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 Interpretation
In light of the amended claim set received 12/10/2025, no claim interpretation under USC 112(f) is required herein.
Claim Objections
The amended claim set was received 12/10/2025. This claim set is accepted and overcomes the claim objections set forth in the previous action.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “1b” is erroneously recited in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amended claim set was received 12/10/2025. This claim set is accepted and overcomes the USC 112 rejections set forth in the previous action.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wing et al. (US 6210442 B2) (hereon referred to as Wing) in view of (Chin et al.) (US 20110106261 A1) (hereon referred to as Chin).
Wing teaches an implant device (see Fig. 7) for performing posterior spinal arthrodesis of a facet joint, comprises:
an element (5), having a distal edge (bottom of part 27), a proximal side (shown in Fig. 8) opposite said distal edge, a first outer face (outside wall 10), a second outer face (outside wall 11) opposite said first outer face (see Fig. 7), first reliefs (17) on said first outer face, and second reliefs (17) on said second outer face so as to anchor said element in a cavity of a facet joint by a notched relationship (see Col. 4, ll. 61-65),
wherein said element is comprised of:
a transverse part (27) having a first end (where 27 and 10 connect) and a second end (where 27 and 11 connect) opposite said first end, said transverse part being at said distal edge so as to be insertable into the cavity before said proximal side of said element (see Col. 5, ll. 66-67 and Col. 6, ll. 1-5);
a first branch (10) having a first constant thickness (see Figs. 7-8), a first branched end connected to said first end of said transverse part (see labelled diagram of Fig. 7 below) and a first free end opposite said first branched end at said proximal side (see labelled diagram of Fig. 7 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
536
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second branch (11) having a second constant thickness (see Figs. 7-8), a second branched end connected to said second end of said transverse part (see labelled diagram of Fig. 7 below) and a second free end opposite said second branched end at said proximal side (see labelled diagram of Fig. 7 below), said second constant thickness being identical to said first constant thickness (see Fig. 8),
wherein said transverse part (27), said first branch (10), and said second branch (11) form a U-shape with a space between said first free end and said second free end (see Fig. 7),
wherein said first free end is comprised of first projections (14) facing toward said second branch and being within said first constant thickness (see Fig. 7),
wherein said second free end is comprised of second projections (15) facing toward said first branch and being within said second constant thickness (see Fig. 7); and
a screw (6) having threads (20) and a diameter greater than said first constant thickness (see Fig. 8),
wherein said screw (6) is removably retained by said first projections (14) and said second projections (15) so as to protrude at least an even part of said threads outward from said first outer face and said second outer face along said first branch and along said second branch and complementarily anchor said element in the cavity by a screw tapped relationship (see Col. 6, ll. 6-17),
However fails to teach wherein said first branch is comprised of a first longitudinal groove facing outward from said element and away from said second branch, and wherein said second branch is comprised of a second longitudinal groove facing outward from said element and away from said first branch.
Chin teaches a spinal implant (100) which consists of two branches (112a, 112b), wherein each branch has a longitudinal groove (108a, 108b) facing outward from the branches (see Fig. 3), and wherein the grooves in the branches are configured to be held by a tool (see Para. [0034]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the branches of Wing to have the longitudinal grooves as taught by Chin, as this would enable the device to be held and inserted by a tool (see Para. [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in independent claim 2. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest “a third part, being inside said first part, having a third part back end and a third part free end opposite said third part back end, and being comprised of threaded hole at said third part free end in removable threaded engagement with said screw, said screw being positioned in said through hole so as to be removably retained by said first projections and said second projections, and a fourth part, being inside said third part and being comprised of a rod having a back rod end and a front rod end removably engaged with said screw so as to drive rotation of said screw through an action on said back rod end.” as required by claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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.
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 HOLLY J LANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached 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 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.
/H.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773