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 .
The Amendment filed 2/23/2026 has been entered. The previous objection to the claims is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. Claims 1-25 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to applicant’s argument on page 7 that Perler does not teach the newly amended limitations, the examiner disagrees. See rejection below for further explanation.
It is noted that applicant has not provided any arguments with respect to newly amended claim(s) 17. A new ground of rejection that does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument has been made. See rejection below for further explanation.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 recites “an intermediate component” in each of lines 5 and 7, which appear to be referring to the –intermediate component –, as previously recited in line 4. 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 1-16 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 recites “an intermediate component…including an intermediate lower face that defines a second articular surface” in lines 5-7 and “the intermediate component includes a lower face defining the second articular surface” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether the lower face defining the second articular surface is referring to the previously recited intermediate lower face that defines a second articular surface or to an additional feature of the intermediate component. For the purpose of further examination, the lower face has been interpreted to be referring to the intermediate lower face.
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(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by anticipated by US Patent No. 8,668,743 B2 to Perler (Perler).
Regarding at least claim 1
Perler teaches an ankle prosthesis, system and method including a dual bearing component, a tibial component and a talar component (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Perler meets the limitations of an ankle prosthesis comprising a tibial component (20) for being fixated to a lower end of a tibia of a patient; a talar component (12) for being fixated to a talus of a foot and including a talar upper face that defines a first articular surface (24); and an intermediate component (11) for being interposed between the talar component (12) and the tibial component (20) (fig. 1) and including an intermediate lower face that defines a second articular surface (50) configured to cooperate with the first articular surface (col. 9, lines 32-47 discloses articulation between the lower face/second articular surface 50 of the intermediate component and the superior surface/first articular surface 24 of the talar component); wherein the intermediate component includes a lower face (50) defining the second articular surface, and wherein the lower face includes a posterior protrusion (convex contours; 50c or 50b) protruding from a surface of the lower face (fig. 4), wherein the posterior protrusion fades into a posterior central depression (concave contour; 50a) of the talar component (fig. 4 shows that the convex contours fade into the central concave contour).
Regarding at least claim 3
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the first articular surface (24) is curved along a first average direction and comprises a first curved portion (anterior half of 24b together with 24a) and a second curved portion (posterior half of 24c together with 24a) that respectively define an anterior portion and a posterior portion of the first articular surface (each curved portion defines an anterior portion and a posterior portion since they extend according to said first average direction (A-A') (see annotated fig. 9 below).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Second curved portion)][AltContent: textbox (First curved portion)]
PNG
media_image2.png
216
197
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding at least claim 4
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 3, wherein the first curved portion includes a first curvature and the second curved portion includes a second curvature, the first curvature being greater than the second curvature (annotated fig. 9 above shows that first curved portion includes a first curvature and the second curved portion includes a second curvature; col. 6, lines 59-67 through col. 7, lines 1-23 and col. 9, lines 7-16 discloses that the first curvature is greater than said second curvature).
Regarding at least claim 5
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 4, wherein the first articular surface (24) comprises a talar central area (24a) that is interposed between a talar lateral area (24c) and a talar medial area (24b) and comprises a first central region of the first curved portion and a second central region which extends from the first central region and has a third curvature that is greater than the second curvature ( col. 9, lines 7-17 disclose that the radius of the concave grooves and convex ridge 24a, which includes a second central region having a third curvature located medially to the first central region as shown roughly in annotated fig. 10 below, vary with a minor arc existing laterally and becoming greater medially for anatomic-like tracking of the talar component relative to [AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (2nd central region)][AltContent: textbox (1st central region)][AltContent: textbox (Medial side)][AltContent: textbox (Lateral side)]the inferior bearing).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
364
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding at least claim 6
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 5, wherein the talar central area (24a) has a convex curvature along a second average direction (fig. 12, for example, shows a convex curvature of the central area 24a along a second average direction); and wherein the talar lateral area and talar medial area have respectively a concave curvature along the second average direction (the lateral an medial areas are shown to have a concave curvature along the second average direction in fig. 12, for example).
Regarding at least claim 7
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 6, wherein the second articular surface (50) includes an intermediate lateral area, an intermediate medial area, and an intermediate central area that are respectively configured to cooperate with the talar lateral area, the talar medial area, and the talar central area of the first articular surface (fig. 2 shows the cooperation between the lateral, medial, and central areas of the first and second articular surfaces).
PNG
media_image4.png
256
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding at least claim 8
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 7, wherein the intermediate central area (50a) has a curvature that matches the curvature of the first central region (24a) of the first curved portion of the first articular surface (24); and wherein the intermediate lateral area (50c) and the intermediate medial area (50b) have curvatures respectively matching the curvatures of a second lateral region (24c) and a second medial region (24b) of the second curved portion of the first articular surface (24) (see fig. 2).
Regarding at least claim 9
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 8, wherein the intermediate lateral area (50c) and the intermediate medial area (50b) respectively contact the second lateral region (24c) and the second medial region (24b) of the second curved portion of the first articular surface (24) during plantar flexion of the foot; and wherein the intermediate central area (50a) contacts the first central region (24a) of the first curved portion of the first articular surfaced during dorsal flexion of the foot (figs. 33 and 34 show the ankle in dorsiflexion such that the lateral and medial areas are in contact and plantar flexion such that the central areas are in contact, respectively).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perler in view of US Patent No. 4,021,864 A to Waugh (Waugh).
Regarding at least claim 2
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 1, wherein a talar lower face (28) comprising the talar component (12) is porous-coated, for the purpose of promoting bone ingrowth, and includes a ridge or projection (30) and spikes (32a-b), for the purpose of retaining the talar component onto the talus or calcaneus and prevent and/or guard against twisting after implantation (col. 7, lines 24-47 and claim 18). However, Perler does not teach a plurality of talar cuvettes that are configured to prevent a porous coating applied to the talar lower face from building up adjacent to talar studs protruding from the talar cuvettes.
Waugh teaches an ankle prosthesis including a talar component (30), the bottom (32) of which includes a centrally positioned stem (stud; 33), as well as arcuate teeth (studs; 34) which are shown to define a plurality of talar cuvettes adjacent to the stem, which, together with stem (33), are inserted into the talus, for the purpose of securing the talar component (col. 2, lines 38-42 and fig. 6).
[AltContent: textbox (cuvettes)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image5.png
156
194
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lower surface of the talar component of Perler, which has a porous coating, to include a plurality of talar cuvettes, which are capable of preventing the porous coating from building up adjacent to talar studs protruding from the talar cuvettes, in order secure the talar component to the bone, as taught by Waugh.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perler in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0249941 A1 to Fell et al. (Fell).
Regarding at least claim 10
Perler teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the tibial component includes a porous tibial upper face (col. 6, lines 31-33 disclose that the plate 70 of the tibial component 20 has a superior surface 72 that may be porous for the purpose of promoting bone ingrowth). Perler also teaches a stem feature (ridge; 76 and spikes; 78a-b) that extends vertically upward from the tibial upper face (72). Perler contemplates that the ridge (76) portion of the stem feature may not be continuous but instead be comprised of two or more segments and that other configurations and arrangements are contemplate (col. 6, lines 34-44). Perler further teaches that the spikes (78a-b) portion of the stem feature are situated on either side of the ridge (76), for the purpose of helping to retain the tibial component (20) onto the tibia and prevent and/or guard against twisting after implantation (col. 6, lines 45-55), However, Perler does not teach that the stem feature is a cruciate stem feature.
Fell teaches a prosthesis (10) shown and described as being implanted in a knee joint, and that it is understood that the prosthesis could be utilized in other joints such as, but not limited to, the hip, shoulder, wrist, ankle, or elbow, or other small joints of the foot or hand (paragraph 0129).
PNG
media_image6.png
260
488
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prosthesis (10) may include keel (22) and a cross-keel (46), for the purpose of enhancing stability of the prosthesis once inserted (paragraph 0145 and fig. 60, for example).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stem feature of Perler, which includes a longitudinal component/ridge as well as a transverse component/spikes, and is intended to retain the tibial component onto the tibia and prevent and/or guard against twisting after implantation, to be a cruciate stem feature, such that the longitudinal and transverse elements are intersecting, in order to enhance stability of the prosthesis once inserted, as taught by Fell.
Regarding at least claim 11
Perler in view of Fell teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 10, wherein the cruciate stem feature of Perler, as modified by Fell, comprises a vertically oriented tibial feature configured to provide better loading on the ankle prosthesis so as to improve fixation of the tibial component into the tibia of the patient (each of the ridge 76 and spikes 78a-b comprise a vertically oriented tibial feature since they extend vertically away from the upper surface 72 as shown in fig. 1 of Perler, and are therefore capable of providing better loading on the ankle prosthesis so as to improve fixation of the tibial component into the tibia of the patient as claimed).
Regarding at least claim 12
Perler in view of Fell teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 10, wherein the cruciate stem feature of Perler, as modified by Fell, is substantially perpendicular to the tibial upper face to orient the cruciate stem feature parallel to axial joint pressure and thus eliminate areas of poor bone contact with the tibial upper face (each of the ridge 76 and spikes 78a-b are shown to be substantially perpendicular to the upper surface 72 as shown in fig. 1 of Perler, and are therefore capable of orienting the cruciate stem feature parallel to axial joint pressure and thus eliminate areas of poor bone contact with the tibial upper face as claimed).
Regarding at least claim 13
Perler in view of Fell teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 10. Fell also teaches wherein the cruciate stem feature comprises a sloped edge that extends from an anterior edge to a posterior edge, such that the anterior edge includes an anterior height that is greater than a posterior height of the posterior edge to facilitate insertion of the tibial component into a joint space during implantation of the ankle prosthesis into the patient (paragraph 0141 discloses a tapered keel used to facilitate insertion of the prosthesis which includes an anterior height at the anterior end 24 that is greater than a posterior height at the posterior end 26; fig. 33).
PNG
media_image7.png
236
470
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cruciate stem feature of Perler in view of Fell to include a sloped edge that extends from an anterior edge to a posterior edge, such that the anterior edge includes an anterior height that is greater than a posterior height of the posterior edge to facilitate insertion of the tibial component into a joint space during implantation of the ankle prosthesis into the patient, in order to facilitate insertion of the prosthesis, as taught by Fell.
Regarding at least claim 14
Perler in view of Fell teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 13. Fell also teaches wherein the anterior edge (24) is disposed nearest an anterior face (18) of the component and the posterior edge (22) is disposed nearest a posterior face (20) of the component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cruciate stem feature of the tibia component of Perler in view of Fell, such that the anterior edge is disposed nearest a tibial anterior face of the tibial component and the posterior edge is disposed nearest a tibial posterior face of the tibial component, in order to create a tapered stem feature on the cruciate stem feature that facilitates insertion of the prosthesis, as taught by Fell.
Regarding at least claim 15
Perler in view of Fell teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 13. Fell also teaches wherein the cruciate stem feature includes a secondary edge (46) that is orthogonal to the sloped edge and extends from a medial edge to a lateral edge (paragraph 0145 discloses that the cross-keel extends in the medial-lateral direction from a medial edge to a lateral edge and is orthogonal to the keel 22 as shown in fig. 60, which is modified to have a sloped edge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cruciate stem feature with a tapered keel of Perler in view of Fell, to specify the inclusion of a secondary edge that is orthogonal to the sloped edge and extends from a medial edge to a lateral edge, in order to form the cruciate shape and facilitate insertion of the prosthesis, as taught by Fell.
Regarding at least claim 16
Perler in view of Fell teaches the ankle prosthesis of claim 15. Fell also teaches wherein the medial edge is disposed nearest a medial face of the component and the lateral edge is disposed nearest a lateral face of the component (fig. 60 shows that the medial edge of the cross-keel 46 is disposed nearest a medial face of the component and the lateral edge of the cross-keel 46 is disposed nearest a lateral face of the component).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cruciate stem of Perler in view of Fell to further specify that the medial edge is disposed nearest a tibial medial face of the tibial component and the lateral edge is disposed nearest a tibial lateral face of the tibial component, in order to create a tapered cruciate stem feature that facilitates insertion and ensures stability of the prosthesis, as taught by Fell.
Claim(s) 17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perler in view of Fell, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0041473 A1 to Rouyer et al. (Rouyer).
Regarding at least claim 17
Perler meets the limitations of a tibial component (20) for an ankle prosthesis (10), comprising: a tibial upper face (72) for fixating to a lower end of a tibia (T) of a patient (fig. 1); a stem feature (76 and 78a-b) for engaging the tibia (fig. 1); and a tibial lower face (74) for engaging with an intermediate component (11) of the ankle prosthesis (figs. 7 and 8, for example, show the upper and lower faces of the tibial component). Perler also contemplates that the ridge (76) portion of the stem feature may not be continuous but instead be comprised of two or more segments and that other configurations and arrangements are contemplate (col. 6, lines 34-44). Perler further teaches that the spikes (78a-b) portion of the stem feature are situated on either side of the ridge (76) portion of the stem feature, for the purpose of helping to retain the tibial component (20) onto the tibia and prevent and/or guard against twisting after implantation (col. 6, lines 45-55), However, Perler does not teach that the stem feature is a cruciate stem feature.
Fell teaches a prosthesis (10) shown and described as being implanted in a knee joint, and that it is understood that the prosthesis could be utilized in other joints such as, but not limited to, the hip, shoulder, wrist, ankle, or elbow, or other small joints of the foot or hand (paragraph 0129). The prosthesis (10) may include a keel (22) and a cross-keel (46), for the purpose of enhancing stability of the prosthesis once inserted (paragraph 0145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stem feature of Perler, which includes a longitudinal component/ridge as well as a transverse component/spikes, and is intended to retain the tibial component onto the tibia and prevent and/or guard against twisting after implantation, to be a cruciate stem feature, such that the longitudinal and transverse elements are intersecting, in order to enhance stability of the prosthesis once inserted, as taught by Fell.
Perler also teaches positioning and affixing the ankle joint prosthesis, which includes adjusting, at least to some extent, a disposition of the tibial component (20) with respect to the intermediate component (11) (col. 10, lines 37-42). However, Perler does not teach wherein an intermediate component shares a threaded hole with the tibial component, the threaded hole configured to facilitate the adjusting of the disposition of the tibial component with respect to an intermediate component.
Rouyer teaches an ankle prosthesis that includes a talar implant, a tibial implant, and an intermediate implant designed to be mounted to move relative to the talar implant in order to impart mobility to the ankle (abstract). Rouyer further teaches a control means that can release or inhibit first and second degrees of freedom simultaneously, and thus respectively impart adjustment capacity to the adjustment means in full or completely remove that capacity therefrom (paragraph 0054). The control means (11) includes at least one compression screw (26) disposed slantwise through access channels (threaded holes; 30) in the tibial implant to secure the intermediate implant to the tibial implant (figs. 1 and 7) such that the intermediate implant is held stationary safely relative to the tibial implant (paragraphs 0098-0102). The access channels (threaded holes; 30) are construed to be shared between the intermediate and tibial implants because they allow stable clamping of the intermediate implant for holding it stationary relative to the tibial implant, particularly since the term “share” is defined as: to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Perler to include that an intermediate component shares a threaded hole with the tibial component, the threaded hole configured to facilitate the adjusting of the disposition of the tibial component with respect to an intermediate component, in order to respectively impart adjustment capacity to the adjustment means in full or completely remove that capacity therefrom, as taught by Rouyer.
Regarding at least claim 18
Perler in view of Fell and Rouyer teaches the tibial component of claim 17. Fell also teaches wherein the cruciate stem feature (keel; 22 with 46) comprises a sloped edge that extends from an anterior edge to a posterior edge, such that the anterior edge includes an anterior height that is greater than a posterior height of the posterior edge to facilitate insertion of the tibial component into a joint space during implantation of the ankle prosthesis into the patient (paragraph 0141 discloses a tapered keel used to facilitate insertion of the prosthesis which includes an anterior height at the anterior end 24 that is greater than a posterior height at the posterior end 26; fig. 33).
PNG
media_image7.png
236
470
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cruciate stem feature of Perler in view of Fell to include a sloped edge that extends from an anterior edge to a posterior edge, such that the anterior edge includes an anterior height that is greater than a posterior height of the posterior edge to facilitate insertion of the tibial component into a joint space during implantation of the ankle prosthesis into the patient, in order to facilitate insertion of the prosthesis, as taught by Fell.
