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 12 June 2026 have been entered. Claims 28-30 are new. Claims 1-6, 8, 17-19, 21-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 28-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mating convex joint replacement member” of claim 29 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6, 8, 17-19, 21-27 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what qualifies as “substantially orthogonally” or “substantially parallel” with respect to the cylindrical protrusions. Claims 2-6, 8, 17-19, 21-27 are rejected by dependency.
The term “substantially” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what qualifies as “substantially arranged in the middle” with respect to the width of the device.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the replacement member" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claim to reflect “the member of claim 1” rather than “the replacement member” to clarify. Claim 22 is rejected by dependency.
Claim 29 refers to “a mating convex joint replacement member” that is found in the specification but is overall unclear in its relationship to the replacement member of claim 1. Examiner is considering the “mating convex joint replacement member” to be similar to the “intermediate member” of claim 8, however, further clarification is required.
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 1-6, 10-19, 23-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 2014/0257495 A1), “Goldberg” in view of Winslow et al. (US 2011/0035013 A1), “Winslow” and further in view of Goldberg et al. (US 2017/0319348 A1), “Goldberg 348”.
Regarding claim 1, Goldberg teaches a replacement member for a shoulder joint replacement (Fig. 1A, glenoid component 100) comprising: an attachment face (Fig. 1C, bone-facing surface 106) on one side of the member, a concave joint surface (Fig. 2C, lateral articular surface 104) on a side of the replacement member opposite to the side of the attachment face (Fig. 2C, surface 104 is opposite to surface 106), and a circumferential face (Fig. 1B, peripheral wall 108) connecting the attachment face and the joint surface (Fig. 1B, peripheral wall 108 connects to both surfaces 104 and 106), wherein a portion of the concave joint surface (Fig. 2C, lateral articular surface 104) is connected to the circumferential face (Fig. 1B, peripheral wall 108) via a chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130 connects peripheral wall 108 and surface 104 on one end of the implant) extending between the concave joint surface and the circumferential face (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130 is placed between the lateral articular surface 104 and the peripheral wall 108 below), but fails to teach wherein the attachment face comprises a plurality of cylindrical protrusions.
Winslow teaches a glenoid component wherein the attachment face (Fig. 4A, coupling side 26) comprises a plurality of cylindrical protrusions (Fig. 4A, flanges 31 and central stem coupling mechanism 34), wherein the plurality of cylindrical protrusions comprise a first cylindrical protrusion (Fig. 4A, central stem coupling mechanism 34 further comprising central fixation stem 48 (Fig. 2)) and at least three second cylindrical protrusions (Fig. 4A, flanges 31), wherein the first cylindrical protrusion comprises at least one annular recess (Fig. 2, fixation stem 48 comprises multiple engaging flanges which form recesses between each [0037]), wherein a first of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions is located in a cranial direction from the first cylindrical protrusion (Fig. 4A, flange 31 nearest top of glenoid prosthetic 20, above central stem coupling mechanism 34) and wherein both a second of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions and a third of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions are located in a caudal direction from the first cylindrical protrusion (Fig. 4A, flanges 31 nearest bottom of glenoid prosthetic 20, below central stem coupling mechanism 34); the first cylindrical protrusion extending substantially orthogonally from the attachment face (Figs. 2 and 4A, stem 48 extends straight out from coupling mechanism 34), the at least three second cylindrical protrusions extending substantially parallel to the first cylindrical protrusion (Figs. 2 and 4A, flanges 31 extend in a parallel direction to stem 48). Winslow discloses that having multiple protrusions for anchoring the glenoid component increases its stability and security in the body [0005-0007]. 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 replacement member taught by Goldberg with the cylindrical protrusions taught by Winslow in order to increase stability of the implant when positioned in the glenoid fossa. However, Goldberg in view of Winslow fails to teach at least one partial recess.
Goldberg 348 teaches a glenoid component having protrusions (Fig. 12B, anchoring elements 3438, 3440) that each comprise at least one partial recess directed in a radial direction away from the first protrusion (Fig. 12D, anchoring elements 3438, 3440 comprise grooves 3462 which angle away from anchoring element 3442), and the partial recesses of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions facing outwardly with respect to the replacement member as a whole (Fig. 12D, grooves 3462 extend outwardly from the sides of anchoring elements 3438, 3440 with regard to glenoid component 3400). Goldberg 348 teaches that the grooves are oriented to resist forces acting perpendicular to the back side of the glenoid component [0279]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the second cylindrical protrusions taught by Goldberg in view of Winslow to reflect the partial recess taught by Goldberg 348 in order to increase implant resistance to external forces after implantation.
Regarding claim 2, Goldberg teaches wherein the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130) is configured to be located at an adductive portion of the joint replacement (Fig. 1A, glenoid component 100) when the member is implanted in a body (Fig. 5B shows anterior view of the glenoid component 100) such that the humerus moves toward the chamfered or rounded edge during adduction and a clearance remains between the member and a corresponding counterpart member in an innermost adducted position (this limitation is deemed functional language, since the claim set draws toward a product, if each element of the claimed product is taught by the prior art, it is considered capable of the functional limitation MPEP 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 3, Goldberg teaches wherein the concave joint surface face (Fig. 2C, lateral articular surface 104) has a curved profile (Fig. 2C, surface 104 is shaped to complement the humeral articular surface and is concave, planar, or convex [0073]), the curved profile being spherical, ellipsoidal, or ovoid shaped (Fig. 2C, lateral articular surface 104 is spherical [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Goldberg teaches wherein the attachment face (Fig. 1C, bone-facing surface 106) is configured to fixedly attach the member to bone tissue or to another replacement member (Fig. 5B, surface 106 attaches to glenoid fossa 4).
Regarding claim 5, Goldberg teaches wherein the member is a glenoid replacement or a humeral replacement (Fig. 1A, glenoid component 100).
Regarding claim 6, Goldberg teaches wherein a section forming the joint surface comprises a composition of Vitamin E and UHMWPE (glenoid component 100 is fabricated from UHMWPE and other biodegradable materials (i.e., Vitamin E) [0116]).
Regarding claim 17, Goldberg teaches further comprising a first edge (Fig. 3B, upper edge of glenoid component 100) that surrounds the joint surface along its entire circumference (Figs. 3A-E, upper edge of glenoid component 100 extends around entire component), and a second edge (Fig. 3B, lower edge of glenoid component 100), the first edge (Fig. 3B, lower edge of glenoid component 100) comprising a first portion (Fig. 3C, upper edge surrounding glenoid component 100 above inferior chamfer 130) and a second portion (Fig. 3C, upper edge surrounding glenoid component 100 along inferior chamfer 130), the second portion connecting the joint surface with the surface of the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 3C, upper edge surrounding glenoid component 100 along inferior chamfer 130 connects with lateral articular surface 104), wherein the second portion (Fig. 3C, lower edge surrounding glenoid component 100 along inferior chamfer 130) is parallel to an axis defining the center of the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 3B, upper and lower edges of glenoid component 100 are parallel).
Regarding claim 19, Goldberg teaches wherein the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130) comprises a width, which tapers towards the two ends (Fig. 2C, width of inferior chamfer 130 surface narrows as it reaches anterior and posterior reliefs 134, 136).
Regarding claim 23, Goldberg teaches wherein the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130) extends between two ends (Fig. 2C, anterior relief 134 and posterior relief 136) thereof in a circumferential direction of the concave joint surface (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130 extends across to both sides (anterior to posterior) of lateral articular surface 104), the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130) having a length in the circumferential direction (Fig. 2C, outer circumference of inferior chamfer 130) that is shorter than a circumferential length of the circumferential face and of the concave joint surface (Fig. 1A-B, peripheral wall 108 of lateral articular surface 104 extends around body 102 [0071] (i.e., is longer than inferior chamfer circumferential length)), wherein the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130) comprising a maximum width between the two ends (Fig. 3E, largest width of inferior chamfer 130 occurs closest to anterior and posterior reliefs 134, 136), wherein at least one of the two ends comprises a minimum width of the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 3E, center edge of inferior chamfer 130 comprises thinnest width), and wherein a surface of the chamfered or rounded edge corresponds to a surface of a truncated cone (Figs. 3B and D, inferior chamfer 130 is angled and cuts off, similar to a truncated cone (see Modified Figure 3D of Final Office Action dated 6 May 2025)), the maximum width being substantially arranged in the middle between the two ends (Fig. 3E, largest width of inferior chamfer 130 occurs closest to anterior and posterior reliefs 134, 136).
Regarding claim 24, Goldberg fails to teach the limitations of claim 24. Winslow teaches a glenoid component wherein the second of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions and the third of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions (Fig. 4A, flanges 31 nearest bottom of glenoid prosthetic 20, below central stem coupling mechanism 34) are both offset from a straight line defined by the first cylindrical protrusion and the first of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions (Fig. 4A, bottom flanges 31 are spaced on either side of central stem coupling mechanism 34 and upper flange 31 which are in linear alignment), wherein the second of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions and the third of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions are configured to increase stability against an anteversion-/retroversion movement (pegged glenoid components stabilize and secure the glenoid component to the scapula [0005], MPEP 2173.05(g)). Winslow discloses that having multiple protrusions for anchoring the glenoid component increases its stability and security in the body [0005-0007]. 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 replacement member taught by Goldberg with the cylindrical protrusions taught by Winslow in order to increase stability of the implant when positioned in the glenoid fossa.
Regarding claim 25, Goldberg fails to teach the limitations of claim 25. Winslow teaches a glenoid component wherein the first cylindrical protrusion extends further from the attachment face than each of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions (Figs. 16, 18B, and 20, central stem coupling mechanism 34 which further comprises central fixation peg 48 when implanted extends longer than flanges 31). Winslow discloses that having multiple protrusions for anchoring the glenoid component increases its stability and security in the body [0005-0007]. 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 replacement member taught by Goldberg with the cylindrical protrusions taught by Winslow in order to increase stability of the implant when positioned in the glenoid fossa.
Regarding claim 26, Goldberg fails to teach the limitations of claim 26. Winslow teaches a glenoid component comprising at least three second cylindrical protrusions (Fig. 4A, flanges 31) and the first cylindrical protrusion (Fig. 4A, central stem coupling mechanism 34 further comprising central fixation stem 48 (Fig. 18B)). Winslow discloses that having multiple protrusions for anchoring the glenoid component increases its stability and security in the body [0005-0007]. 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 replacement member taught by Goldberg with the cylindrical protrusions taught by Winslow in order to increase stability of the implant when positioned in the glenoid fossa. However, Goldberg in view of Winslow fails to teach each consist of two partial recesses directed in a radial direction away from the first cylindrical protrusion.
Goldberg 348 teaches a glenoid component having protrusions (Fig. 12B, anchoring elements 3438, 3440) that each comprise at least one partial recess directed in a radial direction away from the first protrusion (Fig. 12D, anchoring elements 3438, 3440 comprise grooves 3462 which angle away from anchoring element 3442), the partial recesses facing outwardly in respect to the replacement member as a whole (Fig. 12D, grooves 3462 extend outwardly from the sides of anchoring elements 3438, 3440 with regard to glenoid component 3400). Goldberg discloses that the grooves are oriented to resist forces acting perpendicular to the back side of the glenoid component [0279]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the second cylindrical protrusions taught by Goldberg in view of Winslow to reflect the partial recess taught by Goldberg 348 in order to increase implant resistance to external forces after implantation.
Regarding claim 27, Goldberg fails to teach the limitations of claim 27. Winslow teaches a glenoid component wherein the first cylindrical protrusion consists of two annular recesses (Fig. 18B, central stem coupling mechanism 34 further comprises central fixation peg 48 which comprises 3 annular recesses). Winslow discloses that having multiple protrusions for anchoring the glenoid component increases its stability and security in the body [0005-0007]. 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 replacement member taught by Goldberg with the cylindrical protrusions taught by Winslow in order to increase stability of the implant when positioned in the glenoid fossa.
Regarding claim 28, Goldberg teaches wherein the attachment face is formed in a convex shape (Fig. 1C, bone-facing surface 106 is convex [0077]).
Regarding claim 30, Goldberg fails to teach the limitations of claim 30. Winslow teaches a glenoid component wherein the second and third of the at least three second cylindrical protrusions are located on a side opposite to the side where the chamfered or rounded edge is located (Fig. 2, two lower flanges 31 opposite reference number 20 of glenoid prosthetic) in order to increase stability of the implant when positioned in the glenoid fossa.
Claims 8 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 2014/0257495 A1), “Goldberg” in view of Winslow et al. (US 2011/0035013 A1), “Winslow” and Goldberg et al. (US 2017/0319348 A1), “Goldberg 348” and further in view of Hopkins (US 2018/0092747 A1), “Hopkins”.
Regarding claim 8, Goldberg teaches a shoulder joint replacement, comprising: a member of claim 1 (Fig. 1A, glenoid component 100), but Goldberg in view of Winslow and Goldberg 348 fails to teach an intermediate member, wherein the member and the intermediate member comprises a device attachment face configured to mate with a corresponding part of the member.
Hopkins teaches a convertible glenoid system comprising an intermediate member (Fig. 1B, baseplate 102), wherein the member (Fig. 3B, liner 332) and the intermediate member (Fig. 1B, baseplate 102) comprises a device attachment face (Fig. 1B, lateral-facing surface 104) configured to mate with a corresponding part of the member (Fig. 4, liner 332 and baseplate 102 are attached). Hopkins discloses that the baseplate can be treated to improve its fixation to the bone, such as surface blasting, hydroxyapatite coating, plasma spray, and more [0030]. 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 glenoid component taught by Goldberg with the baseplate taught by Hopkins in order to promote integration of the implant into the patient’s bone.
