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 § 102
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 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) 1-9, and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGuire et al. (US Pub 2014/0303730).
With respect to claim 1, McGuire discloses a multi-portal method (see figures 1 below) comprising: positioning a cannula (Fig 1, 40) in a first port (fig 1, 14) or a second port (fig 1, 12) located along a subject; irrigating a working space inside the subject (paragraph 21); and multi-modality viewing (endoscope and fluoroscopy), using an imaging equipment (paragraph 7, x-ray scanning system), tissue being removed from the working space using an instrument positioned in the second port (paragraph 21) while an endoscopic visualization instrument (fig 1, 60) is positioned in the first port (fig 1, 14) and outside of the working space (back end is outside of the work space), and wherein the imaging equipment includes the endoscopic visualization instrument and an external viewing machine used for the multi-modality viewing of the tissue (paragraphs 6 and 7 endoscopic viewing and fluoroscopy). With respect to claim 2, McGuire discloses wherein the external viewing machine is configured to image at least one of vertebral bodies of the subject, vertebral spacing of the subject, damaged tissue of the subject, displaced tissue of the subject, intervertebral discs of the subject, or a presence of tissue causing nerve root compression in the subject (paragraph 7, spacing). With respect to claim 3, McGuire discloses wherein the external viewing machine is an X-ray machine (paragraph 7). With respect to claim 4, McGuire discloses further comprising intra-operatively viewing, using the imaging equipment, the working space before starting a surgical step at the working space, while performing at least at a portion of the surgical step, and after completing the surgical step (paragraph 7, used to size the implant and during and after insertion). With respect to claim 5, McGuire discloses further comprising performing the multi-modality viewing, using the imaging equipment, while implanting an implant in the subject (paragraphs 6 and 7). With respect to claim 6, McGuire discloses further comprising performing at least a portion of a spinal compression procedure while multi-modality viewing the work space along the subject's spine (paragraph 38 both inflated and deflated). With respect to claim 7, McGuire discloses further comprising endoscopically viewing at least one of: tissue removal for accessing and enlarging an intervertebral space between vertebral bodies in the subject (paragraph 21,visualization while removing tissue), expansion of an implant at the intervertebral space (paragraph 7, cavity expanded), or delivery of bone graft material to the intervertebral space (paragraph 20). With respect to claim 8, McGuire discloses wherein the cannula is a first cannula , wherein the multi-portal method further comprises: inserting a second cannula (fig 1, 62) into the second port; and moving the endoscopic visualization instrument along the second cannula to position the endoscopic visualization instrument in the second port (arrows in figure 1), wherein each of the first and second ports is formed via an incision (cannula must be inserted into a cut in the patient). With respect to claim 9, McGuire discloses further comprising endoscopically viewing an intervertebral implantation site in the subject before, during, or after positioning an implant at the intervertebral implantation site (paragraph 20). With respect to claim 11, McGuire discloses further comprising: using the instrument positioned in the cannula to perform at least a portion of a biportal spine procedure while viewing, using the endoscopic visualization instrument, the instrument (paragraph 20 and fig 1). With respect to claim 12, McGuire discloses further comprising: selecting at least one surgical instrument in a kit (fig 1); performing, using the at least one surgical instrument, at least a portion of a biportal spine procedure; and completing the biportal spine procedure without utilizing all of the surgical instruments in the kit (fig 3B and paragraph 23 disclose various tools for various lengths and different regions) . With respect to claim 13, McGuire discloses wherein the biportal spine procedure is a spinal decompression procedure or an interbody fusion procedure (title). With respect to claim 14, McGuire discloses further comprising performing multi-portal spine surgery using multiple components of a surgical kit, wherein the multiple components include: a plurality of cannulas of different sizes (fig 1, 40 and 60); and a plurality of surgical ports (fig 1, 12 and 14) each sized to receive at least one of the plurality of cannulas therethrough.
With respect to claim 15, McGuire discloses a multi-portal method comprising: positioning a cannula (see fig 1 below) in at least one of a first port (Fig 1, 14) located along a subject, or a second port (fig 1,12) located along the subject; and multi-modality viewing (paragraph 6 and 7, endoscopic and fluoroscopy) tissue removal (paragraph 21) from a working zone in the subject under visualization provided by an endoscopic visualization instrument (paragraph 21) positioned in the first port and spaced apart from the working zone (back end is out of the working space), and an external viewing machine configured to externally image the working zone (paragraph 7), the cannula, and one or more working instruments used to perform the tissue removal (paragraph 7). With respect to claim 16, McGuire discloses wherein the external viewing machine is configured to capture images of at least one of vertebral bodies of the subject, vertebral spacing of the subject, damaged tissue of the subject, displaced tissue of the subject, intervertebral discs of the subject, or a presence of tissue causing nerve root compression in the subject (paragraph 7 used for at least spacing). With respect to claim 17, McGuire discloses wherein the external viewing machine is an X-ray machine (paragraph 7). With respect to claim 18, McGuire discloses further comprising intra-operatively viewing, using the external viewing machine, the working zone before a surgical step, while performing the surgical step at the working zone, and after completing the surgical step (paragraph 7 used to size and then during and after implanting). With respect to claim 19, McGuire discloses wherein the surgical step is performed using the one or more working instruments (paragraph 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire et al (US Pub 2014/0303730) in view of Zdeblick et al. (US Pub 2001/0005796).
With respect to claim 10, McGuire discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising using fluoroscopy when positioning at least one of the cannula in the first port or the second port, or the endoscopic visualization instrument in the subject.
Zdeblick discloses using fluoroscopy (paragraph 105) when positioning at least one of the cannula (paragraph 105, sleeve) in the first port (paragraph 105, outer sleeve) or the second port, or the endoscopic visualization instrument in the subject to confirm the position of the devices (paragraph 105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of McGuire to include further comprising using fluoroscopy when positioning at least one of the cannula in the first port or the second port, or the endoscopic visualization instrument in the subject in view of Zdeblick in order to confirm the position of the devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140121774 A1 discloses a method of spinal surgery
US 20190142408 A1 discloses a method using a biportal system
US 20200383675 A1 discloses a method using a biportal system
US 20190142407 A1 discloses a method using a biportal system
US 20160199194 A1 discloses a method of spinal surgery
US 20030028251 A1 discloses a method using a biportal system
US 5735290 A discloses a method using a biportal system
US 20170065269 A1 discloses a method using a biportal system
US 10327912 B1 discloses a method of spinal surgery
US 6348058 B1 discloses a method using a biportal system
US 9901457 B2 discloses a method of spinal surgery
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J COTRONEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/S.J.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights