Detailed Action
This is the first office action on the merits for US application number 19/054,386.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species e), Figs. 6, in the reply filed on August 5, 2026 is acknowledged, which indicated that claims 1-13 read on the elected species.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
As to claim 6, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint at a location used for injection of steroids into the SI joint for pain relief.”. That is, the only similar disclosure appears to be that in ¶13 that the approach is a low impact alternative to interventions such a spinal fusion for when conservative measures such as pain injections (e.g., corticosteroid injections) are unsuccessful and ¶s 39 and 40 disclose that the small implant size allows positioning of the cannula in the same manner as for a standard pain injection as well as using the same radiographic imaging. Thus, the specification fails to proper antecedent basis for “inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint at a location used for injection of steroids into the SI joint for pain relief”.
As to claim(s) 7-9, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly” in claim 7 lines 1-2 that is in addition to that of claim 1 line 2, i.e. support for a total of 2 cannulated trocar/cannula assemblies, and “fluoroscopic-guided or CT guided insertion” in claim 7 line 2. That is, the only similar disclosure appears to be that fluoroscopic or fluoroscopy is disclosed in ¶18 as common to all surgical techniques to allow for real-time images of the SI joint during the procedure and in ¶s 23 and 36 as a scan of the SI joint. Thus, the specification fails to proper antecedent basis for “inserting a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint comprises using fluoroscopic-guided or CT guided insertion”.
As to claim 8, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “the SI joint is localized using a fluoroscope.”. That is, there appears to be no disclosure localized, localizing, or local or a fluoroscope. Thus, the specification fails to proper antecedent basis for “the SI joint is localized using a fluoroscope to visualize an inferior component of the articular space”.
As to claim 9, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “performing a preliminary CT of the SI joint.”. That is, there appears to be no disclosure preliminary anything. Thus, the specification fails to proper antecedent basis for “performing a preliminary CT of the SI joint”.
As to claim 10, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “inserting … performed without damage or penetration to dorsal intraosseous ligaments.”. This is a negative limitation, i.e. the claim is requiring that the inserting is performed without damage or penetration to dorsal intraosseous ligaments. Negative limitations are not per se improper, but they must be supported by the originally filed disclosure. As provided by MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; if alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. The specification is silent regarding inserting being performed without damage or penetration to dorsal intraosseous ligaments. As noted above, the absence of a positive recitation is not a proper basis of support for a negative limitation. Additionally, since the specification is silent on the matter of inserting being performed with damage or penetration to dorsal intraosseous ligaments, then the “alternative elements” rationale discussed above in the MPEP is not applicable. Thus, the specification fails to proper antecedent basis for “inserting … performed without damage or penetration to dorsal intraosseous ligaments.”. Examiner suggests cancelling this limitation or amending in a manner supported by the original disclosure, e.g. paragraph 41 discloses that “Figures 3A- 3D illustrate the ability of the approach 100 to avoid damage or penetration to the dorsal intraosseous ligaments.”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly” in claim 7 lines 1-2 that is in addition to that of claim 1 line 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6 should read “inserting a pusher into the cannula to advance the implants or chain of implants out of the cannula and into an articular area of the SI joint.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “blocking structures” in claims 11 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1-13 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “removing the cannulated trocar leaving a cannula extending into the SI joint” in line 3 and how one can remove a cannulated trocar that is not required of the claimed invention; where line 2 provides “a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly”, i.e. a cannulated trocar or cannula assembly. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 3 is/are unclear with regards to “wherein inserting the cannulated trocar. The method of claim cannula assembly into the SI joint comprises” in lines 1-2 and the text following the period, as a proper claim ends with a period, as well as the missing words following ‘trocar’ that would complete the phrase. Examiner is interpreting this as an error of a typographical nature that is intended to read, and suggests amending as, “wherein inserting the cannulated trocar into the SI joint comprises inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint along the Kirschner wire.”.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are unclear with regards to “a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly” in claim 7 lines 1-2 that is in addition to that of claim 1 line 2 and where support can be found for a total of 2 cannulated trocar/cannula assemblies, the scope of “fluoroscopic-guided” in claim 7 line 2 where fluoroscopic or fluoroscopy is disclosed in ¶18 as common to all surgical techniques to allow for real-time images of the SI joint during the procedure but does not appear to disclose a method comprising “fluoroscopic-guided or CT guided insertion” as claimed, and the scope of “CT” in claim 7 line 2, where “CT” is used in ¶s 23 and 36 as a scan of the SI joint but does not appear to be defined. Examiner is interpreting this as broadly and suggests amending to recited disclosed scope or cancelling claims 7-9.
Claim(s) 10 is/are unclear with regards to “inserting a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint in performed without damage or penetration to dorsal intraosseous ligaments” in lines 1-2 that is in addition to the “a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly” of claim 1 line 2 and where support can be found for a total of 2 cannulated trocar/cannula assemblies. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “to “inserting [[a]]the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint [[in]]is performed”.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are unclear with regards to “blocking structures” in claim 11 line 1 and the where such is defined in the specification to enable one to determine the intended scope and equivalents thereof. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “comprising identifying osteophytes in [[the]]an area used for a posterior-caudal approach.” in claim 11 lines 1-2, “in response to identifying osteophytes in the area used for [[a]]the posterior-caudal approach,” in claim 12 lines 1-2, and cancelling claim 13.
Claim(s) 11 recites/recite the limitation "the area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “[[the]]an area”.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schifano et al. (US 2014/0277460, hereinafter “Schifano”).
As to claim 1, Schifano discloses a method (Figs. 80-84) capable of use for stabilizing a sacroiliac (SI) joint (Figs. 80-84, ¶159), the method comprising: inserting a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly (295/239, 110/111/112, 116, Figs. 47-54 and 80, ¶s 142, 144, and 159) into the SI joint (Figs. 47-54 and 80, ¶s 142, 144, and 159); removing the cannulated trocar (Figs. 55-57) leaving a cannula (Figs. 55-57 and 82) extending into the SI joint (Fig. 82); inserting implants or a flexible chain of implants into the cannula (151, Figs. 83 and 84); inserting a pusher (147, 236, Figs. 72 and 73, ¶s 153 and 154) into the cannula (Figs. 72 and 73, ¶s 153 and 154) capable of advancing the implants or chain of implants out of the cannula and into an articular area of the SI joint (Figs. 72, 73, 83, and 84, ¶s 153 and 154).
As to claim 5, Schifano discloses rasping a surface of the SI joint (with rasp 132, Fig. 68, ¶152) capable of creating bleeding bone (Fig. 68, ¶152).
As to claim 6, Schifano discloses that inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint comprises inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint at a location used for injection of steroids into the SI joint for pain relief (Figs. 47-54 and 80).
As to claim 10, Schifano discloses that inserting a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint in performed without damage or penetration to dorsal intraosseous ligaments (¶151).
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 of this title, 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) 2-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schifano in view of Donner et al. (US 2019/0343640, hereinafter “Donner”).
As to claims 2-4, Schifano discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as placing a Kirschner wire (114, Fig. 50, ¶142) posterior-cranial (Fig. 50, ¶s 10, 12, 105, 137, and 139 disclose a posterior approach) into the SI joint (Fig. 50, ¶142). As to claim 3, Schifano discloses that inserting the cannulated trocar into the SI joint comprises inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint along the Kirschner wire (Figs. 51-53, ¶144). As to claim 4, Schifano discloses removing the k-wire (Figs. 54 and 55).
Schifano is silent to placing the Kirschner wire posterior-caudal into the SI joint.
Donner teaches a similar method (Figs. 175-177, ¶500) capable of use for stabilizing a sacroiliac (SI) joint (¶500), the method comprising: inserting a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly (100, Fig. 177, ¶s 244 and 500) into the SI joint (Fig. 177, ¶500); inserting a cannula (“inflatable bowel retractor” of ¶500, ¶500) of the cannula assembly (¶500); inserting an implant (Fig. 177, ¶500); inserting a pusher (95, 90, Figs. 3 and 177, ¶500) capable of advancing the implant into an articular area of the SI joint (Fig. 177, ¶500); and placing a Kirschner wire (“guide wire” of ¶500, ¶500) posterior-caudal (Fig. 177, abstract, ¶500) into the SI joint (Fig. 50, ¶142). As to claim 3, Donner teaches that inserting the cannulated trocar into the SI joint comprises inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint along the Kirschner wire (¶500). As to claim 4, Donner teaches removing the k-wire (¶500).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the posterior-cranial approach as disclosed by Schifano to be posterior-caudal as taught by Donner in order to treat a musculoskeletal condition (¶500) provide a known alternate approach for accessing the SI joint (Donner Fig. 177, ¶500).
As to claims 7-9, Schifano discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as that suitable locations for an incision may be determined by imaging methods (e.g., x-ray), or any other suitable method (¶141).
Schifano is silent to inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint comprises using fluoroscopic-guided or CT guided insertion. As to claim 8, Schifano is silent to the SI joint is localized using a fluoroscope to visualize an inferior component of the articular space. As to claim 9, Schifano is silent to 9. The method of claim 7, further comprising performing a preliminary CT of the SI joint.
Donner teaches a similar method (Figs. 175-177, ¶500) capable of use for stabilizing a sacroiliac (SI) joint (¶500), the method comprising: inserting a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly (100, Fig. 177, ¶s 244 and 500) into the SI joint (Fig. 177, ¶500); inserting a cannula (“inflatable bowel retractor” of ¶500, ¶500) of the cannula assembly (¶500); inserting an implant (Fig. 177, ¶500); inserting a pusher (95, 90, Figs. 3 and 177, ¶500) capable of advancing the implant into an articular area of the SI joint (Fig. 177, ¶500); placing a Kirschner wire (“guide wire” of ¶500, ¶500) posterior-caudal (Fig. 177, abstract, ¶500) into the SI joint (Fig. 50, ¶142); wherein inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint comprises using fluoroscopic-guided (¶s 322 and 323; where ¶323 discloses allowing a medical person, computer guided surgical system, or other observer to more easily highlight under x-ray a border which should not be crossed during the procedure due to the presence of nerve and other structures). As to claim 8, Donner teaches that the SI joint is localized using a fluoroscope (¶322 discloses alignment of cross hairs with the SI joint via x-ray, ¶322) capable of visualizing an inferior component of the articular space (¶322 discloses alignment with the SI joint to confirm orientation in relation to the paired articular surfaces). As to claim 9, Donner teaches performing a preliminary CT of the SI joint (¶478).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the method as disclosed by Schifano by adding pre-surgical CT imaging and x-ray surgical guidance as taught by Donner in order to assist in planning desired implant dimensions (Donner ¶478), confirm that the cannula has proper orientation in relation to the paired articular surfaces of the sacroiliac joint (Donner ¶322), and allow a medical person, computer guided surgical system, or other observer to more easily highlight under x-ray a border which should not be crossed during the procedure due to the presence of nerve and other structures (Donner ¶323) to thereby improve surgical outcomes and expedite healing and recovery.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schifano in view of Donner, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0277481, hereinafter “Lee”).
As to claims 11-13, Schifano discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as that suitable locations for an incision may be determined by imaging methods (e.g., x-ray), or any other suitable method (¶141).
Schifano is silent to identifying osteophytes in an area used for a posterior-caudal approach. As to claim 12, Schifano is silent to, in response to identifying blocking structures in the area used for a posterior-caudal approach, inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint comprises inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint using a posterior saddle approach.
Donner teaches a similar method (Figs. 175-177, ¶500) capable of use for stabilizing a sacroiliac (SI) joint (¶500), the method comprising: inserting a cannulated trocar/cannula assembly (100, Fig. 177, ¶s 244 and 500) into the SI joint (Fig. 177, ¶500); inserting a cannula (“inflatable bowel retractor” of ¶500, ¶500) of the cannula assembly (¶500); inserting an implant (Fig. 177, ¶500); inserting a pusher (95, 90, Figs. 3 and 177, ¶500) capable of advancing the implant into an articular area of the SI joint (Fig. 177, ¶500); placing a Kirschner wire (“guide wire” of ¶500, ¶500) posterior-caudal (Fig. 177, abstract, ¶500) into the SI joint (Fig. 50, ¶142); performing a preliminary CT of the SI joint (¶478); wherein inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint comprises using fluoroscopic-guided (¶s 322 and 323; where ¶323 discloses allowing a medical person, computer guided surgical system, or other observer to more easily highlight under x-ray a border which should not be crossed during the procedure due to the presence of nerve and other structures); wherein the SI joint is localized using a fluoroscope (¶322 discloses alignment of cross hairs with the SI joint via x-ray, ¶322) capable of visualizing an inferior component of the articular space (¶322 discloses alignment with the SI joint to confirm orientation in relation to the paired articular surfaces).
Lee teaches a similar method (Figs. 28-32) capable of use for stabilizing a vertebral joint (Figs. 28-32), the method comprising: inserting implants or a flexible chain of implants into an articular area of the joint (Figs. 28-32); wherein it is known that a challenge in the use of a posterior procedure to install spinal prosthesis devices is the presence of posterior osteophytes, which may cause "fish mouthing" or concavity of the posterior bone surfaces and result in very limited access to the joint space (¶19).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the method as disclosed by Schifano by adding pre-surgical CT imaging and x-ray surgical guidance as taught by Donner in order to assist in planning desired implant dimensions (Donner ¶478), confirm that the cannula has proper orientation in relation to the paired articular surfaces of the sacroiliac joint (Donner ¶322), and allow a medical person, computer guided surgical system, or other observer to more easily highlight under x-ray a border which should not be crossed during the procedure due to the presence of nerve and other structures (Donner ¶323) to thereby improve surgical outcomes and expedite healing and recovery. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the method as disclosed by the combination of Schifano and Donner to consider the presence of posterior osteophytes as taught by Lee in order to assist in pre-operative planning (Donner ¶478) and develop a plan for correcting or avoiding posterior osteophytes. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to upon identifying osteophytes in an area used for a posterior-caudal approach of the combination of Schifano, Donner, and Lee specify a posterior saddle approach, since Applicant has not disclosed that such is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of avoiding the challenge of inserting an implant around or removing the osteophytes.
As a result, as to claims 11 and 13, the combination of Schifano, Donner, and Lee discloses identifying osteophytes in an area used for a posterior-caudal approach (Lee ¶19; Donner ¶478). As to claim 12, the combination of Schifano, Donner, and Lee discloses, in response to identifying blocking structures in the area used for a posterior-caudal approach (Lee ¶19; Donner ¶478), inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint comprises inserting the cannulated trocar/cannula assembly into the SI joint using a posterior saddle approach (Lee ¶19; Donner ¶478; Schifano Fig. 82).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892, Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 6-4.
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 or telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights