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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 18/341,484, filed 06/26/2023, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim 7 recites the limitation that “an angle less than an angle for a linear clearance portion” was not found in the written description nor the drawings. Therefore claim 7 has an effective filing date of 07/21/2205.
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 10 - 13 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 10 recites “a third height”. It is unclear if the third height is the same as or different than the second height since both are measured at the root/base in a direction parallel with the closure central axis. For purposes of examination, they are assumed to be the same. Claims 11 - 13 are ultimately dependent upon claim 10 and therefore also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (US 2006/0064089 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses a bone anchor assembly (Abstract) comprising:
a receiver (Fig. 5, ref. 42) comprising a longitudinal axis (Fig. 7), a base portion comprising a bottom surface, and an upper portion comprising a pair of opposed upwardly extending arms (paragraph [0038], refs. 49, 50), and an open rod- receiving channel between the pair of opposed upwardly extending arms (Fig. 8, ref. 62), each of the pair of opposed upwardly extending arms comprising an interior surface with a portion of helically wound thread form formed therein (refs. 72, 73); and
a closure (ref. 1) configured to be threadably positioned within the open rod-receiving channel (Fig. 8), the closure comprising a cylindrical body having a central axis and an outer surface with a mating helically wound thread form formed thereon (ref. 10), the mating helically wound thread form comprising an outer crest portion (ref. 13), a root portion (ref. 12), a thread pitch, an upper linear thrust surface (ref. 15), and a lower linear clearance surface (ref. 14), the outer crest portion having a maximum first height measured axially parallel to the closure central axis, the root portion having a second height measured parallel to the closure central axis, the clearance surface and the thrust surface sloping upwardly and outwardly with respect to the central axis of the cylindrical body of the closure, wherein the first height is slightly less than or equal to the second height (paragraph [0034] incorporated U.S. Pat. No. 6,726,689 which shows a plurality of different thread forms, for example see Fig. 8 which shows both the clearance and thrust surfaces sloping upwards and wherein the crest height is shown to be slightly less than or substantially equal to the root height).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 1, wherein a distance between the outer crest portion and the root portion defines a thread depth (this is a definition fully capable of being applied to the reference).
Regarding claim 4, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 1, wherein the cylindrical body of the closure further comprises a top end surface, a bottom end surface, and a plurality of vertical tool engagement surfaces aligned parallel with the central axis (Fig. 8, ref. 33)).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 4, wherein the plurality of vertical tool engaging surfaces are defined on the top end surface (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 1, wherein the thrust surface includes a linear thrust portion sloping outwardly and upwardly at an angle less than an angle for a linear clearance portion of the clearance surface with respect to a line perpendicular to the central axis (as shown in Fig. 8 of US Pat. 6,726,689, for example, the central portion of the thrust surface has a lower or flatter angle than the bottom clearance surface).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 1, wherein the mating helically wound thread form further comprises a base portion from which the clearance surface and the thrust surface extends outward therefrom, the base portion defines a third height measured parallel to the closure central axis (as best understood, the third height is the same as the second height).
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 10, wherein the first height is slightly less than or equal to the third height (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 1, further comprising an elongate rod sized to be received in the open rod-receiving channel of the receiver (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 1, further comprising a bone anchor comprising a shank and a head, the head configured to be supported by the receiver (Fig. 8).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2006/0064089 A1) in view of DeLange et al. (US 5,092,635).
Regarding claim 3, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 2, except wherein the thread pitch is greater than twice the thread depth.
DeLange teaches a thread form in the related field of threading mechanics wherein a thread depth (l3) is 0.05 inches and a thread pitch (“Pitch”) is equal to 5 threads/inch. Therefore, the pitch is greater than twice the thread depth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thread form of the closure of Jackson such that the pitch is greater than twice the thread depth, as taught by DeLange, for the purpose of easier and faster insertion since a larger pitch means greater axial movement per revolution of the closure.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2006/0064089 A1) in view of Mueller (US 2006/0200128 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 4, except wherein the mating helically wound thread form of the closure is configured as a dual lead thread form with diametrically opposite start structure adjacent the bottom end surface.
Mueller teaches an analogous bone anchor assembly (Abstract) wherein a closure is configured as a dual lead thread form with diametrically opposite start structures adjacent he bottom end surface (paragraph [0132], wherein the starts are diametrically opposite to simultaneously engage the opposed threads on the receiver). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thread form of the closure of Jackson to be a dual lead thread form with diametrically opposite start structures adjacent the bottom end surface, as taught by Mueller, for the purpose of greater securing engagement between the receiver and closure.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2006/0064089 A1) in view of Jackson (US 2009/0062866 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 1, except for further comprising: a rod-engaging insert positionable within the receiver.
Jackson (866) teaches an analogous bone anchor assembly (Abstract) comprising a rod-engaging insert positionable within the receiver (Fig. 1, ref. 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the assembly of Jackson (089) to include a rod-engaging insert positionable within the receiver, as taught by Jackson (866), for the purpose of better creating a frictional fit between the assembly components prior to final tightening of all components.
Regarding claim 9, Jackson (089) in view of Jackson (866) discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 8, wherein the rod-engaging insert comprises upright arms that extend above a top surface of an elongate rod when the rod-engaging insert and the elongate rod are positioned within the receiver (Jackson (866), Fig. 19).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2006/0064089 A1) in view of Klooz et a. (US 3,286,754).
Regarding claim 12 (as best understood), Jackson discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 11, except wherein the pitch is between 0.040 and 0.120 inches.
Klooz teaches a self-locking set screw in the related field of closures and set screws, wherein a pitch or lead is 1/16 inch or 0.0625 inches (Col. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thread form of the closure of Jackson to have a pitch between 0.04 and 0.120 inches, as taught by Klooz, for the purpose of achieving better axial advancement per rotation.
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Jackson in view of Klooz discloses the bone anchor assembly of claim 11, wherein the pitch is between 0.060 and 0.070 inches (Klooz, Col. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESSA M MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8817. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am - 1pm.
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.
/TESSA M MATTHEWS/Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights