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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments filed 5 June 2026 have been entered. Claims 28-34 are new. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-12, 16-17, 28-34 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 6-7, 10-12, 16-17, 28, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perego et al. (WO 2019/053576 A1), “Perego” in view of Kovacs et al. (US Pat. No. 10034757 B2), “Kovacs”.
Regarding claim 1, Perego teaches an implant system (Fig. 1 depicts a total shoulder prosthesis system) comprising: a base plate (Fig. 1, base plate 17) having at least two thru-holes (Fig. 9a, base plate 17 comprises multiple through holes); a central screw (Fig. 1, screw 21) extending from a lower surface of the base plate and operable to threadingly anchor the base plate to a bone (Fig. 1, screw 21 extends from bottom of base plate 17 and fixes base plate 17 to bone (pg. 38, lines 15-16)); at least one peripheral screw extending through a first thru-hole of the at least two thru-holes (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18 extends through hole in base plate 17), the at least one peripheral screw having threads operable to screw into the bone (Fig. 5c, pivot screw 18 comprises threads on upper portion and fixes glenoid base plate 17 to the glenoid bone (pg. 33, par. 2)); and at least one augmentation device extending through a second thru-hole of the at least two thru-holes (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18’ extends through hole in base plate 17), the at least one augmentation device comprising: (i) a post having a first end (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18’ forms posts with a top side (leftmost side of pivot screw 18’ in Fig. 1), a second end, and a length sized to enable the at least one augmentation device to extend into a defect in the bone when the base plate is anchored to the bone (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18’ comprises an end opposite its top side which fixes base plate 17 to bone (pg. 37, lines 22-23)), (ii) a fastener portion positioned on the first end of the post (Fig. 7c, pivot screw 18’ comprises top portion having threads secured within base plate 17), the fastener portion is secured to the base plate (Fig. 7c, threaded top side of pivot screw 18’ couples pins to base plate 17), and (iii) a footing portion positioned on the second end of the post (Fig. 7c, bottom conical portion of pivot screw 18’), the footing portion configured to press against a bone surface within the defect when the fastener portion is coupled to the base plate (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18’ comprises an end opposite its top side which fixes base plate 17 to bone (pg. 37, lines 22-23)), but fails to teach the footing portion comprising a flat bottom.
Kovacs teaches an augmented glenoid system comprising a footing portion comprising a flat bottom (Fig. 11, fixation posts 204A-C comprise a flat bottom). Kovacs discloses that the design of its glenoid system works to minimize bone removal during implantation of the device (col. 9, par. 2). 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 augmentation device taught by Perego with the footing portion shape taught by Kovacs in order to minimize bone removal during implantation to promote integration of the device within the patient.
Regarding claim 2, Perego teaches a central bore (Fig. 9a, central hole of base plate 17) disposed in the base plate (Fig. 9a, base plate 17); wherein the central screw (Fig. 1, screw 21) couples and extends through the central bore (Fig. 7d, screw 21 extends through central hole of base plate 17).
Regarding claim 6, Perego teaches the at least two thru-holes (Fig. 9a, base plate 17 comprises multiple through holes) comprising a plurality of threaded thru-holes disposed circumferentially around the central bore (Fig. 7d, central hole coupling with screw 21 is surrounded by peripheral holes coupling with pins 18, 18’); and the fastener portion comprising a threaded fastener portion having threads configured to engage with the threads of the second thru-hole of the plurality of threaded thru-holes (Fig. 7c, threaded top side of pivot screw 18’ couples pins to base plate 17).
Regarding claim 7, Perego teaches the at least one peripheral screw comprising: second threads configured to engage with threads of the first thru-hole (Fig. 5c, pivot screw 18 comprises threads on upper portion and fixes glenoid base plate 17 to the glenoid bone (pg. 33, par. 2)), but fails to teach wherein the threads of the at least one peripheral screw are first threads.
Kovacs teaches an augmented glenoid system wherein the threads of the at least one peripheral screw are first threads (Fig. 11, fixation posts 204A-C comprise lower threaded portion). Kovacs discloses that the design of its glenoid system works to minimize bone removal during implantation of the device (col. 9, par. 2). 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 peripheral screw taught by Perego with the first threads taught by Kovacs in order to minimize bone removal during implantation to promote integration of the device within the patient.
Regarding claim 10, Perego teaches one of a glenosphere and a glenoid liner (Fig. 3, glenosphere 23) operable to be attached to the base plate (Fig. 3, base plate 17) after the base plate is anchored to the bone (Fig. 3, pins and screws couple the base plate 17 to the bone (pg. 37-38)).
Regarding claim 11, Perego teaches an implant system (Fig. 1 depicts a total shoulder prosthesis system) comprising: a base plate (Fig. 1, base plate 17) having a plurality of threaded peripheral holes disposed circumferentially around a central region of the base plate (Fig. 7d, central hole coupling with screw 21 is surrounded by peripheral holes coupling with screws 20, 20’); a central screw (Fig. 1, screw 21) extending from a lower surface of the base plate and operable to threadingly anchor the base plate to a bone (Fig. 1, screw 21 extends from bottom of base plate 17 and fixes base plate 17 to bone (pg. 38, lines 15-16)); at least one peripheral screw extending through a first peripheral hole of the plurality of threaded peripheral holes (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18 extends through hole in base plate 17), the at least one peripheral screw having threads operable to screw into the bone (Fig. 5c, pivot screw 18 comprises threads on upper portion and fixes glenoid base plate 17 to the glenoid bone (pg. 33, par. 2)); and at least one augmentation device operable to extend through a second peripheral hole of the plurality of threaded peripheral holes (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18’ extends through hole in base plate 17), the at least one augmentation device comprising: (i) a post having a first end (Fig. 1, pin 18’ forms post with a top side (leftmost side of pin 18’ in Fig. 1)), a second end, and a length sized to enable the at least one augmentation device to extend into a defect in the bone when the base plate is anchored to the bone (Fig. 1, pin 18’ comprises end opposite its top side which fixes base plate 17 to bone (pg. 37, lines 22-23)), (ii) a threaded fastener portion positioned on the first end of the post (Fig. 7c, pin 18’ comprise top portion having threads), the threaded fastener portion having threads engaged with the threads of the second peripheral hole (Fig. 7c, pin 18’ comprise top portion having threads secured within base plate 17); and (iii) a footing portion positioned on the second end of the post, the footing portion operable to abut against the bone within the defect (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18’ comprises an end opposite its top side which fixes base plate 17 to bone (pg. 37, lines 22-23)), but fails to teach the footing portion comprising a flat bottom.
Kovacs teaches an augmented glenoid system comprising a footing portion comprising a flat bottom (Fig. 11, fixation posts 204A-C comprise a flat bottom). Kovacs discloses that the design of its glenoid system works to minimize bone removal during implantation of the device (col. 9, par. 2). 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 augmentation device taught by Perego with the footing portion shape taught by Kovacs in order to minimize bone removal during implantation to promote integration of the device within the patient.
Regarding claim 12, Perego teaches a central bore (Fig. 9a, central hole of base plate 17) disposed in the base plate (Fig. 9a, base plate 17); wherein the central screw is separable from the base plate and operable to extend through the central bore (Figs. 1 and 7d, screw 21 extends through central hole of base plate 17 and can separate from it).
Regarding claim 16, Perego teaches the at least one peripheral screw comprising: second threads configured to engage with threads of the first peripheral hole of the plurality of peripheral holes (Fig. 5c, pivot screw 18 comprises threads on upper portion and fixes glenoid base plate 17 to the glenoid bone (pg. 33, par. 2)), but fails to teach wherein the threads of the at least one peripheral screw are first threads.
Kovacs teaches an augmented glenoid system wherein the threads of the at least one peripheral screw are first threads (Fig. 11, fixation posts 204A-C comprise lower threaded portion). Kovacs discloses that the design of its glenoid system works to minimize bone removal during implantation of the device (col. 9, par. 2). 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 peripheral screw taught by Perego with the first threads taught by Kovacs in order to minimize bone removal during implantation to promote integration of the device within the patient.
Regarding claim 17, Perego teaches at least one of a glenosphere and a glenoid liner (Fig. 3, glenosphere 23), wherein the glenosphere and glenoid liner are coupled to the base plate (Fig. 3, base plate 17) after the base plate is anchored to the bone (Fig. 3, pins and screws couple the base plate 17 to the bone (pg. 37-38)).
Regarding claim 28, Perego teaches the footing portion (Fig. 1, pivot screw 18’ comprises an end opposite its top side) is operable to pressingly engage and not penetrate the bone surface within the defect when the fastener portion is coupled to the base plate (Fig. 1, top portion of pivot screw 18’ comprising threads are secured within base plate 17), but fails to teach the footing portion is operable to pressingly engage and not penetrate the bone surface within the defect when the fastener portion is coupled to the base plate. However, because the current claim set is directed toward an apparatus, this claim limitation is deemed functional. Therefore, since the prior art teaches the footing portion and fastener portion, it is considered capable of meeting the functional claim limitations.
Regarding claim 30, Perego teaches wherein the base plate further comprises a plurality of arcuate protrusions extending from the lower surface of the base plate and disposed circumferentially about the central screw (Fig. 8b-9a, base plate 17 comprises outer edge 161 that extends as a peripheral flange and morse cone 165 extending in a circle around where screw 21 is implanted).
Regarding claim 31, Perego teaches wherein the base plate further comprises a plurality of arcuate protrusions extending from the lower surface of the base plate and disposed circumferentially about the central screw (Fig. 8b-9a, base plate 17 comprises outer edge 161 that extends as a peripheral flange and morse cone 165 extending in a circle around where screw 21 is implanted).
Regarding claim 32, Perego teaches wherein the post includes a porous surface to provide sites for bone ingrowth (Figs. 15a-b, trabecular surface of one or more components of the shoulder prosthesis allows bone regrowth inside the pores (pg. 31, par. 2-4)).
Regarding claim 33, Perego teaches wherein the post is non-threaded (Fig. 1, lower portion of pin 18’ does not comprise threads).
Regarding claim 34, Perego teaches wherein the at least one peripheral screw has a pointed tip (Fig. 1, pins 18, 18’ are conical (i.e., pointed) at the bottom).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perego et al. (WO 2019/053576 A1), “Perego” in view of Kovacs et al. (US Pat. No. 10034757 B2), “Kovacs”, and further in view of Kovacs et al. (US 2016/0045323 A1), “Kovacs 323”.
Regarding claim 29, Perego teaches the base plate (Fig. 1, base plate 17) and central screw (Fig. 1, screw 21), but fails to teach wherein the base plate further comprises a plurality of arcuate slots extending through the base plate and disposed circumferentially about the central screw.
Kovacs 323 teaches a glenoid implant wherein the base plate further comprises a plurality of arcuate slots extending through the base plate and disposed circumferentially about (Fig. 12B, implant 10f comprises apertures 90f that are elongate or kidney-shaped and define a circular pattern around the implant [0082-0083, 0085]). Kovacs 323 discloses that the kidney-shaped apertures allow for relative rotation between the inserts when coupled together which further allows the inserts to cover a larger deficiency of the bone [0089]. 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 arcuate slots taught by Kovacs with the base plate taught by Perego in order to treat a larger bone deficiency or eroded bone region.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GABRIELLA G. B. RIOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00AM-6:00PM CST.
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, JERRAH C EDWARDS can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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
/YASHITA SHARMA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights