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 § 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.
Claims 4-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, line 5, “a fourth portion” lacks proper antecedent basis, as a “fourth portion” was already introduced at line 3. In addition, the remaining instances of “the fourth portion” in claim 4 lack proper antecedent basis, as it is unclear to which fourth portion they refer.
Dependent claims include the limitations of their respective parent claim(s) and are therefore also rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fell et al. (WO-2011002882A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Fell et al. disclose an implant assembly securable to a human rib (e.g., Figs. 3, 5, 7 and 16), the implant assembly comprising:
an implant 16 including an elongate body (Figs. 3, 16; page 8, lines 2-13) engageable with a surface of the rib, the elongate body defining a first bore 20 (id.) and a second bore 20 (id.) each extending at least partially through the elongate body;
an anchor 32 (Fig. 5) insertable at least partially into a hole formed in the rib and at least partially into the first bore 20; and
a bracket 24 engageable with the implant 16 (page 10, lines 1-4) and configured to receive at least a portion of the anchor 32 therethrough (Fig. 5), the anchor 32 operable to secure the bracket 24 and the anchor 32 to the implant 16 and the rib (cf. Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 10, the first bore 20 of the implant 16 defines a longitudinal slot extending along the elongate body of the implant (e.g., Fig. 16), at least one of the anchor 32 and the bracket 24 movable along the longitudinal slot to move the anchor 32 and the bracket 24 with respect to the implant (Fig. 16; page 8, lines 2-13).
Regarding claim 11, the bracket 24 includes a head (Fig. 5) and a projection 26, the head engageable with a surface of the implant 16 (Fig. 7), and the projection at least partially insertable into the longitudinal slot defined by the bore 20 to limit rotation of the bracket 24 with respect to the implant 16 (page 8, lines 2-13 and page 10, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, the second bore 20 of the implant 16 defines a second longitudinal slot extending along the elongate body of the implant 16 (Fig. 16 and page 8, lines 2-13).
Regarding claim 13, the projection 26 comprises:
a barrel, e.g., threaded shaft of 22 (Fig. 5), threadably securable to the bracket 24 (id.), the barrel insertable at least partially into the longitudinal slot (e.g., Figs. 7 and 16), the barrel defining a barrel bore configured to receive at least a portion of the anchor 32 therethrough (Fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 2, 3 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The claims in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose or suggest the claimed combination of limitations recited in independent claim 15. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest inserting a first suture of a first anchor assembly through the first hole into a thoracic cavity of the patient and out of the thoracic cavity through the incision, engaging an exterior portion of the first rib portion with an implant, and manipulating the first suture of the first anchor assembly to tighten the first anchor assembly to the implant and the first rib portion, as required by claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID C COMSTOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4710. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PST.
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.
DAVID C. COMSTOCK
Examiner
Art Unit 3773
/DAVID C COMSTOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights