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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-12, and 14-15, as originally filed 11 AUG. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
11 AUG. 25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 11 AUG. 25 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 (c).
Cl. 1 ln. 2: “configured” should not be underlined as this was previously entered
Cl. 1 ln. 12: “extends” should not be underlined as this was previously entered
Cl. 6 ln. 2: “configured” should not be underlined as this was previously entered
Cl. 6 ln. 15: “extends” should not be underlined as this was previously entered
Cl. 12 ln. 2: “configured” should not be underlined as this was previously entered
Cl. 12 ln. 14: “extends” should not be underlined as this was previously entered
These phrases should be presented without underlines but have been entered to advance prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1 ln. 9: after “inward decrease” insert --in--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
THE TEXT OF THOSE SECTIONS OF TITLE 35, U.S. CODE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ACTION CAN BE FOUND IN A PRIOR OFFICE ACTION.
Claim 1,4,6,9-12 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews et al. US 8756885 B1 (Mathews) in view of
Watson US 7216842 B2 and STRACKE US 20150330077 A1 (Stracke).
As per claim 1 Mathews teaches a stepped wedge (wedge 112, FIG. 3), comprising:
two circumferential halves (upper half, lower half, FIG. 3), configured such that when the two circumferential halves (upper half, lower half, FIG. 3) are assembled, the stepped wedge (wedge 112, FIG. 3) comprises:
a first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) having a first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3);
a second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3) having a second outer diameter (left side, FIG. 3) such that the second outer diameter (left side, FIG. 3) is smaller than the first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3) resulting in a taper (first taper angle 141, second taper angle 145, FIG. 3; these are recognized as combining to produce “a taper” as broadly claimed) from the first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) to the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3);
a step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) located between the first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) and the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3), the step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) being located on an external surface of each of the two circumferential halves (see above identified “boundary” on the upper external surface, FIG. 3)
an internal channel (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) extending from the first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) to the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3),
wherein a gripping surface (thread pattern 140, FIG. 3) is located on an interior surface (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) of each circumferential half and extends in the internal channel (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) from the first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) to a location proximate the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3)
Matthews fails to explicitly disclose:
and comprising a ridge forming a marked inward decrease --in-- the taper between the first end and second end; and
such that a smooth portion exists on the interior surface between the second end and a start of the gripping surface.
Watson teaches a ridge, used to mark a portion having an inward decrease in taper, specifically:
and comprising a ridge (annular ridge 56, FIG. 7) forming a marked inward decrease --in-- the taper between the first end and second end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Matthews by including the ridge as taught by Watson in order to provide a point of engagement to an end of an engaged anchor.
Stracke teaches such a smooth portion effectuated as claimed, specifically:
the gripping surface extending to a location proximate the second end such that a smooth portion (see right side, FIG. 8(D); this is recognized as a “smooth portion” as broadly claimed) exists on the interior surface between the second end and a start of the gripping surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Mathews in view of Watson by including an unthreaded portion as taught by Stracke in order to facilitate easier entry of a male member, thereby expediting assembly and limiting potential for damage.
As per claim 4 Mathews in view of Watson and Stracke teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Mathews further discloses wherein the gripping surface (thread pattern 140, FIG. 3) comprises a threaded surface (see surface of 140, FIG. 3).
As per claim 6 Mathews teaches a stepped wedge (wedge 112, FIG. 3), comprising:
two circumferential halves (upper half, lower half, FIG. 3), configured such that when the two circumferential halves (upper half, lower half, FIG. 3) are assembled, the stepped wedge (wedge 112, FIG. 3) comprises:
a first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) having a first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3);
a first length extending therefrom towards a second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3), the first length tapering inward towards the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3);
a step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) located at an end of the first length, the step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) being located on an external surface of each of the two circumferential halves (see above identified “boundary” on the upper external surface, FIG. 3)
a second length extending from the step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) towards the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3) and tapering inward;
the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3) having a second outer diameter (left side, FIG. 3) that is less than the first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3); and
an internal channel (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) extending from the first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) to the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3),
wherein a gripping surface (thread pattern 140, FIG. 3) is located on an interior surface (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) of each circumferential half and extends in the internal channel (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) from the first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) to a location proximate the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3).
Matthews fails to explicitly disclose:
and comprising a ridge running circumferentially around each of the two circumferential halves;
such that a smooth portion exists on the interior surface between the second end and a start of the gripping surface.
Watson teaches a ridge, used to mark a portion having an inward decrease in taper, specifically:
and comprising a ridge (annular ridge 56, FIG. 7) running circumferentially around each of the two circumferential halves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Matthews by including the ridge as taught by Watson in order to provide a point of engagement to an end of an engaged anchor.
Stracke teaches such a smooth portion effectuated as claimed, specifically:
such that a smooth portion (see right side, FIG. 8(D); this is recognized as a “smooth portion” as broadly claimed) exists on the interior surface between the second end and a start of the gripping surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Mathews in view of Watson by including an unthreaded portion as taught by Stracke in order to facilitate easier entry of a male member, thereby expediting assembly and limiting potential for damage.
As per claim 9 Mathews in view of Watson and Stracke teaches the limitations according to claim 6, and Mathews further discloses wherein the gripping surface (thread pattern 140, FIG. 3) comprises a threaded surface (see surface of 140, FIG. 3).
As per claim 10 Mathews in view of Watson and Stracke teaches the limitations according to claim 6, and Mathews further discloses wherein the second length is less than the first length (see “While the first section 137 is longer than the second section 139 of the external surface 136 of the wedge 112 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis 142 of the wedge 112, it is contemplated that the first section 137 may be shorter than the second section 139 or equal thereto” 6:19-23).
As per claim 11 Mathews in view of Watson and Stracke teaches the limitations according to claim 6, and Mathews further discloses:
the first length is at a first angle relative to the first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3) and the second length is at a second angle relative to the first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3) such that the first angle is less than the second angle (see first taper angle 141, second taper angle 145, FIG. 3; also “the second taper angle 145 is larger than the first taper angle 141” 6:16-17) and the step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) provides a demarcation point (see FIG. 3; the “step” as above identified is recognized as teaching the limits —or “demarcation point” as broadly claimed— of one section relative to the other) between the first angle and the second angle.
As per claim 12 Mathews teaches a stepped wedge (wedge 112, FIG. 3), comprising:
two circumferential halves (upper half, lower half, FIG. 3), configured such that when the two circumferential halves (upper half, lower half, FIG. 3) are assembled, the stepped wedge (wedge 112, FIG. 3) comprises:
a first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) having a first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3);
a first length extending therefrom towards a second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3), the first length tapering inward towards the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3);
a step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) located at an end of the first length, the step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) being located on an external surface of each of the two circumferential halves (see above identified “boundary” on the upper external surface, FIG. 3)
a second length extending from the step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) towards the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3) and tapering inward;
the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3) having a second outer diameter (left side, FIG. 3) that is less than the first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3);
an internal channel (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) extending from the first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) to the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3); and
a gripping surface (thread pattern 140, FIG. 3) located on an interior surface (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) of the internal channel (“internal surface 138 with a thread pattern 140”, FIG. 3) and extends from the first end (front side 132, FIG. 3) to a location proximate the second end (rear side 134, FIG. 3)
Matthews fails to explicitly disclose:
and comprising a ridge running circumferentially around each of the two circumferential halves;
such that a smooth portion exists on the interior surface between the second end and a start of the gripping surface and the gripping surface comprises a threaded surface.
Watson teaches a ridge, used to mark a portion having an inward decrease in taper, specifically:
and comprising a ridge (annular ridge 56, FIG. 7) running circumferentially around each of the two circumferential halves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Matthews by including the ridge as taught by Watson in order to provide a point of engagement to an end of an engaged anchor.
Stracke teaches such a smooth portion effectuated as claimed, specifically:
such that a smooth portion (see right side, FIG. 8(D); this is recognized as a “smooth portion” as broadly claimed) exists on the interior surface between the second end and a start of the gripping surface and the gripping surface comprises a threaded surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Mathews in view of Watson by including an unthreaded portion as taught by Stracke in order to facilitate easier entry of a male member, thereby expediting assembly and limiting potential for damage.
As per claim 14 Mathews in view of Watson and Stracke teaches the limitations according to claim 12, and Mathews further discloses wherein the second length is less than the first length (see “While the first section 137 is longer than the second section 139 of the external surface 136 of the wedge 112 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis 142 of the wedge 112, it is contemplated that the first section 137 may be shorter than the second section 139 or equal thereto” 6:19-23).
As per claim 15 Mathews in view of Watson and Stracke teaches the limitations according to claim 12, and Mathews further discloses wherein: the first length is at a first angle relative to the first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3) and the second length is at a second angle relative to the first outer diameter (right side, FIG. 3) such that the first angle is less than the second angle and the step (see boundary between first section 137 and a second section 139, FIG. 3; note character “37” in FIG. 3 is being treated as “first section 137” as described in the specification) provides a demarcation point between the first angle and the second angle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 AUG. 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument (p. 6-7):
the Office has failed to address the core error raised by Applicant regarding Stracke's disclosure (more specifically, its lack of disclosure) regarding any unthreaded or smooth section as alleged by the Office. That is, there is no reasonable expectation of success in making the combination (another allegation made in the AA by the Office) of combining Stracke with Matthews since Stracke fails to disclose the relied upon structure.
the Examiner submits, essentially regarding Stracke’s alleged failure to teach a smooth section, that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Insofar as Matthews fails to teach a smooth portion, Stracke is recognized as clearly teaching at least a potion with a relatively smoother portion and a portion with a relatively toothed portion. The relatively smoother unthreaded portion meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “smooth portion”.
As per Applicant’s supposition that “From the visual shown in Fig. 8(D), there is not a smooth section as the entire portion appears to be threaded. In fact, Stracke's disclosure states, at ¶ [0094] that "[a]n inner side 112 of the ring shaped anchor body has teeth 180." This implies that the inner side has teeth 180 over its length.” (p. 7) the Examiner submits an annotated drawing as shown below, which clearly shows —that is to say, “discloses”— two portions, one portion on the left side of the annotated vertical line and one portion on the right side of the annotated vertical line; these are necessarily two “portions”:
PNG
media_image1.png
173
231
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
As per the argument (p. 7-8):
First, it is unclear why one would modify Matthews structure as alleged given that Matthews provides disclosure of use of a specific thread pattern on its internal surface that is alleged have advantages
the Examiner submits the modification would facilitate easier entry of a male member into the area. An unmodified continuously threaded area —as taught by Mathews— would be improved by an unthreaded portion —as taught by Stracke— which would alleviate stress on both members at the edge portion of the rear side.
As per the argument (p. 8):
the Office provides no support for its alleged reasoning that any unthreaded portion (which as noted above, does not appear to exist) from Stracke facilitates "easier entry of a male threaded member, thereby expediting assembly and limiting potential for damage." Neither Stracke nor Matthews provides any disclosure to support this alleged feature.
the Examiner submits Mathews introduces an embodiment which would “help to more equally distribute [ ] compressive force”. The modification of Stracke would improve the cited embodiment of Mathews in the same manner.
As per Applicant’s supposition that “to further clarify the claimed embodiments,… claim 1 has been amended to recite… a ridge forming a marked inward”, Examiner has cited a teaching of a ridge to obviate this previously unclaimed feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayek et al. US 12398562 B2 teaches an anchor with a ridge, a smooth portion, and a step
PNG
media_image2.png
730
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-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, BRIAN D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
/JJS/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635