Regarding claim 21, Goldberg in view of Winslow and Goldberg 348 fail to teach the limitations of claim 21. Hopkins teaches wherein the device attachment face comprises a first through hole (Fig. 1B, lateral-facing surface 104 comprises slots 124, 126 which further comprise middle peg 114), wherein a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions of the replacement member comprises an attachment structure that is configured to mate with a corresponding structure of the first through hole (Fig. 4, centering feature 340 of liner 332 mates with recess 228 of middle peg 114 of baseplate 102), the first through hole extending through a first protrusion of the intermediate member to the other side of the intermediate member along a longitudinal direction of the first protrusion (Fig. 4, recess 228 extends from surface 104 to opposite end of middle peg 114). Hopkins discloses that the attachable middle peg extension allows for greater flexibility in selecting a configuration for the area of the extension that contacts bone to best match the anatomy of the patient [0064]. 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 device taught by Goldberg in view of Amis with the through hole and protrusions taught by Hopkins in order to create a more patient-specific implant.
Regarding claim 22, Goldberg in view of Winslow and Goldberg 348 fails to teach the limitations of claim 22. Hopkins teaches a first embodiment of a convertible glenoid component which comprises a snap-fit connection that is configured to snap into a corresponding connection part (Fig, 4, mating features snap into circumferential groove 120 [0035]). Hopkins discloses that the baseplate can be treated to improve its fixation to the bone, such as surface blasting, hydroxyapatite coating, plasma spray, and more [0030]. 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 glenoid component taught by Goldberg with the baseplate taught by Hopkins in order to promote integration of the implant into the patient’s bone. However, the first embodiment of Hopkins fails to teach the attachment structure and the first through hole.
Hopkins further teaches a second embodiment of the convertible glenoid component taught by Hopkins discloses the attachment structure (Fig. 7, male threads 754 at medial end of middle peg 714) and the first through hole (Fig. 7, middle peg 714 comprises male threads 754 to mate with middle peg extension 752 [0063]). Hopkins discloses that the attachable middle peg extension allows for greater flexibility in selecting a configuration for the area of the extension that contacts bone to best match the anatomy of the patient [0064]. 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 device taught by Goldberg in view of Amis with the snap-fit connections of the first embodiment taught by Hopkins and the attachment structure and holes taught by the second embodiment of Hopkins in order to create a more patient-specific implant.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 2014/0257495 A1), “Goldberg” in view of Winslow et al. (US 2011/0035013 A1), “Winslow” and Goldberg et al. (US 2017/0319348 A1), “Goldberg 348” and further in view of Amis et al. (US 2018/0104065 A1), “Amis”.
Regarding claim 18, Goldberg teaches a chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 2C, inferior chamfer 130), wherein the maximum width is defined between the second edge portion and the second edge portion and the second edge and is situated between two ends of the chamfered or rounded edge (Fig. 3E, largest width of inferior chamfer 130 occurs closest to anterior and posterior reliefs 134, 136), but Goldberg in view of Winslow and Goldberg 348 fails to teach wherein the maximum width of the chamfered or rounded edge is at least 3 mm; and wherein the minimum width of the chamfered or rounded edge is less than 3 mm.
Amis teaches a prosthetic glenoid component wherein the maximum width of the chamfered or rounded edge is at least 3 mm; and wherein the minimum width of the chamfered or rounded edge is less than 3 mm (Fig. 4, axis 20 defines component 10, and radius of curvature R1 defines the inferior end which is smaller, wherein Table 1 reflects a minimum width of the component 10 sizes to be 23 mm). Amis discloses that the measurements of Table 1 are exemplary approximate sizes wherein the width is defined as being the maximum dimension transverse to the defined axis [0086]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the glenoid component taught by Goldberg to reflect the sizes taught by Amis in order to provide an implant that is best suited to a patient.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 2014/0257495 A1), “Goldberg” in view of Winslow et al. (US 2011/0035013 A1), “Winslow” and Goldberg et al. (US 2017/0319348 A1), “Goldberg 348” and further in view of Rao (US 2017/0202685 A1), “Rao”.
Regarding claim 29, Goldberg teaches the concave joint surface (Fig. 2C, lateral articular surface 104) wherein the concave joint surface is configured to engage with a mating convex joint replacement member (humeral implant includes a ball or convex articular surface at proximal end thereof which engages with concave articular surface of the glenoid implant [0005]), but Goldberg in view of Winslow and Goldberg 348 fails to teach a dimensional mismatch between a diameter of the concave joint surface and a diameter of the mating convex joint replacement member is in a range of 4 to 16 mm.
Rao teaches an orthopedic trial system wherein a dimensional mismatch between a diameter of the concave joint surface and a diameter of the mating convex joint replacement member is in a range of 4 to 16 mm (the diameter of the glenoid component is approximately 6mm larger than the humeral head [0050]). Rao discloses that the total shoulder arthroplasty procedure is performed with the intention of resecting the bones and positioning the glenoid and humeral components to restore the axis of rotation of the joint [0049]. 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 glenoid component taught by Goldberg with the mating convex joint replacement member and sizing taught by Rao in order to better maintain the initial axis of rotation of the joint.
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