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 .
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 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “is as larger as away from”. The complete section of the claim reads “the latitudinal section of each one of the cavities is as larger as away from the outer surface”. It is unclear if “as larger as” is meant to read “as large as” or “larger than”. If this is meant to read “is as large as away from”, it is still unclear what the latitudinal section the latitudinal section size is being compared to.
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 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lundgren (US 4752294).
Regarding claim 1, Lundgren discloses an implant (figure 2) comprising:
an outer surface forming a plurality of openings 16;
a plurality of cavities 12 communicating with the openings respectively; and
a plurality of passages 21 being column-shaped and narrower than the cavities,
one end of each one of the passages communicating with a respective one of the openings, and another end of each one of the passages communicating with a respective one of the cavities (figure 2),
wherein the cavities are configured to contain a medicine (of a structure that allows a medicine to be contained therein),
wherein a maximum area of a latitudinal section of each one of the cavities (latitudinal section as shown in 2-D area of element 12 in figure 2) is larger than a sectional area of the corresponding opening (as seen in 2-D area of element 16 in figure 2) and the latitudinal sections thereof are parallel with the outer surface, and
wherein the latitudinal section of each one of the cavities is as larger as away from the outer surface (section of cavities as seen in figure 2 is larger than openings 16 away from outer surface).
Regarding claim 8, the implant is an artificial tooth root (figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed partially to the limitation “as larger as away from the outer surface”. As set forth above, this limitation is indefinite and it is unclear what is meant by the phrase. As set forth above, the prior art is understood to disclose this limitation in the sectional sections of figure 2.
Applicant argues that Lundgren fails to disclose the cavity is larger than the opening. However, as seen in figure 2, the 2-D section of the cavity is larger than that of the opening.
Applicant argues that the opening, passage and cavity are unitary structures. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each section has a clear beginning and end as seen in figure 2. Furthermore, the claim does not require them to be distinct sections in any specific manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at (571) 272-7839. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights