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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments filed 28 January 2026 have been entered. Claims 2-3, and 8-9 are canceled. Claims 1-7, 10-13, 16-21, and 30-33 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to claim 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to Claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Chaudot fails to teach the articular component being a single piece, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the current broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, “one piece” has a broader meaning than what Applicant seems to intend with their definition. It is recommended to utilize a term such as “monolithic” to narrow and clarify Applicant’s current meaning and intention of the device. However, under the current BRI the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s argument regarding wherein “Chaudot does not teach that the rotation control zone is disposed at the periphery of the articular body” (pg. 11 of remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Applicant’s current claim language “periphery” is understood to mean “the external boundary or surface of a body” (Merriam-Webster definition). Chaudot’s rectangular rotation lock 395 is located peripheral to the bottom side 352 of liner 300, meeting Applicant’s claim limitation. If Applicant intends for a narrower definition of the positioning of the rotational control zone, further clarification is required.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chaudot et al. (EP 3539513 A1), “Chaudot”.
Regarding claim 1, Chaudot teaches a humeral assembly, comprising: a single-piece articular component (Fig. 3b, corrective liner 300) configured to be coupled with a bone anchor (Fig. 9, protector 600), the single-piece articular component (Fig. 3b, corrective liner 300) comprising: an articular body having a first end (Fig. 3b, top side 351) and a second end (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352); an articular surface (Fig. 3b, glenosphere cup 350) disposed on or adjacent to the first end (Fig. 3b, top side 351); a bone anchor interface (Fig. 3b, cup wall 340) disposed between the first end (Fig. 3b, top side 351) and the second end (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352) of the articular body (Fig. 3b, corrective liner 300), the bone anchor interface (Fig. 3b, cup wall 340) comprising: a deflectable portion (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120) disposed at the second end (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352) of the articular body (Fig. 3b, liner 300), the deflectable portion (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120) configured to be circumferentially deflected by a surface of a humeral anchor to provide a load directed toward the first end of the articular body from a second end of the articular body when deflected (Figs. 7 and 9, spread feet ridges 120, liner 300, protector 600, and spacer 500 are held in place by pressure force exerted upon the flexible spread fleet [0082]), and a rotation control zone (Fig. 11d, rectangular rotation lock 395 (rectangular rotation lock 195 in Fig. 11d)) disposed at a periphery of the articular body (Fig. 11d, rectangular rotation lock 395 is located between the bottom side 352 of corrective liner 300 and the spread feet base 370) between the first end (Fig. 3b, top side 351) and the second end (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352), the rotation control zone (Fig. 11d, rectangular rotation lock 395) comprising a projection disposed in a first direction (Fig. 11d, rectangular rotation lock 395 (195 in Fig. 11d) extends side to side between channels 361 (161 in Fig. 11d)) and a recess (Fig. 11d, channels 361 (161 in Fig. 11d)) disposed in a second direction (Fig. 11d, channels 361 extend in a perpendicular direction to rectangular rotation lock 395), and a locking member (Fig. 9, spacer 500) sized and configured to be disposed in a channel defined between the bone anchor interface and the articular surface (extraction of spacer 500 from liner 300 or protector 600 can be done with the help of channels 361 [0069]) to secure the single-piece articular component to the bone anchor (Fig. 9, spacer 500 connects liner 300 with protector 600).
Regarding claim 4, Chaudot teaches wherein the deflectable portion (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 320 (similar to spread feet ridges 120 in Fig. 7)) comprises at least two sections (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310 comprises two feet) cantilevered from a central portion of the articular body to the second end of the articular body (Fig. 3a, spread feet 310 extend from spread feet base 370 of liner 300 and end at bottom side 352).
Regarding claim 5, Chaudot teaches further comprising a compression slot (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310 comprise an opening between) disposed between each of the at least two sections (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310).
Regarding claim 6, Chaudot teaches wherein the deflectable portion (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120) comprises a tapered surface disposed on an outer circumference thereof (Fig. 3b, spread feet ridges 120 comprise a larger diameter than the central liner snap connector 305, forming a tapered shape).
Regarding claim 7, Chaudot teaches wherein the articular body (Fig. 3b, corrective liner 300) comprises a transverse surface (Fig. 9, right underside of liner 300 (comprising fixing nipple 330, Fig. 3b)) configured to overlay a rim of the bone anchor (Fig. 9, right underside of liner 300 fits over right underside of protector 600) when the locking member (Fig. 9, spacer 500) is engaged with the bone anchor (Fig. 9, protector 600).
Regarding claim 10, Chaudot teaches wherein the first direction is transverse to the second direction (Fig. 11d, channels 361 extend in a perpendicular direction to rectangular rotation lock 395).
Regarding claim 11, Chaudot teaches wherein the projection (Fig. 11d, rectangular rotation lock 395 (195 in Fig. 11d)) is a first projection and further comprising a second projection disposed opposite the first projection (Fig. 11d, rectangular rotation lock 395 extends side to side forming two projections opposite of each other).
Regarding claim 12, Chaudot teaches wherein the recess (Fig. 11d, channels 361 (161 in Fig. 11d)) is a first recess and further comprising a second recess disposed opposite the first recess (Fig. 11d, channels 361 are duplicated on the device and are facing opposite each other).
Regarding claim 13, Chaudot teaches wherein the deflectable portion (Fig. 9, spread feet ridges 120) is disposed between the locking member (Fig. 9, spacer 500) and the second end of the articular body (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352).
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.
Claims 16, 18-20, and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudot et al. (EP 3539513 A1), “Chaudot” in view of Knox et al. (US 2019/0175354 A1), “Knox”.
Regarding claim 16, Chaudot teaches a humeral assembly, comprising: a humeral anchor (Fig. 9, protector 600) configured to be anchored in a bone (Fig. 10a, protector 600 is implanted into bone 800), the humeral anchor (Fig. 9, protector 600) comprising a first end (Fig. 6a, top section 651), a second end (Fig. 6c, bottom section 652), and a recess (Fig. 6c, inner hole 610) extending between the first end (Fig. 6a, top section 651) and the second end (Fig. 6c, bottom section 652), the recess (Fig. 6c, inner hole 610) being accessible from the first end of the humeral anchor (Fig. 6c, inner hole 610 is accessible from top section 651) and comprising a first peripheral portion (Fig. 9, upper region of inner hole 610) adjacent to the first end (Fig. 6a, top section 651) and a second peripheral portion (Fig. 9, lower region of inner hole 610) adjacent to the first peripheral portion (Fig. 9, upper region of inner hole 610); an articular assembly (Fig. 3b, corrective liner 300) configured to be inserted into the recess to be secured to the humeral anchor therein (Fig. 9, corrective liner 300 comprises spread feet 310 which are inserted into inner hole 610 by way of spacer 500), the articular assembly (Fig. 3b, corrective liner 300) including an articular body (Fig. 3b, cup wall 340) having an articular surface (Fig. 3e, glenosphere cup 350) disposed on or adjacent to a first end thereof (Fig. 3b, top side 351) and a humeral anchor interface (Fig. 3b, lateral finger recesses 380) disposed between the first end (Fig. 3b, top side 351) and a second end (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352) of the articular body (Fig. 3b, cup wall 340), the humeral anchor interface (Fig. 3b, cup wall 340) comprising: a channel (channel 361 [0069]) formed in and extending around a circumferential exterior surface of the articular body (channel 361 starts at the edge of liner 300 and extend all the way to the liner’s feet base or spacer’s inner tube or protector post inner hole [0069]); a locking member (Fig. 9, spacer 500) disposed in the channel (extraction of spacer 500 from liner 300 or protector 600 can be done with the help of channels 361 [0069]); a deflectable projection (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 320 (similar to spread feet ridges 120 in Fig. 7)) disposed at the second end of the articular body (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352); wherein the deflectable projection (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 320) is configured to be positioned in the second peripheral portion of the recess (Fig. 9, spread feet ridges 320 are fitted into inner hole 610 by spacer 500 [0082]) and when so positioned to be circumferentially deflected to provide friction loading on a surface of the second peripheral portion to provide a load between the locking member and a surface of the first peripheral portion (Figs. 7 and 9, spread feet ridges 120, liner 300, protector 600, and spacer 500 are held in place by pressure force exerted upon the flexible spread fleet [0082]), but fails to teach a channel formed in and extending around a circumferential exterior surface.
Knox teaches a shoulder assembly comprising a channel formed in and extending around a circumferential exterior surface (Fig. 1C, retention portion 916 is configured to provide for direct coupling between reverse insert 96A and low profile base member 104A and extends all the way around [0078]). Knox discloses that the retention portion can be compressed during insertion creating a strong connection between the reverse insert and low profile base member [0084]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the articular assembly taught by Chaudot with the channel taught by Knox in order to create a strong connection between the articular assembly and anchor body.
Regarding claim 18, Chaudot teaches wherein the deflectable projection (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 320) comprises at least two sections (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310 comprises two feet) cantilevered from a central portion of the articular body to the second end of the articular body (Fig. 3a, spread feet 310 extend from spread feet base 370 of liner 300 and end at bottom side 352).
Regarding claim 19, Chaudot teaches further comprising a compression slot (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310 comprise an opening between) disposed between each of the at least two sections (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310).
Regarding claim 20, Chaudot teaches wherein the deflectable projection (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120) comprises a tapered surface disposed on an outer circumference thereof (Fig. 3b, spread feet ridges 120 comprise a larger diameter than the central liner snap connector 305, forming a tapered shape).
Regarding claim 30, Chaudot teaches an articular humeral assembly, comprising: an articular component (Fig. 3b, corrective liner 300) configured to be coupled with a bone anchor (Fig. 9, protector 600), the articular component (Fig. 3b, corrective liner 300) comprising: an articular body having a first end (Fig. 3b, top side 351) and a second end (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352); an articular surface (Fig. 3b, glenosphere cup 350) disposed on or adjacent to the first end (Fig. 3b, top side 351); a bone anchor interface (Fig. 3b, cup wall 340) disposed between the first end (Fig. 3b, top side 351) and the second end (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352) of the articular body, the bone anchor interface (Fig. 3b, glenosphere cup 350) comprising: a channel (channel 361 [0069]) formed in a circumferential exterior surface of the articular body (channel 361 starts at the edge of liner 300 and extend all the way to the liner’s feet base or spacer’s inner tube or protector post inner hole [0069]); a locking member (Fig. 9, spacer 500) disposed in the channel (channel 361 [0069]); a deflectable portion (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120) disposed at the second end (Fig. 3b, bottom side 352) of the articular body, the deflectable portion (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120) being configured to be circumferentially deflected by a surface of the bone anchor whereby a load is directed toward the first end of the articular body from a second end of the articular body (Figs. 7 and 9, spread feet ridges 120, liner 300, protector 600, and spacer 500 are held in place by pressure force exerted upon the flexible spread fleet [0082]), but fails to teach the channel extends around a circumferential exterior surface.
Knox teaches a shoulder assembly comprising a channel formed in and extending around a circumferential exterior surface (Fig. 1C, retention portion 916 is configured to provide for direct coupling between reverse insert 96A and low profile base member 104A and extends all the way around [0078]). Knox discloses that the retention portion can be compressed during insertion creating a strong connection between the reverse insert and low profile base member [0084]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the articular assembly taught by Chaudot with the channel taught by Knox in order to create a strong connection between the articular assembly and anchor body.
Regarding claim 31, Chaudot teaches wherein the deflectable portion (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120) comprises at least two sections (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310 comprises two feet) cantilevered from a central portion of the articular body to the second end of the articular body (Fig. 3a, spread feet 310 extend from spread feet base 370 of liner 300 and end at bottom side 352).
Regarding claim 32, Chaudot teaches further comprising a compression slot (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310 comprise an opening between) disposed between each of the at least two sections (Fig. 3b, spread feet 310).
Regarding claim 33, Chaudot teaches wherein the deflectable portion (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120) comprises a tapered surface disposed on an outer circumference thereof (Fig. 3b, spread feet ridges 120 comprise a larger diameter than the central liner snap connector 305, forming a tapered shape).
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudot et al. (EP 3539513 A1), “Chaudot” in view of Deransart et al. (US 2017/0340449 A1), “Deransart”.
Regarding claim 17, Chaudot teaches the locking member (Fig. 9, spacer 500), but fails to teach wherein the locking member comprises a C-ring. Deransart teaches a modular shoulder prosthesis wherein the locking member comprises a C-ring (Fig. 7, protrusion 58 includes one or more locking members including a C-ring 60 [0114]). Deransart discloses that the C-ring may be integrally or removably formed onto the protrusion and inhibits disengagement of the C-ring from its mated groove [0114]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the locking mechanism taught by Chaudot with the C-ring taught by Deransart in order to limit separation of the assembly parts during implantation and use.
Regarding claim 21, Chaudot teaches the deflectable projection (Fig. 7, spread feet ridges 120), each section of the four sections being cantilevered from a central portion of the articular body to the second end of the articular body (Fig. 7, liner spread feet 110 (which there are two of) comprise exterior ridges 120 (which are angled (i.e., cantilevered)) which are spaced at regular intervals from each other (claims)), but fails to teach wherein the deflectable projection comprises four sections. However, “the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the deflectable projections taught by Chaudot, which there are already two of, to reflect four sections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA GISELLE B RIOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-6:00 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.
/G.G.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/ SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights