously disclosed, hereinafter Lizardi.
Regarding claim 17, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the tissue repair guide of claim 1, wherein Bourque further teaches a drill guide knob (DK) on the proximal end of the drill guide (101/401), illustrated in Figures 1, 4A, 4B and modified figure 4A, above; but does not specifically disclose the drill guide knob having a middle portion that tapers radially inward from a proximal and distal portion.
However, Lizardi teaches an orthopedic device comprising a knob (206), configured to be held by a hand, having a middle portion that tapers radially inward from a proximal and distal portion, such that it has a dumbbell shape illustrated in Figure 5 ([0059]).
In view of the teachings of Lizardi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the drill guide knob, of the tissue repair guide of Bourque in view of Smith, to be shaped such that is has a middle portion that tapers radially inward from a proximal and distal portion, in order to be held by a hand, as taught by Lizardi; and doing so amounts to a mere change in form/shape of component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Bourque in view of Smith disclose the method of claim 11, wherein Bourque further teaches the tissue repair guide (100/400) further comprising a drill guide knob (DK) on the proximal end of the drill guide (101/401), wherein introducing the drill guide to a surgical site such that the drill guide engages the patient's bone comprises positioning the drill guide using the drill guide knob, , illustrated in Figures 1, 4A, 4B and modified figure 4A, above; but does not specifically disclose the drill guide knob having a middle portion that tapers radially inward from a proximal and distal portion.
However, Lizardi teaches an orthopedic device comprising a knob (206), configured to be held by a hand, having a middle portion that tapers radially inward from a proximal and distal portion, such that it has a dumbbell shape illustrated in Figure 5 ([0059]).
In view of the teachings of Lizardi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the drill guide knob, of the tissue repair guide of the method of Bourque in view of Smith, to be shaped such that is has a middle portion that tapers radially inward from a proximal and distal portion, in order to be held by a hand, as taught by Lizardi; and doing so amounts to a mere change in form/shape of component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,181. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims disclose a method comprising providing a tissue repair guide/orthopedic tool which comprises a handle/main body; a drill guide having a proximal end, a distal end, and a channel/lumen extending from the proximal end to the distal end, the drill guide configured to engage the handle/main body, the drill guide comprising a plurality of grooves and protrusions/threaded portion ;a plurality of spring-loaded caps configured to selectively lock the drill guide in place with respect to the handle/main body; a reference member having a distal end, the reference member configured to engage the handle/main body, and the reference member comprising an engagement component on the distal end, the engagement component configured to engage a patient's bone; introducing the reference member to a surgical site such that the reference member engages the patient's bone; introducing the drill guide to a surgical site such that the drill guide engages the patient's bone; rotating the drill guide with respect to the handle/main body such that a groove of the plurality of grooves/threaded portion of the drill guide engages a spring-loaded cap of the plurality of spring-loaded caps and the drill guide is locked in place with respect to the handle/main body; and advancing a drill pin through the channel/lumen of the drill guide such that a tunnel is formed in the patient's bone.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-12 and 18-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,181 in view of Smith. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims disclose a tissue repair guide/orthopedic tool comprising a handle/main body; a drill guide having a proximal end, a distal end, and a channel/lumen extending from the proximal end to the distal end, the drill guide configured to engage the handle/main body, the drill guide comprising a plurality of grooves and protrusions/threaded portion; a plurality of spring-loaded caps configured to engage the plurality of grooves/threaded portion of the drill guide to lock the drill guide in place with respect to the handle/main body; and a reference member having a distal end, the reference member configured to engage the handle/main body, and the reference member comprising an engagement component on the distal end, the engagement component configured to engage a patient's bone; but does not specifically disclose the drill guide configured to rotate with respect to the handle/main body. However, Smith teaches a tissue repair guide (100), in the same field of endeavor, comprising a handle (102), a drill guide (140), engaging the handle (102) and comprising a plurality of grooves (146), and a reference member (130); wherein the drill guide (140) is shaped such that is it configured to rotate with respect to the handle (102), such that a groove of the plurality of grooves (146), of the drill guide, engages a securement component (148), illustrated in Figure 1 (Column 3, Lines 38-48). Thus, in view of the teachings of