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Applicant has amended claims 1-6. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 5. 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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. Please direct attention to rejection below, specifically reference Volpi, regarding the amended limitations of wherein the guide axis is disposed so as not to have an intersection with the elongated protective portion, not to be parallel to the elongated protective portion, and not to be coplanar with the elongated protective portion
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Pub. No. 2008/0103506 to Volpi et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0153566 to Fallin et al.
As to Claim 1, Volpi discloses a guide device (60, Fig. 1, [0028]) that guides a drill [0029] that drills a second bone hole in a bone in which a first bone hole is formed [0028-0029]. The guide device comprises an elongated protective portion (40a) that is configured to be inserted into the first bone hole and that defines, in an interior of the first bone hole, a pathway (13a) that extends in a longitudinal direction of the first bone hole (122, seen in Fig. 4, [0039, 0045]), a guide portion (40b) that has a guide hole (40b) that specifies a guide axis (31a) and that guides the drill passing through the guide hole along the guide axis [0035-0036], and an arm portion (26) that connects the elongated protective portion with the guide portion [0028, 0030-0032], wherein the guide axis is disposed so as to not have an intersection with the elongated protective portion (described in [0044] and seen in Figs. 4-8), not to be parallel to the elongated protective portion (described in [0044] and seen in Figs. 4-8), and not to be coplanar with the elongated protective portion (described in [0044] and seen in Figs. 4-8), and the drill guided along the guide axis (31a) passes through a position at which the drill does not interfere with the elongated protective portion (40a) and the pathway (13a, described in [0044]).
As to Claim 2, Volpi discloses a guide device (60) wherein in the guide device, there are a top-to-bottom direction, a left-to-right direction, and a front-to-rear direction that substantially correspond to a longitudinal direction, a left- to-right direction, and a front-to-rear direction of a tibia (118), respectively (see annotated Fig. 4, below), the elongated protective portion (40a) extends in the front-to-rear direction (Fig. 4), the guide portion (40b) is disposed, with respect to the elongated protective portion, (40a) on a side corresponding to an inside of the tibia in the left-to-right direction of the guide device (Fig. 4), and, the guide axis (31a) intersects the elongated protective portion (40a) in plan view viewed in the top-to-bottom direction (intersection best seen in Figs. 1 and 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
778
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3, Volpi discloses a guide device (60 wherein the elongated protective portion (40a) has a channel (within 13, [0028]) that extends in a longitudinal direction of the elongated protective portion (40a) over an entire length of the elongated protective portion (40a, Fig. 1), and the channel opens on an outside surface of the elongated protective portion on an opposite side from the guide axis (at 44, Fig. 1, [0034]).
As to Claim 4, Volpi discloses a guide device (60) wherein the elongated protective portion (40a), the guide portion (40b), and the arm portion (26) are formed from separate members [0028, 0030, 0031], the elongated protective portion (40a) is attached to the arm portion (26) in a detachable manner [0031-0032], and the guide portion (40b) is attached to the arm portion (26) in a detachable manner [0031-0032].
As to Claim 5, Volpi discloses a guide device (60) wherein the arm portion (26) has a first portion (near ref. 30a, Fig. 1) that is configured to be disposed on a front side of the tibia (118) and to which the elongated protective portion (40a) is attached in a front-to-rear direction of the tibia (118, Fig. 4), and a second portion that extends in an arc-like manner or a substantially arc-like manner (arc seen in Figs. 1, 4, [0032]) inward from the front side of the tibia (118) and to which the guide portion (40b) is attached, and the guide portion (40b) is supported by the second portion so as to be movable in an extension direction of the second portion and rotatable about a rotation axis that intersects a plane defined by the second portion (described in [0032, 0035, 0044]).
As to Claim 6, Volpi discloses a guide device (60) wherein the elongated protective portion (40a) has a first portion on a basal-end side and a second portion on a distal-end side, (seen in Figs. 1, 4) and the second portion is thinner (near 44, Fig. 1) than the first portion (near 48, Fig. 1) and an outside surface on a side of the guide axis (31a) in the second portion is offset in a direction away from the guide axis (31a) with respect to an outside surface on a side of the guide axis (31a) in the first portion (Figs. 1, 4, [0044]).
As to Claims 1-6, Volpi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a first suture passes through a pathway, the suture passing through a channel that extends in a longitudinal direction of the protective portion over an entire length of the protective portion
Fallin discloses a guide device (100, Fig. 1, [0042]) including wherein a first suture passes (via 136) through a pathway (through 110, [0045], Figs. 1 and 2), the suture passing through a channel (through tunnel member 110, [0047]) that extends in a longitudinal direction of the protective portion (110) over an entire length of the protective portion (Figs. 1 and 2, [0045, 0047]) in order to allow for a suture to pass through the device to bone to form a transosseous attachment to the bone [0003, 0041].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the guide device of Volpi with the suture modification of Fallin in order to allow for a suture to pass through the device to bone to form a transosseous attachment to the bone.
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 CHRISTOPHER J BECCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BECCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights