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
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) 1, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1).
Graser recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 1, Graser recites a shaft (20) having a plurality of longitudinal cross-sectional diameters; an end portion (50) about a first end of the shaft (20) for securing to a chuck or collet; and an extraction tip (60) about a second end of the shaft (20) opposite the first end, the extraction tip (60) having: a frustoconical shape having a side at a taper angle relative to the longitudinal axis (axis through center of 10) of the extraction tip (10), a distal end having an overall diameter of about 0.05 to 0.29 inches, and a plurality of screw threads (90) (Graser recites wherein the body 60 has an overall diameter between 0.115-0.035 inches from end 40 to feeler 70.) (Fig. 1; and Col. 2 lines 57-54, Col. 3 lines 44-62, Col. 4 lines 4-28). However, the reference is silent as to the range of the taper angle of the extractor tip.
Bergamo recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 1, Bergamo recites a shaft (12) and an extraction tip (26) about an end of the shaft (12), the extraction tip having: frustoconical shape having a side at a taper (28) angle α of about 5 to 15 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis (axis through center of 10) of the extraction tip (26) and a plurality of screw threads (30) (Bergamo recites that the screw-removing section 26 has a tapered portion 28 with threads 30 that tapers at an angle of 7.degree. to 17.degree. and is preferably about 12.degree.) (Fig. 1 and 3a-3b; and Para. [0020]-[0023], [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the taper of the tip (60) of Graser to be in the range of 5-15 degrees as taught in Bergamo in order to have the tapered portion being at an angle such that the tapered portion threads will engage the flared walls of the resistive sections as the tool is inserted into the recess (Para. [0012]).
In regards to claim 12, Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above. Bergamo recites wherein the plurality of screw threads have a pitch of 0.01-0.05 inches (Bergamo recites that the pitch of the threads is 20-28 threads per inch with the preferred pitch being 24 threads per inch which would equal to 0.0357 to 0.05 inches or preferably 0.04167 inches.) (Para. [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the threads of the tip (60) of Graser to have a pitch 0.01-0.05 as taught in Bergamo in order to have threads that will engage the flared walls of the resistive sections as the tool is inserted into the recess (Para. [0012]).
In regards to claim 14, Graser recites wherein the screw extracting tip (60) has an overall longitudinal length of about 0.10 to 0.32 inches (Graser recites wherein the overall length of tip 60 is 0.25 inches.) (Fig. 1; and Col. 3 lines 55-58).
In regards to claim 15, Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above. Bergamo recites wherein the plurality of screw threads have a pitch of about 0.2 times the overall diameter of the distal end (Bergamo recites that the pitch of the threads is 20-28 threads per inch with the preferred pitch being 24 threads per inch which would equal to 0.0357 to 0.05 inches or preferably 0.04167 inches and wherein the diameter is that same as that used on a No. 2 or No. 3 Phillips screw heads which would make the diameter 0.167 to 0.193 inches1. Thus based on applicant’s equation P=.2D the limitation pitch range would be 0.0334 to 0.0386 which would encompass the 24 threads per inch recited in Bergamo.) (Para. [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the threads of the tip (60) of Graser to have a pitch of 0.2 times the diameter as taught in Bergamo in order to have threads that will engage the flared walls of the resistive sections as the tool is inserted into the recess (Para. [0012]).
In regards to claim 16, Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above. The references recite the extractor tip having a specific thread pitch, lead and tip diameter. However, they are silent as to the lead being about 0.6 times the diameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tip (60) of Graser to have a lead being about 0.6 times the diameter since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas (US Patent Pub. 20150283626A1).
Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above comprising a shaft having an end for accepting a chuck or collet and a second end having an extractor tip with a plurality of threads and a frustoconical shape. However, the references are silent as to the tip comprising titanium nitride, aluminum titanium nitride, or titanium.
Thomas recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 2-3, Thomas recites a shaft (18) and an extraction tip (14/12) about an end of the shaft (18), the extraction tip having: frustoconical shape having a side at a taper, and wherein the tip comprises a coating including titanium nitride or aluminum titanium nitride covering the extraction tip (14/12), or includes titanium (Para. [0031] and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the tip (60) of Graser to comprising titanium nitride, aluminum titanium nitride, or titanium as taught in Thomas in order to extend the life of the extractor (Para. [0031]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Draenert (US Patent 5047030).
Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above comprising a shaft having an end for accepting a chuck or collet and a second end having an extractor tip with a plurality of threads and a frustoconical shape. However, the references are silent as to the tool being cannulated along the shaft length.
Draenert recites a surgical device. Specifically in regards to claims 4 and 6, Draenert recites the tool comprising a cannulation extending along a longitudinal length of the shaft, and wherein the cannulation diameter is about 0.04 to 0.11 inches (Draenert recites that the screw 10 has a cannula 15 whose diameter is 3mm or 0.1181 inches.) (Fig. 2a; and Col. 4 lines 30-32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the extractor of Graser to comprise a cannula therethrough as taught in Draenert in order allow for the usage of a wire to guide the insertion of the tip.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morris (US Patent Pub. 20060060031A1).
Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above comprising a shaft having an end for accepting a chuck or collet and a second end having an extractor tip with a plurality of threads and a frustoconical shape. However, the references are silent as to the extractor having a collar at one end.
Morris recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 5, Morris recites a shaft and an extraction tip about an end of the shaft (Fig. 4), and wherein a collar is adjacent the end portion (The extractor tool shown in Fig. 4, has a collar of wider diameter adjacent the threaded and collet portion.) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the extractor of Graser to comprise a collar as taught in Morris in order allow for the collar to act as a stop for preventing overs insertion of the extractor tool.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jackson (US Patent Pub. 20020068938A1).
Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above comprising a shaft having an end for accepting a chuck or collet and a second end having an extractor tip with a plurality of threads and a frustoconical shape. However, the references are silent as to the threads being buttress threads.
Jackson in regards to claim 8, a tool having threads which are buttress thread (Para. [0007]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the threads (90) of the extractor of Graser to comprise buttress threads as taught in Jackson in order to reduce the radial outward forces that are exerted by the thread and are designed to exert an inwardly directed force to pull opposing walls of an implant toward the toll, rather than urge the walls away from the tool (Para. [0007]).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerlach et al (US Patent Pub. 20050070904A1).
Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above comprising a shaft having an end for accepting a chuck or collet and a second end having an extractor tip with a plurality of threads and a frustoconical shape. However, the references are silent the threads being triple lead threads, the lead of the threads, or the thread angle.
Gerlach recites a surgical tool in regards to claims 9-11, recites a surgical tool that has a plurality of screw threads (42) which includes triple threaded screw threads (42), the plurality of screw threads (42) have a lead of about 0.04 to 0.14 inches, a thread angle of about 40-50 degrees and a pitch that is about 1/3 a lead of the screw threads (Gerlach describes the head threads 42 being triple lead threads that have a constant pitch of 1.25mm or 0.0492 inches with an angle of 45-60 degrees.) (Fig. 1a-1b; and Para. [0036]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the threads (90) of the extractor of Graser to comprise triple lead threads as taught in Gerlach in order to allow advancement per turn to be much greater, allowing faster movement or faster tightening.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cottrell (US Patent Pub. 20120178048A1).
Graser in view of Bergamo recite an extractor device as recited above comprising a shaft having an end for accepting a chuck or collet and a second end having an extractor tip with a plurality of threads and a frustoconical shape. However, the references are silent the threads having a depth of 0.004 to 0.03 inches.
Cottrell recites a surgical tool in regards to claim 13, recites a surgical tool that has a plurality of screw threads (212) with a depth of about 0.004 to 0.03 inches (Cottrell recites that threads 212 are 0.14mm, or 0.005512 inches, deep.) (Fig. 13a and Para. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the threads (90) of the extractor of Graser to have a depth of 0.004 to 0.03 inches as taught in Cottrell since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) and Cottrell (US Patent Pub. 20120178048A1).
Graser recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 17 and 20, Graser recites a shaft (20); an end portion (50) about a first end of the shaft (20) for securing to a handle; and an extracting tip (60) about a second end of the shaft (20) opposite the first end, the screw extracting tip (60), and screw threads (90) (Fig. 1; and Col. 2 lines 57-54, Col. 3 lines 44-62, Col. 3 lines 4-28). However, the reference is silent as to the range of the taper angle of the extractor tip.
Bergamo recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 17 and 20, Bergamo recites a shaft (12) and an extracting tip (26) about an end of the shaft (12), the extracting tip having: frustoconical shape having a side at a taper (28) angle α of about 5 to 15 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis (axis through center of 10) of the extracting tip (26), and screw threads having: and a pitch of about 0.01 to 0.05 inches and a lead of about 0.065 to 0.14 inches (Bergamo recites that the pitch of the threads is 20-28 threads per inch with the preferred pitch being 24 threads per inch which would equal to 0.0357 to 0.05 inches or preferably 0.04167 inches while the taper angle is 7-17 degrees preferably 12 degrees. The lead can be calculated by multiplying the pitch by the number of starts the thread has which in the case of Bergamo is 1 making the lead the same as the pitch to 0.0357 to 0.05 inches or preferably 0.04167 inches.) (Fig. 1 and 3a-3b; and Para. [0020]-[0023], [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the taper of the tip (60) of Graser to be in the range of 5-15 degrees and a pitch of 0.01-0.05 inches as taught in Bergamo in order to have the tapered portion being at an angle such that the tapered portion threads will engage the flared walls of the resistive sections as the tool is inserted into the recess (Para. [0012]).
Cottrell recites a surgical tool in regards to claim 17, recites a surgical tool that has a plurality of screw threads (212) with a depth of about 0.004 to 0.03 inches (Cottrell recites that threads 212 are 0.14mm, or 0.005512 inches, deep.) (Fig. 13a and Para. [0053]). In regards to claim 20, Cottrell recites wherein a ratio of the lead to the pitch is about 2:1 (Para. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the threads (90) of the extractor of Graser to have a depth of 0.004 to 0.03 inches and a ratio of the lead to the pitch is about 2:1 as taught in Cottrell since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 18, Graser recites wherein the screw extracting tip has an overall longitudinal length of about 0.10 to 0.32 inches (Graser recites wherein the overall length of tip 60 is 0.25 inches.) (Fig. 1; and Col. 3 lines 55-58).
In regards to claim 19, Graser recites wherein a distal end of the screw extracting tip has an overall diameter of about 0.05 to 0.29 inches (Graser recites wherein the body 60 has an overall diameter between 0.115-0.035 inches from end 40 to feeler 70.) (Fig. 1; and Col. 2 lines 57-54, Col. 3 lines 44-62, Col. 4 lines 4-28).
In regards to claim 21, Graser recites wherein the screw thread (90) has a sharpened edge (Fig. 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) and Cottrell (US Patent Pub. 20120178048A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Morris (US Patent Pub. 20060060031A1).
Graser in view of Bergamo and Cottrell recite an extractor device as recited above comprising a shaft having an end for accepting a chuck or collet and a second end having an extractor tip with a plurality of threads and a frustoconical shape. However, the references are silent as to a collar.
Morris recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 5, Morris recites a shaft and an extraction tip about an end of the shaft (Fig. 4), and wherein a collar is adjacent the end portion (The extractor tool shown in Fig. 4, has a collar of wider diameter adjacent the threaded and collet portion.) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the extractor of Graser to comprise a collar as taught in Morris in order allow for the collar to act as a stop for preventing overs insertion of the extractor tool.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser (US Patent 6004321) in view of Bergamo (US Patent Pub. 20040000218A1) and Cottrell (US Patent Pub. 20120178048A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Gerlach et al (US Patent Pub. 20050070904A1).
Graser in view of Bergamo and Cottrell recite an extractor device as recited above comprising a shaft having an end for accepting a chuck or collet and a second end having an extractor tip with a plurality of threads and a frustoconical shape. However, the references are silent as to the thread angle.
Gerlach recites a surgical tool in regards to claims 23, recites a surgical tool that has a plurality of screw threads (42) which includes triple threaded screw threads (42), the plurality of screw threads (42) have a thread angle of about 40-50 degrees (Gerlach describes the head threads 42 being triple lead threads that have a constant pitch of 1.25mm or 0.0492 inches with an angle of 45-60 degrees.) (Fig. 1a-1b; and Para. [0036]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the threads (90) of the extractor of Graser to comprise triple lead threads as taught in Gerlach in order to allow advancement per turn to be much greater, allowing faster movement or faster tightening.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 17-21 and 23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 9, 13-14, 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11426226 referred herein as Pat. ‘226. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because”
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 17 of Pat. ‘226. Pat. 226 recites an extractor device comprising: a shaft having a plurality of longitudinal cross-sectional diameters [claim 1 lines 10-11 and claim 17 lines 14-15]; an end portion about a first end of the shaft for securing to a chuck or collet [claim 1 lines 12-13 and claim 17 lines 16-17]; and an extraction tip about a second end of the shaft opposite the first end, the extraction tip having: a frustoconical shape having a side at a taper angle α of about 5 to 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the extraction tip [claim 1 lines 14-18 and claim 17 lines 18-22], a distal end having an overall diameter of about 0.05 to 0.29 inches [claim 5, claim 17 lines 23-24], and a plurality of screw threads; the plurality of screw threads have a lead of about 0.04 to 0.14 inches [claim 1 lines 19-20 and claim 17 lines 25-27], a thread angle ß of about 40-50 degrees [claim 17 lines 29], and a pitch that is about 1/3 a lead of the screw threads, a pitch of about 0.01 to 0.05 inches [ claim 1 line 21 and claim 17 lines 28], and a depth of about 0.004 to 0.03 [claim 1 line 22 and claim 17 line 30].
. Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4, 9, 13-14, 16 of Pat. ‘226 for reciting substantially similar subject matter.
Claims 17, 19, and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 17 of Pat. ‘226. Pat. 226 recites an orthopedic screw extractor device comprising: a shaft [claim 1 lines 10-11 and claim 17 lines 14-15]; an end portion about a first end of the shaft for securing to a handle [claim 1 lines 12-13 and claim 17 lines 16-17]; and an extraction tip about a second end of the shaft opposite the first end, the extraction tip having: a frustoconical shape having a side at a taper angle α of about 5 to 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the extraction tip [claim 1 lines 14-18 and claim 17 lines 18-22], and screw threads including: a lead of about 0.035 to 0.14 inches [claim 1 lines 19-20 and claim 17 lines 25-27], a pitch of about 0.01 to 0.05 inches [ claim 1 line 21 and claim 17 lines 28], and a depth of about 0.004 to 0.03 [claim 1 line 22 and claim 17 line 30]; a distal end having an overall diameter of about 0.05 to 0.29 inches [claim 5, claim 17 lines 23-24], and a thread angle ß of about 40-50 degrees [claim 17 lines 29].
Claims 18 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4, 9 of Pat. ‘226 for reciting substantially similar subject matter.
Claims 1, 5, 17, 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1, 5, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11426226 in view of Morris (US Patent Pub. 20060060031A1).
Claims 1 and 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 17 of Pat. ‘226. Pat. 226 recites an extractor device comprising: a shaft having a plurality of longitudinal cross-sectional diameters [claim 1 lines 10-11 and claim 17 lines 14-15]; an end portion about a first end of the shaft for securing to a chuck or collet [claim 1 lines 12-13 and claim 17 lines 16-17]; and an extraction tip about a second end of the shaft opposite the first end, the extraction tip having: a frustoconical shape having a side at a taper angle α of about 5 to 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the extraction tip [claim 1 lines 14-18 and claim 17 lines 18-22], a distal end having an overall diameter of about 0.05 to 0.29 inches [claim 5, claim 17 lines 23-24]. However, the reference is silent as to the tool having a collar.
Morris recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 1 and 5, Morris recites a shaft and an extraction tip about an end of the shaft (Fig. 4), and wherein a collar is adjacent the end portion (The extractor tool shown in Fig. 4, has a collar of wider diameter adjacent the threaded and collet portion.) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the extractor of Pat. 226 to comprise a collar as taught in Morris in order allow for the collar to act as a stop for preventing overs insertion of the extractor tool.
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of Pat. ‘226. Pat. 226 recites an orthopedic screw extractor device comprising: a shaft [claim 1 lines 10-11 and claim 17 lines 14-15]; an end portion about a first end of the shaft for securing to a handle [claim 1 lines 12-13 and claim 17 lines 16-17]; and an extraction tip about a second end of the shaft opposite the first end, the extraction tip having: a frustoconical shape having a side at a taper angle α of about 5 to 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the extraction tip [claim 1 lines 14-18 and claim 17 lines 18-22], and screw threads including: a lead of about 0.035 to 0.14 inches [claim 1 lines 19-20 and claim 17 lines 25-27], a pitch of about 0.01 to 0.05 inches [ claim 1 line 21 and claim 17 lines 28], and a depth of about 0.004 to 0.03 [claim 1 line 22 and claim 17 line 30]. However, the reference is silent as to the tool having a collar.
Morris recites an extractor device. Specifically in regards to claim 17 and 22, Morris recites a shaft and an extraction tip about an end of the shaft (Fig. 4), and wherein a collar is adjacent the end portion (The extractor tool shown in Fig. 4, has a collar of wider diameter adjacent the threaded and collet portion.) (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination by modifying the extractor of Pat. 226 to comprise a collar as taught in Morris in order allow for
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELA I SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)270-5269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm MST.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 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 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.
MARCELA . SHIRSAT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3775
1 See, Phillips Cross Recessed Fillister Head Size Data Table ASME B 18.6.3 (https://www.engineersedge.com/phillips_pan_head.htm, last accessed 6/9/26)
Prosecution Insights