Regarding at least claim 19
Perler in view of Fell and Rouyer teaches the tibial component of claim 18. Perler also teaches that the length of the stem feature is subject to variation, so long as they help retain the tibial component onto the tibia and prevent and/or guard against twisting after implantation (col. 6, lines 45-56). Fell also teaches that the stem feature may have any length, depth, and position (paragraph 0136) and that the stem may have a tapered depth (paragraph 0141), such that an anterior height is greater than posterior height (fig. 33). Further, Fell contemplates a short depth keel (e.g., 2-3 mm) could be used to ensure insertion of the prosthesis (paragraph 0148). However, Perler in view of Fell does not explicitly teach wherein the anterior height is substantially 8 mm and the posterior height is substantially 6 mm.
The height of the tapered stem feature is disclosed by Perler and Fell to be a result effective variable in that changing the height of the stem feature changes the protruding distance which affects ease of insertion. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the tapered stem feature of Perler in view of Fell to have a height as claimed, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to be capable of adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the tapered stem feature of Perler in view of Fell by making the anterior height substantially 8 mm and the posterior height substantially 6 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding at least claim 20
Perler in view of Fell and Rouyer teaches the tibial component of claim 18. Fell also teaches wherein the cruciate stem feature includes a secondary edge (46) that is orthogonal to the sloped edge and extends from a medial edge to a lateral edge (paragraph 0145 discloses that the cross-keel extends in the medial-lateral direction from a medial edge to a lateral edge and is orthogonal to the keel 22 as shown in fig. 60, which is modified to have a sloped edge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cruciate stem feature with a tapered keel of Perler in view of Fell, to specify the inclusion of a secondary edge that is orthogonal to the sloped edge and extends from a medial edge to a lateral edge, in order to form the cruciate shape and facilitate insertion of the prosthesis, as taught by Fell.
Regarding at least claim 21
Perler in view of Fell and Rouyer teaches the tibial component of claim 20. Fell also teaches wherein the medial edge and the lateral edge include substantially similar heights (fig. 62 shows that the medial and lateral edges are similar in height).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cruciate stem feature of the tibial component Perler in view of Fell, to specify wherein the medial edge and the lateral edge include substantially similar heights above the tibial upper surface, in order to enhance stability of the prosthesis once inserted, as taught by Fell.
Regarding at least claim 22
Perler in view of Fell and Rouyer teaches the tibial component of claim 17. Perler also teaches wherein the tibial component (20) includes a tibial anterior face (front-facing side of tibia component 20 is shown to have an anterior face), an opposite tibial posterior face (back-facing side of tibia component 20 has a posterior face), a tibial medial face (left-hand side of the tibia component 20 is shown to have a medial face), and a tibial lateral face (right-hand side of the tibia component 20 is shown to have a lateral face) (see fig. 1, for example).
Regarding at least claim 23
Perler in view of Fell and Rouyer teaches the tibial component of claim 22. Perler also teaches wherein any one or more of the tibial anterior face, the tibial posterior face, the tibial medial face, and the tibial later face comprise curved surfaces configured to conform to natural anatomical structures surrounding the area of the tibia at the level of which the tibial component is intended to be implanted (fig. 28 shows the faces having curved edges that are construed as surfaces that are configured to conform to natural anatomical structures surrounding the area of the tibia because the curved surfaces prevent tissue damage).
PNG
media_image8.png
286
378
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding at least claim 24
Perler in view of Fell and Rouyer teaches the tibial component of claim 22. Perler also teaches wherein any one or more of the tibial anterior face, the tibial posterior face, the tibial medial face, and the tibial later face comprise one or more curved portions that are convex or concave with respect to the tibial component (fig. 28 shows the faces having curved edges that are construed as curved portions that are convex).
Regarding at least claim 25
Perler in view of Fell and Rouyer teaches the tibial component of claim 24. Perler also teaches wherein each of the one or more curve portions comprise a unique radius of curvature (fig. 28 shows that each of the curved portions comprise a unique radius of curvature).
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 MELISSA A HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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.
/M.A.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights