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 § 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assell (US 20130030456) in view of Reiley (US 20090259261).
With respect to claim 1, Assell teaches a system for fixation of the sacroiliac joint (SI-joint), the system comprising: a first elongate implant (e.g., 720- see para. 424 below) configured to be inserted into the SI-joint through a cephalad portion (e.g., closer to the head/upper portion of the body) of the articular cartilage in the SI-joint (see para. 403 and 407-408); a second elongate implant (720) configured to be inserted into the SI-joint through a middle portion of the articular cartilage in the SI-joint (see fig. 33 below and para. 403, 407-408 and also see claim 34), wherein the second elongate implant is caudal (e.g., closer to the tail/lower portion of the body) and anterior to the first elongate implant (see fig. 33 below and para. 425-426); and a third elongate implant (720) configured to be inserted into the SI-joint through a caudal portion of the articular cartilage in the SI-joint (see para. 403, 407-408 and fig. 33 below, also see claim 34), wherein the third elongate implant is caudal to the second elongate implant (see fig. 33 below and para. 425-426).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
352
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
477
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Assell does not appear to teach wherein the first elongate implant, the second elongate implant, and the third elongate implant each have an elongate body with a longitudinal axis and a rectilinear cross-sectional profile transverse to the longitudinal axis.
Reiley, also drawn to systems for fixation of the sacroiliac joint (see fig. 19, para. 35 and 45-48), teaches wherein the first elongate implant (100), the second elongate implant (100), and the third elongate implant (100) each have an elongate body with a longitudinal axis and a rectilinear cross-sectional profile transverse to the longitudinal axis (see para. 46) as an alternate equivalent structure to a screw structure (10, see para. 35) in order to provide the same function of fixation and fusion of the sacroiliac joint (see para. 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Assell wherein the first elongate implant, the second elongate implant, and the third elongate implant each have an elongate body with a longitudinal axis and a rectilinear cross-sectional profile transverse to the longitudinal axis, in view of Reiley, as a matter of engineering design choice, in order to provide an alternate equivalent structure that will provide the same function of fixation and fusion of the sacroiliac joint.
As for claim 2, Assell, as modified by Reiley, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first elongate implant is configured to be inserted into the SI-joint caudal to the alar line and between the posterior sacral body line and the anterior sacral body line in a lateral view (see para. 390, fig. 33 above).
As for claim 3, Assell, as modified by Reiley, further teaches system of claim 1, wherein the second elongate implant is configured to be inserted into the SI-joint caudal to the alar line and anterior to the anterior sacral body line in a lateral view (see para. 390, fig. 33 above).
As for claim 4, Assell, as modified by Reiley, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the third elongate implant is configured to be inserted into the SI-joint anterior to the anterior sacral body line in a lateral view (see fig. 34-38 and note that this device can perform this function).
As for claim 5, Assell, as modified by Reiley, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first elongate implant is positioned horizontally in an inlet view and the second elongate implant is angled with respect to the first elongate implant in the inlet view (see fig. 34-38 and note that this device can perform this function).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 (and newly presented claims 4-5) 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. Reiley has been introduced to teach the newly presented limitation set forth in claim 1 and newly presented claims 4 and 5 in the amendment entered on 8/24/2026.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 Tara Carter whose telephone number is (571) 272-3402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-3pm.
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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Robert, 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.
/TARA ROSE E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
