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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that when the guide paths of Loring are added to Moore, Moore will be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Specifically, that when the guide paths are added the inner portion of Moore would no longer be attached to the outer portion of the resection guide. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. In specific, the outer portion would remain housed within the outer portion/shell as best shown in figures 6A-6E. Providing a slit in a bottom or distal most surface of the resection guide would not inhibit the outer guide holding captive the inner portion as it would still be sounded entirely by the outer portion with the exception of the small area where the slit would be provided. As a result, Applicant’s arguments and remarks are not found persuasive to overcome the prior art and rejections of record.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US 2022/0370081) in view of Loring et al. (US 2016/0135815).
Regarding claim 1, Moore et al. disclose an orthopedic instrument system, comprising a resection guide (figure 22B) releasably couplable with a bone of a patient, the resection guide comprising a pair of openings (see figure below, ¶186 “wires 97 placed through corresponding holes in the resection guide locator 26 and/or resection guide 12”, figures 17A-17B, 17F) disposed in the resection guide and extending from a top surface through to a bottom surface of the resection guide (figure 22C); an elongated opening (88, figure 18A) disposed in a body of the resection guide and beneath the pair of openings, wherein the elongated opening comprises at least one scalloped opening therein (94/96); and a pair of legs (see figure below) extending substantially downward from the body of the resection guide, wherein each of the legs comprises a slot (90/92), wherein the slot opens in at least one direction (figures 18A, 22B); and a drill guide (136/138, figures 22A-22B) configured to be inserted into and removed from each of the at least one scalloped openings (figure 22B, ¶193).
Moore et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose the slot opens in at least one direction to provide each slot with an undefined lower direction.
Loring et al. teach the use of a slot (180c/190c, figures 12A-12B) which in at least one direction has an undefined lower direction (figures 12A-12B, is open at its “bottom” end) to provide an open guide path (¶144) and restricts the resection tool in a direction normal to the base such that the resection tool may be slid downwardly out of the fourth resection guide but not upwardly (¶145). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the slots of Moore et al. to open in at least one direction to provide each slot with an undefined lower direction as taught by Loring et al. as this provides insertion of the resection tool along two axes as well as restricts the resection tool in a direction normal to the base such that the resection tool may be slid downwardly out of the resection guide but not upwardly.
Regarding claim 2, Moore et al. disclose wherein the pair of legs are positioned at an angle relative to one another (figure 18A, diverge). Regarding claim 3, Moore et al. disclose wherein each of the openings comprises a central axis (considered the central longitudinal axis), wherein the central axes of the openings are substantially parallel (figures 18A, 18C, 18D).
Regarding claim 4, Moore et al. disclose a second pair of openings (98, 100)disposed within the body of the resection guide and extending from the top surface through to the bottom surface thereof. Regarding claims 5 and 12, Moore et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the express teaching of the central axes of the second pair of openings are either converging or diverging. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the second pair of openings either convergent or divergent, since applicant has not disclosed that their respective orientation solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with generally parallel openings. Regarding claim 6, Moore et al. disclose wherein the elongated opening comprises a substantially arced geometry (figures 18A-18D, 22B, 22C, arced at the scalloped regions).
Regarding claim 7, Moore et al. disclose a pair of projections (see figure below) extending substantially upward from the body of the resection guide, wherein the pair of projections is positioned on an opposite side of the elongated opening as the slots of the pair of legs (see figure below). Regarding claim 8, Moore et al. disclose wherein each of the openings are disposed within each of the pair of projections (see figure below). Regarding claim 9, Moore et al. disclose wherein an apex of the elongated opening is positioned within the body and laterally between each of the pair of projections (figures 17C, 18A, 22A).
Regarding claim 10, Moore et al. disclose a resection guide releasably couplable with a bone of a patient, the resection guide comprising a pair of projections (see figure below) extending upward from a first end of a body of the resection guide, each of the pair of projections comprising an opening (see figure below, ¶186 “wires 97 placed through corresponding holes in the resection guide locator 26 and/or resection guide 12”, figures 17A-17B, 17F) disposed therein and extending from a top surface through to a bottom surface of the resection guide; a first elongated opening (88, figure 18A) disposed in the body and beneath the pair of openings, wherein the first elongated opening comprises at least one scalloped opening (94/96) therein; and a pair of legs (see figure below) extending substantially downward from the body of the resection guide, wherein each of the pair of legs comprises a slot (90/92), wherein the slot is open; wherein the pair of projections is positioned on an opposite side of the first elongated opening as the slots of the pair of legs (figures 6A-6B).
Moore et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose the slots is open at an end of each leg of the pair of legs on an opposite end of the body from the first elongated opening (88).
Loring et al. teach the use of slots (180c, 190c, figures 12A-12B) wherein each slot is open at an end of each leg (figures 12A-12B, is open at its “bottom” end) of the pair of legs on an opposite end of the body from the first elongated opening (178d) to provide an open guide path (¶144) and restricts the resection tool in a direction normal to the base such that the resection tool may be slid downwardly out of the resection guide but not upwardly (¶145). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the slots of Moore et al. to be open at an end of each leg of the pair of legs on an opposite end of the body from the first elongated opening as taught by Loring et al. as this provides insertion of the resection tool along two axes as well as restricts the resection tool in a direction normal to the base such that the resection tool may be slid downwardly out of the resection guide but not upwardly.
Regarding claim 11, Moore et al. disclose a second pair of openings (98, 100) disposed within the body of the resection guide.
Regarding claim 13, Moore et al. disclose wherein each of the openings comprise a central axis (central longitudinal axis), wherein the central axes are substantially parallel to one another (figures 18A, 18C, 18D). Regarding claim 14, Moore et al. disclose the at least one scalloped opening defines at least a portion of a substantially cylindrical geometry (figure 18A, 22B) extending from the top surface of the resection guide and at least partially through to the bottom surface of the resection guide (figures 18A-22B).
Regarding claim 15, Moore et al. disclose the pair of legs extend from the body at a substantially oblique angle (figures 18A, 22B).
Regarding claim 16, Moore et al. disclose the first elongated opening has a substantially curved geometry (figures 18A-18D, 22B, 22C, arced at the scalloped regions). Regarding claim 17, Moore et al. disclose wherein an apex of the first elongated opening is positioned laterally between the pair of projections (figures 17C, 18A, 22B).
Regarding claim 18, Moore et al. disclose a second elongated opening (114, figure 18C) positioned below the first elongated opening (figure 18C).
Regarding claim 19, Moore et al. disclose the second elongated opening is defined laterally by each of the pair of legs (figure 18C).
Regarding claim 20, Moore et al. disclose the second elongated opening is configured to receive at least a portion of a cutting tool therein (¶190).
PNG
media_image1.png
285
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights