DETAILED ACTION
0Notice 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative added limitations disclosing that the top section is porous and that the base section has the capability of having a non-hydrogel polymer from a group selected of other materials, such as, metals, ceramic, etc...
See below for the Examiner’s interpretation of the two new limitations:
Porous top section:
See Fig. 16B and paragraph, this embodiment discloses an implant having two parts: element (162) and element (164), as disclosed by this embodiment element 162 (the top section) comprises a porous section (163), therefore, the new limitations read on the claimed subject matter.
As disclosed in a different embodiment as shown in paragraphs 154 and 155, the composite graft is made of two regions: a bearing layer and the anchoring layer. The bearing layer is made of the Interpenetrating polymer network (IPN), wherein the top surface is capable of having a lubricious region and the anchoring layer can be made of porous carbonated apatite, non-resorbable thermoplastics, polyether urethane, PEEK, etc..
The Examiner believes that the lubricious layer can have certain porosity even though the word porosity or porous is not literally disclosed. For example, paragraphs 118, 119, 123 and 196 discloses that the IPN material in addition to the lubricious characteristics can produce also a material having permeability and absorbency characteristics. Paragraph 118 discloses that the IPN material can introduce hydrophilicity (water absorbency) characteristics to a otherwise hydrophobic material as disclosed in paragraphs 123 and 196 the IPN material is capable of absorbing water, therapeutic agents, drugs, Vitamin C, antibiotics, etc… Therefore, the IPN material must have some sort of porosity for the purpose of carrying these other materials.
Non-hydrogel polymer:
As disclosed in claim 1, the base section material can comprises from one of a group of selected materials, such as, metals, ceramics or polymers, see paragraphs 15 and 155.
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, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13, 15, 17-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myung et al US Patent Pub. 2012/0209396A1.
Myung et al a non-biodegradable implant comprising a base section (bone anchoring layer) configured for anchoring in bone tissue, and a top porous section (lubricious surface layer)(see remarks above for the Examiner’s interpretation of the word porous). The top section comprises a porous thermoplastic elastomeric material (See paragraph 154 and 155 and Figs. 16A-16C), wherein the thermoplastic elastomeric material comprises a linear block copolymer comprising urethane and urea groups. Wherein the base section material comprises one of a biocompatible metal, ceramic, mineral, and polymer, a non-hydrogel polymer, and combinations thereof, wherein the thermoplastic elastomeric material further comprises carbonate groups (See paragraphs 154 and 155).
Regarding claim 2, see paragraph 135, the application does not mention the addition of any peptide.
Regarding claim 4, see paragraph 114 disclosing aliphatic characteristics, see PEEK material.
Regarding claim 6, see Fig. 16B disclosing that a core of the stem is not porous and the outer surfaces are porous.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11 see paragraphs 155 and 260 disclosing metals, polymers, minerals, etc..
Regarding claim 11, see paragraph 114 disclosing the polyaryletherketone polymer.
Regarding claim 13, see Fig. 16B.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, the Examiner interpreted the pores as the irregularities.
Regarding claim 25, the device is capable of being inserted below a top surface of the patient’s cartilage.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 5, 14, 16, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung et al US Patent Pub. 2012/0209396A1.
Myung et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Myung et al does not disclose a material made of poly-urethane-bisurea-alkylenecarbonate, a modulus of elasticity of less than 8MPa, a radiomarker, specific dimensions and reinforcing materials.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the material properties, add a radio marker element and add and make the implant a specific dimensions, since, it is well known in the art to modify those elements in order to design an implant with specific characteristics, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material, specific dimensions and reinforcing materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM EST.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached on 571-272-4746. 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.
/ALVIN J STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 2/7/26
Prosecution Insights