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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 39 discloses a screw having “a central screw”. The Examiner is objecting the “central screw”, since, makes the reader believe that a screw is within a screw and what the Applicant’s representative is claiming is “a central screw shaft”.
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 1-13 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 1, lines 20-24 are indefinite. The applicant is trying to positively claim the alternative of part of the invention. USPTO practice allow the recitation of claims in the alternative, however, lines 20-24 are indefinite since the two alternative cup and skirt pieces are unclear. The Examiner suggest the following language to overcome the rejection:
--- the cup and the skirt pieces are selected from the group consisting of a monolithic structure and a detachable structure;”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower edge" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See below for the Examiner’s suggestion to overcome the rejection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the 4-10 rigid deformable sheet-like skirt pieces" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See below for the Examiner’s suggestion to overcome the rejection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer edge" in line 21 and “the top pf the cup” in line 21. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See below for the Examiner’s suggestion to overcome the rejection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top ends" in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See below for the Examiner’s suggestion to overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, lines 25 and 26 are indefinite. The Applicant is disclosing that the fastener includes screws (in plural) and cables (in plural). Paragraph 38 of the specification discloses that the fastener comprises a screw (singular) and a cable (singular), therefore, the Examiner is not clear if the applicant’s representative is trying to positively claim more that one screw and cable. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 27 discloses the words “a central screw”, however, the Examiner believes in order to avoid ambiguity and to be clear. The sentence is not clear, since, it makes the reader interpret that a screw is within a screw and that statement is not proper. The proper description should be ---a central screw shaft --- and not “a central screw”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inside upper portion" and “the outside lower portion” in lines 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See below for the Examiner’s suggestion to overcome the rejection.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the bottom surface" in line 3 and “the top end” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the Examiner believes that the following sentence discloses about the same limitations that are already described in claim 1. For example, “the screw comprises a central screw penetrating through a middle axle of the cup”. Correction required.
Also, regarding claim 7, the Examiner suggest the following language:
“The femoral neck-preserving artificial hip joint femoral prosthesis of claim 1, comprises auxiliary screws at two sides of the cover plate and an axis of the central screw shaft and axes of the auxiliary screws are parallel to each other;”
Regarding claim 7, the last four lines are indefinite. The applicant is trying to positively claim the alternative of part of the invention. USPTO practice allow the recitation of claims in the alternative, however, lines 6-9 are indefinite since the two alternative central screws are unclear. The Examiner suggest the following language to overcome the rejection:
“the central screw is selected from the group consisting of a forward central screw that is screwed from the cup into the bone, and a reverse central screw that is screwed from the lateral side of the femur into the cup and threadedly connected to the cup.”.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the heads of the auxiliary screws”" in line 4 and “the compression ring” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, the Examiner is not clear where the nuts and washers are located. Are the nuts and washers are located in the auxiliary screws? Correction or clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, the Examiner is not clear what the Applicant’s representative is trying to claim. Does the cerclage mode is different than the tension mode? What is the difference between the cerclage mode of the tension mode. Clarification is required.
Additionally, regarding claim 10, the Applicant’s representative must avoid indefinitive language, such as, “i.e.” The phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In order to overcome the rejections and to clarify the claim language, the Examiner suggest the following language:
NOTE: the underline words are new language added by the Examiner and the strike through lines are the limitations entered by the applicant that the Examiner believes are not necessary or make the claim indefinite. If the Applicant’s representative agrees with the language below, the claim limitations must be entered as shown below. This includes the underline words and the strike through swords and sentences.
1. (Currently amended) A femoral neck-preserving artificial hip joint femoral prosthesis,
comprising:
a ball head;
a neck part;
a cover body; and
a fastener;
wherein the cover body is in a shape of a thin-walled cup, including a rigid cup
deformable sheet-like skirt plates attached to a lower edge of the cup to extend the covering range of the cup to the patient's femoral neck and the patient's intertrochanteric femur; the skirt plates patient’s bone surface;
the rigid deformableplates are axially distributed and attached to the lower edge of the cup, forming a ring of skirt plates, this ring of skirt plates extends the length of the cup and wraps around the patient's femoral neck and intertrochanteric region;
the cup and the skirt pieces are selected from the group consisting of a monolithic structure and a detachable separate structure;
an outer edge of a top of the cup is
provided with evenly spaced through slots that are as wide as the skirt pieces, a top
ends of the skirt plates are folded into a hook shape, and the hooks are inserted into the
through slots ;
the fastener includes a screwa cablecapable of reinforcing a connection between the cup body and the patient's femoral neck;
the screw includes a central screw shaft that passes through a central axis of the cup, the central screw shaft is capable of being inserted from two different directions, the first is inserted obliquely from an inside upper portion to an outside lower portion of the cupand the second direction an outside lower portion of the greater trochanter towards the inside upper portionand
and wraps around all the skirt pieces and tightens in a ring shape after passing through
on the skirt plates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
See claim language above, the Examiner believes that the language above discloses the limitations that overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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 at 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 6/1/26
Prosecution Insights