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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the gray-scale images are difficult to read. Black and white drawings are recommended. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2 recites “comprise and an actuator channel” and should be amended to recite “comprise an actuator channel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 6-8, and 11-15 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 2 recites the limitation "into a spherical ball guide" in line 3. It is unclear whether “a spherical ball guide” is referring to the “plurality of spherical ball guides” disclosed in line 24 of claim 1, or if a new spherical ball guide is being claimed. For the purpose of examining the claim, “into a spherical ball guide” will be interpreted as “into a spherical ball guide of the plurality of spherical ball guides”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outer diameter of the sixth end" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examining the claim, “the outer diameter of the sixth end” will be interpreted as “an outer diameter of the sixth end”. It is noted that an outer diameter of the elongated cylindrical body is disclosed in line 4, but is not the same as the outer diameter of the sixth end.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outer diameter of the seventh end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examining the claim, “the outer diameter of the seventh end” will be interpreted as “an outer diameter of the seventh end”. It is noted that an outer diameter of the elongated cylindrical body is disclosed in line 4, but is not the same as the outer diameter of the seventh end.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outer diameter of the eighth end" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examining the claim, “the outer diameter of the eighth end” will be interpreted as “an outer diameter of the eighth end”. It is noted that an outer diameter of the elongated cylindrical body is disclosed in line 4, but is not the same as the outer diameter of the eighth end.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outer diameter of the ninth end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examining the claim, “the outer diameter of the ninth end” will be interpreted as “an outer diameter of the ninth end”. It is noted that an outer diameter of the elongated cylindrical body is disclosed line 4, but is not the same as the outer diameter of the ninth end.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "into a spherical ball guide" in line 2. It is unclear whether “a spherical ball guide” is referring to the “plurality of spherical ball guides” disclosed in line 23 of claim 10, or if a new spherical ball guide is being claimed. For the purpose of examining the claim, “into a spherical ball guide” will be interpreted as “into a spherical ball guide of the plurality of spherical ball guides”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "having a fifth end and a sixth end" in line 2. It is noted that a first, second, third and fourth end have not been previously claimed, as claim 12 depends from claim 9. For the purpose of examining the claim, claim 12 will depend from claim 10 where first, second, third, fourth, and fifth ends have been claimed. Furthermore, “having a fifth end and a sixth end” in line 2 will be interpreted as “having a sixth end and a seventh end”. Furthermore, “the fifth end” recited in claim 12 will be interpreted as “the sixth end” and “the sixth end” recited in claim 12 will be interpreted as “the seventh end”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "having a fifth end and a sixth end" in line 2. It is noted that a first, second, third and fourth end have not been previously claimed, as claim 13 depends from claim 9. For the purpose of examining the claim, claim 13 will depend from claim 10 where first, second, third, fourth, and fifth ends have been claimed. Furthermore, “having a fifth end and a sixth end” in line 2 will be interpreted as “having a sixth end and a seventh end”. Furthermore, “the fifth end” recited in claim 13 will be interpreted as “the sixth end” and “the sixth end” recited in claim 13 will be interpreted as “the seventh end”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "having a seventh end and an eighth end" in line 2. It is noted that claim 14 depends from claim 13 where (as best understood) a sixth end and a seventh end have been claimed. For the purpose of examining the claim, “having a seventh end and an eighth end” in line 2 will be interpreted as “having an eighth end and a ninth end”. Furthermore, “the seventh end” recited in claim 14 will be interpreted as “the eighth end” and “the eighth end” recited in claim 14 will be interpreted as “the ninth end”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the outer diameter of the seventh end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examining the claim, “the outer diameter of the seventh end” will be interpreted as “an outer diameter of the eighth end”. It is noted that an outer diameter of the elongated cylindrical body is disclosed lines 2-3, but is not the same as the outer diameter of the eighth end.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the outer diameter of the eighth end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examining the claim, “the outer diameter of the eighth end” will be interpreted as “an outer diameter of the ninth end”. It is noted that an outer diameter of the elongated cylindrical body is disclosed lines 2-3, but is not the same as the outer diameter of the ninth end.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duggal et al. (U.S. Publication No.2011/0166609 A1; hereinafter “Duggal”).
Regarding claim 9, Duggal discloses a method of calcaneus distraction comprising: placing one or more guide pins through an ankle (standoff 102); attaching one or more calcaneus distraction devices (compression bolt 104) to the one or more guide pins (Figure 9 shows placement of an alternate embodiment); distracting the one or more guide pins using the one or more calcaneus distraction devices (para.0105); and securing reduction of calcaneus fragments through fixation of a distractor fastener (see nut retainer 314 in Figure 15), wherein the fixation of the distractor fastener is facilitated by a drill targeting guide (see guide system 300 in Figure 15) .
PNG
media_image1.png
634
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
664
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
428
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed, once the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above have been corrected.
Claims 10-15, as best understood, 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, and once the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above have been corrected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-8 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 1. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest: a calcaneus distraction system comprising: a calcaneus distraction device having: a threaded distractor arm having an L-shape comprising a first elongated longitudinal body extending between a first end and a second end, and a second elongated longitudinal body extending between the second end and a third end, wherein the first elongated longitudinal body and the second elongated longitudinal body are connected at an approximately 90 degree angle to one another, the first end having at least a first ball socket and the second elongated longitudinal body having threads on at least two opposing surfaces of the second elongated longitudinal body, the third end being configured to removably couple with a sliding distractor arm; the sliding distractor arm having a third elongated longitudinal body extending between a fourth end and a fifth end, and a fourth elongated longitudinal body extending between the fifth end and a sliding end, wherein the third elongated longitudinal body and the fourth elongated longitudinal body are connected at an approximately 90 degree angle to one another, the fourth end having at least a second ball socket and the fourth elongated longitudinal body having a channel throughout its longitudinal axis configured to fit the third end of the threaded distractor arm, wherein the third end of the threaded distractor arm is removably coupled to the sliding distractor arm by a distractor nut that is configured to rotate along the threads of the threaded distractor arm to displace the sliding distractor arm along the longitudinal axis of the threaded distractor arm; and a plurality of spherical ball guides configured to rotate within the first or second ball sockets, the spherical ball guides having a through channel configured to fit a guide pin, as required by claim 1. Duggal fails to disclose these features.
Claims 10-15 in the instant application, as best understood, 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 9 and dependent claim 10. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest: wherein the one or more one or more calcaneus distraction devices comprise: a threaded distractor arm having an L-shape comprising a first elongated longitudinal body extending between a first end and a second end, and a second elongated longitudinal body extending between the second end and a third end, wherein the first elongated longitudinal body and the second elongated longitudinal body are connected at an approximately 90 degree angle to one another, the first end having at least a first ball socket and the second elongated longitudinal body having threads on at least two opposing surfaces of the second elongated longitudinal body, the third end being configured to removably couple with a sliding distractor arm; the sliding distractor arm having a third elongated longitudinal body extending between a fourth end and a fifth end, and a fourth elongated longitudinal body extending between the fifth end and a sliding end, wherein the third elongated longitudinal body and the fourth elongated longitudinal body are connected at an approximately 90 degree angle to one another, the fourth end having at least a second ball socket and the fourth elongated longitudinal body having a channel throughout its longitudinal axis configured to fit the third end of the threaded distractor arm, wherein the third end of the threaded distractor arm is removably coupled to the sliding distractor arm by a distractor nut that is configured to rotate along the threads of the threaded distractor arm to displace the sliding distractor arm along the longitudinal axis of the threaded distractor arm; and a plurality of spherical ball guides configured to rotate within the first or second ball sockets, the spherical ball guides having a through channel configured to fit a guide pin, as required by claim 10. Duggal fails to disclose these features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, has been cited in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Negrelli whose telephone number is 571-270-7389. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, between 8:00am to 4:00pm. 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 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.
/CHRISTINA NEGRELLI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3773
/EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights