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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the distal end of the drive shaft" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the sake of examination, the preceding limitations is interpreted as referring to “a distal end of a drive shaft.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 – 5, 8 – 10 and 12 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pepper (US Pub. 2003/0176868 A1).
Claim 1, Pepper discloses a reaming system [abstract, Figs. 1 – 26] comprising:
a reamer head [at least a portion of 230] having an outer face [outer face of at least portion of 230] defining an elongated slot [at least a portion of 240], the elongated slot extending along a longitudinal axis of the reamer head [Figs.10 & 18]; and
a guidewire [at least a portion of the wire, i.e. shown in Figs. 7A & 10] comprising a first section [at least a portion of 170] extending to a second section [at least a portion of 180], wherein a diameter of the first section [a diameter of at least a portion of 170, D1] is less than a diameter of the second section [a diameter of at least a portion of 180, D2 > D1, ¶120],
wherein the reamer head is slideable along the guidewire between the first and second sections of the guidewire [Figs. 10 – 16], and
wherein the reamer head is disengageable from the guidewire when at least a portion of the first section of the guidewire is positioned in the elongated slot, and the portion of the first section of the guidewire is positioned between opposing ends of the reamer head [Figs. 10 – 16. Note: the structure disclosed by Pepper is substantially identical to that claimed and is therefore inherently capable of performing the claimed function].
Pepper discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Pepper discloses:
Claim 2, means for rotating the reamer head [at least a portion of 30].
Claim 3, wherein the means for rotating the reamer head comprises a rotatable drive shaft coupleable to the reamer head [wherein at least a portion of 30 defines a shaft coupleable to head 230, Fig.11].
Claim 4, the rotatable drive shaft comprises proximal [at least a portion towards 20, Figs.17] and distal [at least a portion away from 20, Figs.17] ends, wherein the proximal end is adapted to connect to a drive element to rotate the drive shaft [Fig.17A, portion of 30 connectable to drill 20, ¶113].
Claim 5, wherein the slot of the reamer head has a width approximately equal to the diameter of the first section of the guidewire [Fig. 11].
PNG
media_image1.png
462
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8, wherein the guidewire further comprises an intermediate section joining the first section to the second section [Fig. 14A to Pepper above].
Claim 9, wherein a diameter of the intermediate section tapers along a length thereof, from an end in contact with the second section to an opposing end in contact with the first section [Fig. 14A to Pepper above, wherein the intermediate section tapers from a portion by 180 towards a portion by 170].
Claim 10, wherein the first and second sections are approximately equal in length [wherein a defined portion of at least a portion of 170 is equal to a defined portion of at least a portion of 180].
Claim 12, wherein the slot extends along an entire length of the reamer head from one end to an opposing end thereof [Figs. 10 – 16, slot 240 extends an entire length of head 230].
Claim 13, a finger [at least a portion of 170 defines a finger] receivable within the slot of the reamer head, protruding from the distal end of drive shaft [Figs. 10 – 16].
Claim 14, wherein a width of the finger is approximately equal to the width of the slot of the reamer head [Fig. 11].
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) 6 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pepper (US Pub. 2003/0176868 A1).
Claims 6 – 7, Pepper discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Pepper discloses wherein the diameter of the first section is smaller than the diameter of the second section [a diameter of at least a portion of 180, D2 > D1, ¶120].
Pepper does not explicitly disclose wherein the diameter of the first section is about 2/3 to ¾, or about 2/3 of the diameter of the second section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to construct the diameter of the first section is about 2/3 to ¾, or about 2/3 of the diameter of the second section in order to provide the first section with a diameter corresponding the slot to facilitate connection while having the rod exhibiting a desired structural integrity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pepper (US Pub. 2003/0176868 A1) in view of Luaidi (US Pub. 2021/0113217 A1).
Claim 11, Pepper discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above.
Pepper does not disclose first and second magnetized zones arranged on the reamer head and the distal end of the drive shaft respectively.
Luaidi teaches an analogous system [Abstract, Figs. 1 - 8] comprising reaming head [11] and a shaft [18], and first and second magnetized zones arranged on the reamer head and the distal end of the drive shaft [¶108 and ¶114 - ¶117, magnetic elements 29 abut attachment part 15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Pepper and Luaidi, and construct the system of Pepper having magnetized zones between the head and the shaft. One would have been motivated to do so in order to produce a uniform connection force between the head and the shaft [Luaidi, ¶117].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S. HANNA whose telephone number is (571)270-3248. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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.
/SAMUEL S HANNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775