Smith, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the shape of the drill guide, of the orthopedic tool of the above mentioned US Patent No., to be modified such that it is configured to rotate with respect to the handle such that the groove engages with the spring- loaded cap; since doing so amounts to a mere change in shape/form, of the drill guide, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23 and 25 of copending Application No. 19/189,888 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims disclose a method comprising providing a tissue repair guide/orthopedic tool which comprises a handle/main body; a drill guide having a proximal end, a distal end, and a channel/lumen extending from the proximal end to the distal end, the drill guide configured to engage the handle/main body, the drill guide comprising a plurality of grooves and protrusions/threaded portion ;a plurality of spring-loaded caps configured to selectively lock the drill guide in place with respect to the handle/main body; a reference member having a distal end, the reference member configured to engage the handle/main body, and the reference member comprising an engagement component on the distal end, the engagement component configured to engage a patient's bone; introducing the reference member to a surgical site such that the reference member engages the patient's bone; introducing the drill guide to a surgical site such that the drill guide engages the patient's bone; rotating the drill guide with respect to the handle/main body such that a groove of the plurality of grooves/threaded portion of the drill guide engages a spring-loaded cap of the plurality of spring-loaded caps and the drill guide is locked in place with respect to the handle/main body; and advancing a drill pin through the channel/lumen of the drill guide such that a tunnel is formed in the patient's bone.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the rejections of independent claims 1 and 11 as being unpatentable over the prior art of Bourque in view of Smith, stating that neither Bourque or Smith teach the limitations set forth in the claims as currently amended. Specifically pointing at paragraph [0040], of Bourque, which states “in the engaged position, the locking mechanism 225 may prevent movement, or displacement, of the body 201, relative to the handle 205, in the first direction, but may allow movement of the body 201, relative to the handle 205, in the second direction” and further states that Smith shows a pawl, which is “generally used to limit movement in one direction while allowing movement in the other direction”. Thus, Applicant contends that the newly added parameter of “locking movement in both the proximal and distal directions” is not taught/described by Bourque and/or Smith, and therefore doesn’t read on the claims as currently amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions. Firstly, it is to be noted that claim 1 sets forth “the spring-loaded cap is configured to prevent movement of the drill guide in a proximal direction and a distal direction with respect to the handle when the of spring-loaded cap engages the groove” (emphasis added), which Bourque clearly teaches. Specifically, engagement of the surface of locking portion (217), of spring-loaded cap (213), against the surface of groove (218) enacts the ratchet mechanism to allow the spring-loaded cap (213) to prevent movement of the drill guide in proximal and distal directions. To clarify, though it is stated, by Bourque and mentioned by applicant, that movement of the drill guide is prevented in one direction and allowed in the other, opposite, direction; this does not mean that the locking mechanism/spring-loaded cap does not prevent movement in both distal and proximal directions, as claimed. In fact, this mechanism of allowing/preventing movement is quite similar, if not the same, as that disclosed in the originally filed specification of the current application at hand. Namely, in both cases (i.e. in Bourque and in the current application at hand) the spring-loaded cap(s) and the groove(s) form a ratchet mechanism, which allows the spring-loaded cap(s), when engaged with the groove(s), to stop/prevent movement of the drill guide in distal and proximal directions, until a mechanical action, i.e. rotation/pushing, of the drill guide overcomes a specific force to move the spring-loaded cap (specifically locking portion 217 in Bourque) to engage an adjacent groove. However, absent any mechanical action/force applied on the drill guide, engagement of the locking portion (217), of spring-loaded cap (213), against the groove (218) would prevent movement of the drill guide in proximal and distal directions, as illustrated in Figure 2 of Bourque. It is also to be noted that nowhere in the originally filed specification of the current application at hand is it stated that “movement of the drill guide in a proximal direction and a distal direction is prevented”. Thus, the rejections of independent claims 1 and 11, as being unpatentable over the prior art of Bourque in view of Smith, are deemed to be proper since all the structural limitations set forth in the claims are taught; hence, the rejections stand.
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 DINAH BARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am - 5pm.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at 408-918-7557. 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.
/DINAH BARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 03/03/2026