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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments filed 30 January 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-7 of remarks, filed 30 January 2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 January 2026 regarding claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that “treating…Mommaert’s [pin] as corresponding to the lamella-based anchoring element recited in claim 1 requires impermissible hindsight reconstruction using Applicant’s disclosure as a guide” (pg. 9 of remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lamella is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a thin flat scale, membrane, or layer”. Applicant’s specification offers no further definition of “lamella” that differentiates from this definition, and therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation of Applicant’s claims, Mommaert’s pin fits the definition.
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 1-11 and 13 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 the limitation "the cortical bone" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 and 13 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cortical bone" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is rejected by dependency.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cortical bone" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is rejected by dependency.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos et al. (US 2015/0182340 A1), “Ramos” in view of Mommaerts (US 2019/0192302 A1), and further in view of Tatum, Jr. (US Pat. No. 4511335), “Tatum”.
Regarding claim 1, Ramos teaches a prosthetic device for a temporomandibular joint (Fig. 2, prosthesis 50 for a temporomandibular joint [0119]) comprising a first prosthetic component (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52), able to be associated with a mandibular condyle of a patient [0013], and a coordinated second prosthetic component (Fig. 2, condylar prosthesis 10), able to be associated with a respective glenoid fossa of said patient [0013], wherein said first prosthetic component (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52) is configured to cooperate with said second prosthetic component to define said temporomandibular joint (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52 is attached to the skill and able to receive joint head 16 of the condylar prosthesis 10 [0120]) and comprises a concave portion (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52 comprises a concave underside to receive round joint head 16 [0120]), defining a coupling seating having a shape mating with the shape of said mandibular condyle (Fig. 2, underside of temporal prosthesis 52 fits with joint head 16 of condylar prosthesis 10 [0120]), wherein said first prosthetic component (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52) comprises at least one anchoring element (Fig. 2, screws 54) projecting from, and attached at least to, said concave portion (Fig. 8, screws 54 project from temporal prosthesis 52 and attach to the concave underside of temporal prosthesis 52), being contained in said concave portion (Fig. 8, screws 54 are secured within temporal underside 52), said anchoring element (Fig. 8, screws 54) having a main extension along a latero-medial axis (Fig. 8, screws are implanted to the side of joint head 16 and extend beyond temporal prosthesis 52) and being configured to be inserted into a mating anchoring seating (Fig. 3, joint head 16) present on said mandibular condyle (Fig. 3, top 18 of branch 20 of mandible 22), and in that said coupling seating (Fig. 2, underside of temporal prosthesis 52 fits with joint head 16 of condylar prosthesis 10 [0120]) is at least partly open along said latero-medial axis (Fig. 8, underside of temporal prosthesis 52 engages with joint head 16 and leaves the rest of the underside available (i.e., open)) but fails to teach wherein the anchoring element is configured as a lamella attached at the upper part to the upper wall, on the side of the concave portion, and laterally to the external lateral wall, and wherein the lamella is provided with a chamfer configured to guide insertion of the latero-medial of the first prosthetic component into the anchoring seating on the condyle.
Mommaerts teaches a temporomandibular prosthesis wherein the anchoring element (Fig. 1D, pin 7) is configured as a lamella attached at the upper part to the upper wall (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends from neck 8), on the side of the concave portion (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends from neck 8 between wings 3 and 4 [0040]), and laterally to the external lateral wall (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends between wings 3 and 4 [0040] at an angle), and wherein the lamella is provided with a chamfer configured to guide insertion of the latero-medial of the first prosthetic component into the anchoring seating on the condyle (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends at an angle to be attached to the jaw bone and act as an intramedullary pin [0040]), but fails to teach wherein the lamella has a linear comb-like conformation along said latero-medial axis X and is configured to promote the osseointegration with the cortical bone of the mandibular condyle. Mommaerts discloses that repositioning the attachment area at the ascending branch of the mandible leaves the area near the jaw angle undisturbed [0012]. 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 first prosthetic component taught by Ramos with the anchoring element taught by Mommaerts in order to preserve the natural state of the jaw as much as possible. However Ramos in view of Mommaerts fails to teach a linear comb-like conformation along said latero-medial axis X and is configured to promote the osseointegration with the cortical bone of the mandibular condyle.
Tatum teaches an endosseous mandible implant wherein a linear comb-like conformation along said latero-medial axis X and is configured to promote the osseointegration with the cortical bone of the mandibular condyle (Fig. 2, blade portion 22 comprises mesial and distal indentations 40, 42 which facilitate anchorage (col. 2, lines 41-45)). Tatum discloses that the indentations permit vertical alignment of the implant within the socket (col. 5, lines 66-68). 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 lamella taught by Moemmaerts with the comb-like features taught by Tatum in order to better secure and align the implant within the bone.
Regarding claim 2, Ramos teaches wherein said first prosthetic component (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52) further comprises an external lateral portion (Fig. 2, connection plate 26) configured to couple laterally with said condyle (Fig. 3, connection plate 26 attaches to lateral face 30 of the mandible [0090]).
Regarding claim 3, Ramos teaches wherein said first prosthetic component (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52) comprises a shell (Fig. 8, temporal prosthesis assumes shape of a plate 56) having an upper wall (Fig. 2, top portion of temporal prosthesis 52) and an external lateral wall (Fig. 2, side of temporal prosthesis 52 comprising holes for screws 58), disposed inclined with respect to said upper wall (Fig. 2, side of prosthesis 52 comprising holes is angled from top portion), wherein said shell (Fig. 8, temporal prosthesis assumes shape of a plate 56) is open (Fig. 8, underside of temporal prosthesis 52 engages with joint head 16 and leaves the rest of the underside available (i.e., open)), as well as at the bottom, also along said latero-medial axis in a zone opposite said external lateral wall (Fig. 2, side of temporal prosthesis 52 comprising holes for screws 58) and terminal of said upper wall (Fig. 2, top portion of temporal prosthesis 52).
Regarding claim 4, Ramos teaches wherein said anchoring element (Fig. 2, screws 54) is fixed at the upper part to said upper wall (Fig. 2, top portion of temporal prosthesis 52), on the side of said concave portion (Fig. 8, screws 54 are secured within temporal underside 52), and laterally to said external lateral wall (Fig. 2, side of temporal prosthesis 52 comprising holes for screws 58), but fails to teach wherein the anchoring element is a lamella, said lamella projecting in a direction orthogonal to said upper wall.
Mommaerts teaches a prosthesis for a temporomandibular joint wherein the anchoring element is a lamella (Fig. 1D, pin 7), said lamella projecting in a direction orthogonal to said upper wall (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends from upper wall of neck 8 and between wings 3 and 4 [0040] at an angle). Mommaerts discloses that repositioning the attachment area at the ascending branch of the mandible leaves the area near the jaw angle undisturbed [0012]. 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 first prosthetic component taught by Ramos with the anchoring element taught by Mommaerts in order to preserve the natural state of the jaw as much as possible.
Regarding claim 5, Ramos teaches a latero-medial axis (Fig. 8, screws are implanted to the side of joint head 16 and extend beyond temporal prosthesis 52 (i.e., angled/implanted along an axis)) and a length equal to the extension in the same direction (Fig. 8, length L26 of connection plate 26 is approximately equal to length L14 of anchoring stem 14), but fails to teach a lamella that has a longitudinal extension, or length.
Mommaerts teaches a prosthesis for a temporomandibular joint comprising a lamella that has a longitudinal extension, or length (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends from neck 8 between wings 3 and 4 [0040]). Mommaerts discloses that repositioning the attachment area at the ascending branch of the mandible leaves the area near the jaw angle undisturbed [0012]. 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 first prosthetic component taught by Ramos with the anchoring element taught by Mommaerts in order to preserve the natural state of the jaw as much as possible.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos et al. (US 2015/0182340 A1), “Ramos” in view of Mommaerts (US 2019/0192302 A1), “Mommaerts”, and Tatum, Jr. (US Pat. No. 4511335), “Tatum”, and further in view of Johnston et al. (US 2009/0138092 A1), “Johnston”.
Regarding claim 6, Ramos fails to teach the limitations of claim 6. Mommaerts teaches a prosthesis for a temporomandibular joint comprising said lamella (Fig. 1D, pin 7) that is configured to promote the primary stabilization of the prosthesis (Fig. 1D, pin 7 is positioned intramedullary [0040] (i.e., anchored within bone to stabilize the implant)). Mommaerts discloses that repositioning the attachment area at the ascending branch of the mandible leaves the area near the jaw angle undisturbed [0012]. 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 first prosthetic component taught by Ramos with the anchoring element taught by Mommaerts in order to preserve the natural state of the jaw as much as possible. However, Ramos in view Mommaerts and Tatum fails to teach the neoformation of cancellous bone and the osseointegration with the cortical bone of said condyle.
Johnston teaches a temporomandibular joint replacement system with the neoformation of cancellous bone and the osseointegration with the cortical bone of said condyle (the structures of the replacement joint system contain pores which allow for bone ingrowth and can be enhanced by providing bone growth stimulating compositions [0010]). Johnston discloses that the pores comprised on the parts of the replacement system improve the union of the device with the bone [0010]. 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 lamella taught by Ramos with the anchoring element and positioning taught by Mommaerts, and the osseointegration features taught by Johnston in order to promote the integration of the implant for quicker healing of the patient.
Regarding claim 7, Ramos fails to teach the limitations of claim 7. Mommaerts teaches said lamella (Fig. 1D, pin 7), but Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Tatum fails to teach macro grooves and micro grooves to promote the neoformation of cancellous bone and the osseointegration with the cortical bone of said condyle.
Johnston teaches a temporomandibular joint replacement system having macro grooves and micro grooves to promote the neoformation of cancellous bone and the osseointegration with the cortical bone of said condyle (the structures of the replacement joint system contain pores which allow for bone ingrowth and can be enhanced by providing bone growth stimulating compositions [0010]). Johnston discloses that the pores comprised on the parts of the replacement system improve the union of the device with the bone [0010]. 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 lamella taught by Mommaerts and the osseointegration features taught by Johnston in order to promote the integration of the implant for quicker healing of the patient.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos et al. (US 2015/0182340 A1), “Ramos” in view of Mommaerts (US 2019/0192302 A1), “Mommaerts”, and Tatum, Jr. (US Pat. No. 4511335), “Tatum”, and Johnston et al. (US 2009/0138092 A1), “Johnston”, and further in view of Schwartz (US 2015/0320563 A1), “Schwartz”.
Regarding claim 8, Ramos fails to teach the limitations of claim 8. Mommaerts teaches said lamella (Fig. 1D, pin 7), but Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Tatum and Johnston fails to teach a plurality of teeth suitably inter-spaced to define said macro grooves.
Schwartz teaches a temporomandibular joint prosthesis having a plurality of teeth (Fig. 76, fingers 122) suitably inter-spaced (Fig. 76, fingers 122 are circumferentially spaced apart on outer edge 101) to define said macro grooves (Fig. 76, fingers 122 are circumferentially spaced apart on outer edge 101, creating openings (i.e., macro grooves) along said outer edge 101). Schwartz discloses that the fingers are made to engage with complimentary portions to resist separation of the parts of the prosthesis [0316]. 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 lamella taught by Mommaerts to comprise the teeth taught by Schwartz in order to better secure the device in place upon implantation.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos et al. (US 2015/0182340 A1), “Ramos” in view of Mommaerts (US 2019/0192302 A1), “Mommaerts”, Tatum, Jr. (US Pat. No. 4511335), “Tatum”, Abel et al. (GB 2480682 A), “Abel”, and further in view of Dubois et al. (US 2016/0081806 A1), “Dubois”.
Regarding claim 9, Ramos teaches the prosthetic device as in claim 1 (Fig. 2, prosthesis 50 for a temporomandibular joint [0119]), and a depth the same as a height (Fig. 8, length L26 of connection plate 26 is approximately equal to length L14 of anchoring stem 14), but fails to teach a lamella which acts as an anchoring element, and a guide device comprising a groove.
Mommaerts teaches a temporomandibular prosthesis having a lamella (Fig. 1D, pin 7) that acts as an anchoring element of said prosthetic device (Fig. 1D, pin 7 is positioned intramedullary [0040] (i.e., anchored within bone to stabilize the implant)). Mommaerts discloses that repositioning the attachment area at the ascending branch of the mandible leaves the area near the jaw angle undisturbed [0012]. 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 first prosthetic component taught by Ramos with the anchoring element taught by Mommaerts in order to preserve the natural state of the jaw as much as possible. However, Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Tatum fails to teach a guide device comprising a groove.
Abel teaches a guide device (Fig. 8, modified condylar component 80) for preparing an anchoring seating (Fig. 8, modified condylar component 80 functions as a guide for a cutting instrument and be replaced by the main condylar component (pg. 6, par. 6)), comprising a central body (Fig. 8, screw fixation means 81) able to be positioned against at least the upper lateral part of a mandibular condylar branch (Fig. 8, screw fixation means 81 sits along condyle 43 (Fig. 4)), and a guide wall (Fig. 8, upper portion of modified condylar component 80 near resected condyle 52) associated at the upper part with said central body (Fig. 8, upper portion of modified condylar component 80 near resected condyle 52 is above screw fixation means 81) and having the profile of the osteotomy to be performed on said condyle (Fig. 8, upper portion of modified condylar component 80 near resected condyle 52 fits with resected condyle 52 shape). Abel discloses that the modified condylar component may serve as a cutting guide for resecting the condyle before the prosthesis is attached (abstract). 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 prosthetic device taught by Ramos with the guide device taught by Abel in order to simplify the surgical procedure by using a kit that comprises both a guide and prosthesis. However, Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Tatum and Abel fails to teach wherein a groove extends vertically from said guide wall toward said central body, and in that said groove is open at the upper part and is through in a direction parallel to a latero-medial axis, and a lamella which acts as an anchoring element.
Dubois teaches a temporomandibular joint prosthesis wherein a groove (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24) extends vertically from said guide wall toward said central body (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24 extends from second part 8 toward second element 18), and in that said groove (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24) is open at the upper part (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24 is open nearest second element 18) and is through in a direction parallel to a latero-medial axis (Fig. 4, second slider joint 24 moves along a translation axis T2 lateral to a medial axis of the head). Dubois discloses that the slider joint is formed as a channel with a wedge-shaped cross section for receiving its matching element [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the guide device taught by Abel to reflect the shape of the slider joint taught by Dubois in order to suitably receive the prosthesis after resection of the bone.
Regarding claim 10, Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Tatum fails to teach the limitations of claim 10. Abel teaches the guide device as in claim 9 (Fig. 8, modified condylar component 80). Abel discloses that the modified condylar component may serve as a cutting guide for resecting the condyle before the prosthesis is attached (abstract). 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 prosthetic device taught by Ramos with the guide device taught by Abel in order to simplify the surgical procedure by using a kit that comprises both a guide and prosthesis. However, Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Abel fails to teach wherein said groove divides said guide wall into a first guide branch and a second guide branch
Dubois teaches a temporomandibular joint prosthesis wherein said groove (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24) divides said guide wall into a first guide branch (Fig. 2, left side of slider joint 24) and a second guide branch (Fig. 2, right side of slider joint 24). Dubois discloses that the slider joint is formed as a channel with a wedge-shaped cross section for receiving its matching element [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the guide device taught by Abel to reflect the shape of the slider joint taught by Dubois in order to suitably receive the prosthesis after resection of the bone.
Regarding claim 11, Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Tatum fails to teach the limitations of claim 11. Abel teaches the guide device as in claim 9 (Fig. 8, modified condylar component 80), and wherein the guide acts as an abutment for a surgical blade (Fig. 8, modified condylar component 80 positions, guides, aligns and supports a cutting device (pg. 4, par. 5)). Abel discloses that the modified condylar component may serve as a cutting guide for resecting the condyle before the prosthesis is attached (abstract). 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 prosthetic device taught by Ramos with the guide device taught by Abel in order to simplify the surgical procedure by using a kit that comprises both a guide and prosthesis. However, Ramos in view of Mommaerts, and Abel fails to teach wherein said groove has a terminal part, or bottom.
Dubois teaches wherein said groove has a terminal part, or bottom (Fig. 2, bottom of channel created by second slider joint 24). Dubois discloses that the slider joint is formed as a channel with a wedge-shaped cross section for receiving its matching element [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the guide device taught by Abel to reflect the shape of the slider joint taught by Dubois in order to suitably receive the prosthesis after resection of the bone.
Regarding claim 12, Ramos teaches a prosthetic assembly for temporomandibular joint comprising a prosthetic device (Fig. 2, prosthesis 50 for a temporomandibular joint [0119]) and wherein said prosthetic device includes a first prosthetic component (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52), able to be associated with a mandibular condyle of a patient [0013], and a coordinated second prosthetic component (Fig. 2, condylar prosthesis 10), able to be associated with a respective glenoid fossa of said patient [0013], wherein said first prosthetic component (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52) is configured to cooperate with said second prosthetic component to define said temporomandibular joint (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52 is attached to the skill and able to receive joint head 16 of the condylar prosthesis 10 [0120]) and comprises a concave portion (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52 comprises a concave underside to receive round joint head 16 [0120]), defining a coupling seating having a shape mating with the shape of said mandibular condyle (Fig. 2, underside of temporal prosthesis 52 fits with joint head 16 of condylar prosthesis 10 [0120]), wherein said first prosthetic component (Fig. 2, temporal prosthesis 52) includes at least one anchoring element (Fig. 2, screws 54) projecting from, and attached at least to, said concave portion (Fig. 8, screws 54 project from temporal prosthesis 52 and attach to the concave underside of temporal prosthesis 52), being contained in said concave portion (Fig. 8, screws 54 are secured within temporal underside 52), said anchoring element (Fig. 2, screws 54) having a main extension along a latero-medial axis (Fig. 8, screws are implanted to the side of joint head 16 and extend beyond temporal prosthesis 52) and being configured to be inserted into a mating anchoring seating (Fig. 3, joint head 16) present on said mandibular condyle (Fig. 3, top 18 of branch 20 of mandible 22), and in that said coupling seating (Fig. 2, underside of temporal prosthesis 52 fits with joint head 16 of condylar prosthesis 10 [0120]) is at least partly open along said latero-medial axis (Fig. 8, underside of temporal prosthesis 52 engages with joint head 16 and leaves the rest of the underside available (i.e., open)); and a depth the same as a height (Fig. 8, length L26 of connection plate 26 is approximately equal to length L14 of anchoring stem 14) but fails to teach wherein the anchoring element is configured as a lamella attached at the upper part to the upper wall, on the side of the concave portion, and laterally to the external lateral wall, and wherein the lamella is provided with a chamfer configured to guide insertion of the latero-medial of the first prosthetic component into the anchoring seating on the condyle, and a guide device comprising a groove.
Mommaerts teaches a temporomandibular prosthesis wherein the anchoring element (Fig. 1D, pin 7) is configured as a lamella attached at the upper part to the upper wall (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends from neck 8), on the side of the concave portion (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends from neck 8 between wings 3 and 4 [0040]), and laterally to the external lateral wall (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends between wings 3 and 4 [0040] at an angle), and wherein the lamella is provided with a chamfer configured to guide insertion of the latero-medial of the first prosthetic component into the anchoring seating on the condyle (Fig. 1D, pin 7 extends at an angle to be attached to the jaw bone and act as an intramedullary pin [0040]). Mommaerts discloses that repositioning the attachment area at the ascending branch of the mandible leaves the area near the jaw angle undisturbed [0012]. 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 first prosthetic component taught by Ramos with the anchoring element taught by Mommaerts in order to preserve the natural state of the jaw as much as possible.
Abel teaches a guide device (Fig. 8, modified condylar component 80), and wherein the guide device includes a central body (Fig. 8, screw fixation means 81) able to be positioned against at least the upper lateral part of a mandibular condylar branch (Fig. 8, screw fixation means 81 sits along condyle 43 (Fig. 4)), and a guide wall (Fig. 8, upper portion of modified condylar component 80 near resected condyle 52) associated at the upper part with said central body (Fig. 8, upper portion of modified condylar component 80 near resected condyle 52 is above screw fixation means 81) and having the profile of the osteotomy to be performed on said condyle (Fig. 8, upper portion of modified condylar component 80 near resected condyle 52 fits with resected condyle 52 shape), but Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Tatum and Abel fails to teach a groove.
Dubois teaches a groove (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24) extends vertically from said guide wall toward said central body (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24 extends from second part 8 toward second element 18), and in that said groove (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24) is open at the upper part (Fig. 2, second slider joint 24 is open nearest second element 18) and is through in a direction parallel to a latero-medial axis (Fig. 4, second slider joint 24 moves along a translation axis T2 lateral to a medial axis of the head). Dubois discloses that the slider joint is formed as a channel with a wedge-shaped cross section for receiving its matching element [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the guide device taught by Abel to reflect the shape of the slider joint taught by Dubois in order to suitably receive the prosthesis after resection of the bone.
Regarding claim 13, Ramos in view of Mommaerts and Tatum fails to teach the limitations of claim 13. Abel teaches the guide device as in claim 10 (Fig. 8, modified condylar component 80), and wherein the guide acts as an abutment for a surgical blade (Fig. 8, modified condylar component 80 positions, guides, aligns and supports a cutting device (pg. 4, par. 5)). Abel discloses that the modified condylar component may serve as a cutting guide for resecting the condyle before the prosthesis is attached (abstract). 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 prosthetic device taught by Ramos with the guide device taught by Abel in order to simplify the surgical procedure by using a kit that comprises both a guide and prosthesis. However, Ramos in view of Mommaerts, and Abel fails to teach wherein said groove has a terminal part, or bottom.
Dubois teaches wherein said groove has a terminal part, or bottom (Fig. 2, bottom of channel created by second slider joint 24). Dubois discloses that the slider joint is formed as a channel with a wedge-shaped cross section for receiving its matching element [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the guide device taught by Abel to reflect the shape of the slider joint taught by Dubois in order to suitably receive the prosthesis after resection of the bone.
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