Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/954,641

Hip Joint Implant

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 28, 2022
Examiner
HOBAN, MELISSA A
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
6 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
388 granted / 617 resolved
-7.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
663
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.3%
+1.3% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 617 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 11/25/2025 has been entered. The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. Claims 1-3, 10, 11, and 21-35 are currently pending in this application. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 22-26, 32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0059429 A1 to Amin et al. (Amin), as evidenced by US Patent No. 7,044,974 B2 to Garber et al. (Garber), and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20150025647 A1 to Zhang (Zhang). Regarding at least claim 1 Amin teaches a prosthetic orthopedic implant assembly including an implant body and an elastomeric cover connected to the implant body by a mechanical fastener (abstract). [AltContent: textbox (Head recess)][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 426 438 media_image1.png Greyscale Amin meets the limitations of a hip joint implant (paragraph 0019 discloses a prosthetic assembly for use in a hip), comprising: an acetabular liner (40) having an acetabular liner inner surface (inner surface of liner) and defining an acetabular liner recess (recess defined by liner); and a femoral component comprising a head (body; 82) defining a head recess (see annotated fig. 1 above) and having a head outer surface (83), comprising: a femur-facing side positioned to face away from the acetabular liner (fig. 4 shows a femur-facing side positioned to face away from the liner); and a pelvis-facing side positioned to face toward the acetabular liner (fig. 4 shows a pelvis-facing side positioned to face toward the liner), the head recess defining a head opening (fig. 4 shows that the head recess defines a head opening); and a covering (84) disposed on and fixedly secured to the head outer surface (paragraph 0034 discloses mechanically fastening the cover to the head/body), the covering having a covering inner surface (cooperating with head outer surface 83, shown in fig. 4) and a covering outer surface (top/exterior surface), the covering completely surrounding the head outer surface such that the head outer surface is fully enclosed by the covering (it can be seen from fig. 4 that the head outer surface is fully enclosed by the covering), the femur-facing side extending to the head opening (the inner surface of the covering 84 extends to/toward the head opening), the head and covering disposed within the acetabular liner recess such that the covering is in continuous contact with the acetabular liner inner surface (paragraph 0022 discloses that the head/body and covering are disposed within the acetabular liner recess so as to articulate with the liner – this articulation is construed to include continuous contact between the head and covering with the liner inner surface as claimed). Amin also teaches that the covering defines a plurality of covering protrusions (85), each having a protrusion surface extending from the covering inner surface, away from the covering outer surface, and back toward the covering inner surface, as shown in fig. 4. When implanted, the pelvis would surround the curved surfaces of the implant assembly of Amin, as evidenced by Garber (fig. 2 of Garber shows the pelvis; 52 relative to the placement of a similar implant assembly). Therefore, the protrusions (85) are construed to be distributed along the pelvis-facing side of the implant body/head (82). Further, Amin shows that the covering protrusions provide adherence of the covering to an entirety of the pelvis-facing side (paragraph 0007 discloses that the cover is connected to the implant body by a mechanical fastener, i.e., tongue and groove shown in fig. 4 – therefore, the covering is adhered to an entirety of the pelvis-facing side via the protrusions) and the pelvis-facing side is also shown to extend fully along and in contact with the protrusion surfaces of the covering protrusions (fig. 4 each show contact between the protrusion surfaces of the covering protrusions and the pelvis-facing side of the implant body/head, as claimed by applicant). The examiner notes that the limitations directed toward the covering recesses are not required because they are not positively recited the claim (the claim requires a plurality of covering recesses OR a plurality of covering protrusions). Further, the head recess of the hip joint implant of Amin, as shown in fig. 4, is fully capable of receiving a distal end of a shaft such that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess. However, Amin does not explicitly teach a shaft having a shaft proximal end and a shaft distal end disposed within the head recess or that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess. Zhang teaches a prosthetic total hip system (10) which includes an acetabular cup system (12), a prosthetic femoral head (13) which is mounted on a typical trunnion (shaft) at a proximal end of a femoral component (14), for the purpose of connecting the femoral head to the femoral component (as shown in fig. 2). PNG media_image2.png 443 444 media_image2.png Greyscale Though not explicitly taught by Amin, the head recess of the hip joint implant of Amin is clearly meant to receive a distal end of a shaft, which also has a proximal end for insertion into the femur, such that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess, similar to the system shown by Zhang. Therefore, 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 invention of Amin to include a shaft having a proximal end and a distal end disposed within the head recess and also within the liner recess, in order to connect femoral head to the femoral component for insertion into the femur, as taught by Zhang. The hip joint implant of Amin in view of Zhang, also meets the limitation wherein polyaxial movement of the shaft distal end produces movement of the covering along the acetabular liner inner surface within the acetabular liner recess without producing relative movement between the covering and the head, since the covering is mechanically fastened to the head and articulates against the liner in the same way as applicant’s. Regarding at least claim 2 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 1. Amin also teaches wherein the head outer surface defines a plurality of head recesses (fig. 4 show that the head outer surface includes recesses for receiving the protrusions); wherein the covering inner surface defines the plurality of covering protrusions (85) and wherein each of the plurality of covering protrusions is disposed within one of the plurality of head recesses (fig. 4). Regarding at least claim 3 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 1. Amin also teaches wherein the head outer surface defines a plurality of head protrusions (tooth; 92) that are at least fully capable of being disposed within a corresponding recess (fig. 4). With regard to the limitations directed toward the covering recesses, these limitations are not required because the covering recesses are not positively recited in claim 1. Regarding at least claim 10 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 1. Amin further teaches wherein the covering comprises a polymer (paragraph 0019 discloses that the covering is elastomeric and is therefore construed to comprise a polymer since an elastomer is a polymer that displays rubber-like elasticity). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (plateau)] PNG media_image1.png 426 438 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding at least claim 22 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 2. Amin also teaches wherein each of the head recesses defines a surface that extends generally perpendicular to the pelvis-facing side to resist relative rotation between the head and the covering (see annotated fig. 4 below). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Generally perpendicular surface)] PNG media_image1.png 426 438 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding at least claim 23 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 3. With regard to the limitations of claim 23, the covering recesses are not positively claimed in claim 1 and are therefore not required. Regarding at least claim 24 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 3. With regard to the limitations of claim 23, the covering recesses are not positively claimed in claim 1 and are therefore are not required. Regarding at least claim 25 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 3. Amin also teaches that each of the plurality of head protrusions (92) comprises a semispherical shape, as shown in fig. 4 (each of the head protrusions of Amin are disclosed to be at least partially annular as they follow the shape of the implant body/head which is spherical and are therefore construed to be semispherical in shape, particularly since the term “semispherical” is defined as: somewhat spherical in shape). With regard to the limitations directed toward the covering recesses, these limitations are not required because the covering recesses are not positively recited in claim 1. Regarding at least claim 26 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 1. Amin also teaches wherein the acetabular liner has a first thickness along a radial direction; and the covering has a second thickness along the radial direction (fig. 4). However, Amin does not teach that the second thickness is greater than the first thickness. Zhang further teaches wherein: the acetabular liner has a first thickness along a radial direction; and the covering has a second thickness, greater than the first thickness, along the radial direction (fig. 2), for the purpose of allowing free rotation of the covering (15) within the liner (16) (paragraph 0027). PNG media_image2.png 443 444 media_image2.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 assembly of Amin, which includes a covering having a second thickness that articulates within a liner having a first thickness, to include that the second thickness is greater than the first thickness, along the radial direction, in order to allow for free rotation of the covering within the liner, as intended by Zhang and Amin. Regarding at least claim 32 Amin meets the limitations of a hip joint implant (paragraph 0019 discloses a prosthetic assembly for use in a hip), comprising: an acetabular liner (40) having an acetabular liner inner surface (inner surface of liner) and defining an acetabular liner recess (recess defined by liner); and a femoral component comprising a head (body; 82) defining a head recess (see annotated fig. 4 above) and having a head outer surface (83), the head recess defining a head opening (fig. 4 each show that the head recess defines a head opening); and a covering (84) disposed on and fixedly secured to the head outer surface (paragraph 0034 discloses mechanically fastening the cover to the head/body), the covering having a covering inner surface (cooperating with head outer surface 83, shown in fig. 4) and a covering outer surface (top/exterior surface), the covering completely surrounding the head outer surface such that the head outer surface is fully enclosed by the covering (it can be seen from fig. 4 that the head outer surface is fully enclosed by the covering); the covering defining: a plurality of covering protrusions (85) distributed along the covering inner surface (fig. 4); the covering inner surface extending to the head opening (the inner surface of the covering 84 extends to/toward the head opening), the head and covering disposed within the acetabular liner recess such that the covering is in continuous contact with the acetabular liner inner surface (paragraph 0022 discloses that the head/body and covering are disposed within the acetabular liner recess so as to articulate with the liner – this articulation is construed to include continuous contact between the head and covering with the liner inner surface as claimed). Amin also teaches that the covering defines a plurality of covering protrusions (85), each having a protrusion surface extending from the covering inner surface, away from the covering outer surface, and back toward the covering inner surface, such that each of the covering protrusions defines a surface that extends generally perpendicular to the covering inner surface to resist relative rotation between the head and covering, as shown in annotated fig. 4 below. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Generally perpendicular surface)] PNG media_image1.png 426 438 media_image1.png Greyscale When implanted, the pelvis would surround the curved surfaces of the implant assembly of Amin, as evidenced by Garber (fig. 2 of Garber shows the pelvis; 52 relative to the placement of a similar implant assembly). Therefore, the protrusions (85) are construed to be distributed along the pelvis-facing side of the implant body/head (82). Amin also shows that the head outer surface extends fully along and in contact with the protrusion surfaces of the at least one covering protrusion (fig. 4). The examiner notes that the limitations directed toward the covering recesses are not required because the covering recesses are not positively recited the claim since the claim requires a plurality of covering recesses OR a plurality of covering protrusions. Further, the head recess of the hip joint implant of Amin, as shown in fig. 4, is fully capable of receiving a distal end of a shaft such that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess. However, Amin does not explicitly teach a shaft having a shaft proximal end and a shaft distal end disposed within the head recess or that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess. Zhang teaches a prosthetic total hip system (10) which includes an acetabular cup system (12), a prosthetic femoral head (13) which is mounted on a typical trunnion (shaft) at a proximal end of a femoral component (14), for the purpose of connecting the femoral head to the femoral component (as shown in fig. 2). PNG media_image2.png 443 444 media_image2.png Greyscale Though not explicitly taught by Amin, the head recess of the hip joint implant of Amin is clearly meant to receive a distal end of a shaft, which also has a proximal end for insertion into the femur, such that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess, similar to the system shown by Zhang. Therefore, 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 invention of Amin to include a shaft having a proximal end and a distal end disposed within the head recess and also within the liner recess, in order to connect femoral head to the femoral component for insertion into the femur, as taught by Zhang. The hip joint implant of Amin in view of Zhang, also meets the limitation wherein polyaxial movement of the shaft distal end produces movement of the covering along the acetabular liner inner surface within the acetabular liner recess without producing relative movement between the covering and the head, since the covering is mechanically fastened to the head and articulates against the liner in the same way as applicant’s. Regarding at least claim 34 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 32. Amin also teaches wherein the acetabular liner has a first thickness along a radial direction; and the covering has a second thickness along the radial direction (fig. 4). However, Amin does not teach that the second thickness is greater than the first thickness. Zhang further teaches wherein: the acetabular liner has a first thickness along a radial direction; and the covering has a second thickness, greater than the first thickness, along the radial direction (fig. 2), for the purpose of allowing free rotation of the covering (15) within the liner (16) (paragraph 0027). PNG media_image2.png 443 444 media_image2.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 assembly of Amin, which includes a covering having a second thickness that articulates within a liner having a first thickness, to include that the second thickness is greater than the first thickness, along the radial direction, in order to allow for free rotation of the covering within the liner, as intended by Zhang and Amin. Claim(s) 21 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin in view of Zhang, as applied to claims 2 and 32 above, and further in view of Garber. Regarding at least claim 21 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 2. Amin also teaches the plurality of head recesses. However, Amin does not teach wherein the head recesses are shaped and spaced apart such that a plateau is defined, in cross-section, on the pelvis-facing side between each pair of adjacent head recesses. Garber teaches an acetabular cup assembly that includes a shell component, a liner component, and a mechanism for retaining the liner in the shell including a spherical profile thread spiraling around a portion of each of the shell and liner (col. 2, lines 30-35). The shell (14) includes a thread crest (protrusions; 44 having a semispherical protrusion surface) and a thread root (recesses; 46 defining a plateau) (col. 3, lines 14-18 and fig. 3). PNG media_image3.png 140 119 media_image3.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 assembly of Amin such that the head recesses are shaped and spaced apart such that a plateau is defined, in cross-section, on the pelvis-facing side between each pair of adjacent head recesses, in order to retain one component within the other, as taught by Garber, and as intended by Amin, particularly since the device of Amin would not operate differently with the claimed shaped and spaced apart head recesses that define a plateau, in cross-section, on the head outer surface between each pair of adjacent covering protrusions, and since the device would function appropriately having the claimed shaped and spaced apart head recesses that define a plateau, in cross-section on the head outer surface between each pair of adjacent covering protrusions. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed configuration, indicating simply that any suitable attachment can be used to form the structural relationship between the covering and the head, including adhesives, mechanical attachments, and chemical bonding so long as there is no relative movement between the two components (specification pp. [0020]). Regarding at least claim 33 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 32. Amin also teaches wherein: the head outer surface (83) comprises: a femur-facing side positioned to face away from the acetabular liner (fig. 4 shows a femur-facing side positioned to face away from the liner); and a pelvis-facing side positioned to face toward the acetabular liner (fig. 4 shows a pelvis-facing side positioned to face toward the liner). With regard to the limitations directed toward the covering recesses, these limitations are not required because the covering recesses are not positively recited in claim 32. However, Amin does not teach that the pelvis-facing side comprises a plurality of head protrusions or that each of the plurality of head protrusions is received within a recess. Garber further teaches that the components (inner component/liner; 12 and outer component/shell; 14) each have a pelvis-facing side comprises a plurality of head protrusions (thread crests; 24 on the inner component 12) each received within one of a plurality of outer component recesses (thread roots; 46 on the outer component 14) (fig. 3), as well as a plurality of inner component recesses (thread roots; 26 on the inner component) in which a plurality of outer component protrusions (thread crests; 44 on the outer component) are disposed (fig. 3), for the purpose of retaining the inner component within the outer component, as taught by Garber. [AltContent: rect] PNG media_image3.png 140 119 media_image3.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 assembly of Amin to further include that the pelvis-facing side comprises a plurality of head protrusions or that each of the plurality of head protrusions is received within a recess, in order to retain the head/inner component within the liner/outer component, as taught by Garber, and as intended by Amin, particularly since the device of Amin would not operate differently with the claimed pelvis-facing side comprising a plurality of head protrusions that are each received within a recess, and since the device would function appropriately with head protrusions in addition to covering protrusions, each disposed within a respective recess on the corresponding component. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed configuration, indicating simply that any suitable attachment can be used to form the structural relationship between the covering and the head, including adhesives, mechanical attachments, and chemical bonding so long as there is no relative movement between the two components (specification pp. [0020]). Claim(s) 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin in view of Garber, and further in view of Zhang. Regarding at least claim 27 Amin teaches a hip joint implant, comprising: an acetabular liner (40) having an acetabular liner inner surface and defining an acetabular liner recess (fig. 4 show that the liner 40 has an inner surface and defines a liner recess); and a femoral component comprising: a head (82) defining a head recess (fig. 4 show a recess defined by the head) and having a head outer surface (83); the head recess defining a head opening (the head recess defines a head opening); and a covering (84) disposed on and fixedly secured to the head outer surface (fig. 4 show the covering disposed on and fixedly secured to the head outer surface), the covering having a covering inner surface (cooperating with head outer surface 83, shown in fig. 4) and a covering outer surface (top/exterior surface shown in fig. 4), the covering completely surrounding the head outer surface such that the head outer surface is fully enclosed by the covering (fig. 4 show the covering completely surround the head outer surface thereby fully enclosing it), a plurality of covering protrusions (85); the covering inner surface extending to the head opening (the inner surface of the covering 84 extends to/toward the head opening), the head and covering disposed within the acetabular liner recess such that the covering is in continuous contact with the acetabular liner inner surface (paragraph 0022 discloses that the head/body and covering are disposed within the acetabular liner recess so as to articulate with the liner – this articulation is construed to include continuous contact between the head and covering with the liner inner surface as claimed). Amin also teaches that the covering defines a plurality of covering protrusions (85), each having a protrusion surface extending from the covering inner surface, away from the covering outer surface, and back toward the covering inner surface, as shown in fig. 4. Amin also shows that the head outer surface extends fully along and in contact with the protrusion surfaces of the at least one covering protrusion (fig. 4). The examiner notes that the limitations directed toward the covering recesses are not required because the covering recesses are not positively recited the claim since the claim requires a plurality of covering recesses OR a plurality of covering protrusions. However, Amin does not teach that the protrusion surface extending from the covering inner surface is a semispherical protrusion surface or that a plateau is defined, in cross-section, on the head outer surface between each pair of adjacent covering protrusions. Garber teaches an acetabular cup assembly that includes a shell component, a liner component, and a mechanism for retaining the liner in the shell including a spherical profile thread spiraling around a portion of each of the shell and liner (col. 2, lines 30-35). The shell (14) includes a thread crest (protrusions; 44 having a semispherical protrusion surface) and a thread root (recesses; 46 defining a plateau) (col. 3, lines 14-18 and fig. 3). PNG media_image3.png 140 119 media_image3.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 assembly of Amin such that the protrusion surface of each of the plurality of covering protrusions is a semispherical protrusion surface and that a plateau is defined, in cross-section, on the head outer surface between each pair of adjacent covering protrusions, in order to retain one component within the other, as taught by Garber, and as intended by Amin, particularly since the device of Amin would not operate differently with the claimed semispherical protrusion surface or the plateau defined, in cross-section on the head outer surface between each pair of adjacent covering protrusions, and since the protrusions of the device would function appropriately having the claimed semispherical protrusion surface and plateau defined, in cross-section on the head outer surface between each pair of adjacent covering protrusions. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed configuration, indicating simply that any suitable attachment can be used to form the structural relationship between the covering and the head, including adhesives, mechanical attachments, and chemical bonding so long as there is no relative movement between the two components (specification pp. [0020]). Further, the head recess of the hip joint implant of Amin, as shown in fig. 4, is fully capable of receiving a distal end of a shaft such that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess. However, Amin does not explicitly teach a shaft having a shaft proximal end and a shaft distal end disposed within the head recess or that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess. Zhang teaches a prosthetic total hip system (10) which includes an acetabular cup system (12), a prosthetic femoral head (13) which is mounted on a typical trunnion (shaft) at a proximal end of a femoral component (14), for the purpose of connecting the femoral head to the femoral component (as shown in fig. 2). PNG media_image2.png 443 444 media_image2.png Greyscale Though not explicitly taught by Amin, the head recess of the hip joint implant of Amin is clearly meant to receive a distal end of a shaft, which also has a proximal end for insertion into the femur, such that the shaft distal end is disposed within the acetabular liner recess, similar to the system shown by Zhang. Therefore, 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 invention of Amin to include a shaft having a proximal end and a distal end disposed within the head recess and also within the liner recess, in order to connect femoral head to the femoral component for insertion into the femur, as taught by Zhang. The hip joint implant of Amin in view of Zhang, also meets the limitation wherein polyaxial movement of the shaft distal end produces movement of the covering along the acetabular liner inner surface within the acetabular liner recess without producing relative movement between the covering and the head, since the covering is mechanically fastened to the head and articulates against the liner in the same way as applicant’s. Regarding at least claim 28 Amin in view of Garber and Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 27. Amin also teaches wherein: the head outer surface comprises: a femur-facing side positioned to face away from the acetabular liner (fig. 4 shows a femur-facing side positioned to face away from the liner); and a pelvis-facing side positioned to face toward the acetabular liner (fig. 4 shows a pelvis-facing side positioned to face toward the liner). Further, Amin teaches that the covering inner surface defines the plurality of covering protrusions and that the pelvis-facing side defines a plurality of head recesses (when implanted, the pelvis would surround the curved surfaces of the implant assembly of Amin, as evidenced by Garber - fig. 2, therefore, the curved surfaces as a whole are construed to be the pelvis-facing side) in which the covering protrusions are disposed, wherein each of the head recesses defines a surface that extends generally perpendicular to the pelvis-facing side to resist relative rotation between the head and the covering (see annotated fig. 4 below). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Generally perpendicular surface)] PNG media_image1.png 426 438 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding at least claim 29 Amin in view of Garber and Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 27. Amin also teaches wherein: the head outer surface comprises: a femur-facing side positioned to face away from the acetabular liner (fig. 4 shows a femur-facing side positioned to face away from the liner); and a pelvis-facing side positioned to face toward the acetabular liner (fig. 4 shows a pelvis-facing side positioned to face toward the liner). With regard to the limitations directed toward the covering recesses, these limitations are not required because the covering recesses are not positively recited in claim 27. However, Amin does not teach that the pelvis-facing side defines a plurality of head protrusions or that each of the plurality of head protrusions is disposed within a recess. Garber further teaches that the components (inner component/liner; 12 and outer component/shell; 14) each have a pelvis-facing side that defines a plurality of inner component protrusions (thread crests; 24 on the inner component 12) each disposed within one of a plurality of outer component recesses (thread roots; 46 on the outer component 14) (fig. 3), as well as a plurality of inner component recesses (thread roots; 26 on the inner component) in which a plurality of outer component protrusions (thread crests; 44 on the outer component) are disposed (fig. 3), for the purpose of retaining the inner component within the outer component, as taught by Garber. [AltContent: rect] PNG media_image3.png 140 119 media_image3.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 assembly of Amin to further include that the pelvis-facing side defines a plurality of head protrusions and that each of the plurality of head protrusions is disposed within a recess, in order to retain the head/inner component within the liner/outer component, as taught by Garber, and as intended by Amin, particularly since the device of Amin would not operate differently with the claimed pelvis-facing side defining a plurality of head protrusions that are each disposed within a recess, and since the device would function appropriately with head protrusions in addition to covering protrusions, each disposed within a respective recess on the corresponding component. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed configuration, indicating simply that any suitable attachment can be used to form the structural relationship between the covering and the head, including adhesives, mechanical attachments, and chemical bonding so long as there is no relative movement between the two components (specification pp. [0020]). Regarding at least claim 30 Amin in view of Garber and Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 27. Amin also teaches wherein the acetabular liner has a first thickness along a radial direction; and the covering has a second thickness along the radial direction (fig. 4). However, Amin does not teach that the second thickness is greater than the first thickness. Zhang further teaches wherein: the acetabular liner has a first thickness along a radial direction; and the covering has a second thickness, greater than the first thickness, along the radial direction (fig. 2), for the purpose of allowing free rotation of the covering (15) within the liner (16) (paragraph 0027). PNG media_image2.png 443 444 media_image2.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 assembly of Amin, which includes a covering having a second thickness that articulates within a liner having a first thickness, to include that the second thickness is greater than the first thickness, along the radial direction, in order to allow for free rotation of the covering within the liner, as intended by Zhang and Amin. Claim(s) 11 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin in view of Zhang, as applied to claims 10 and 32 above. Regarding at least claim 11 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 10. Amin also teaches that the covering comprises a polymer (paragraph 0019). However, Amin does not each that the polymer comprises ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the material used to form the covering of Amin comprises ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07). Regarding at least claim 35 Amin in view of Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 32. Amin also teaches wherein the covering comprises a polymer (paragraph 0019). However, Amin does not teach that the polymer is a non-elastomeric polymer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a non-elastomeric polymer for the covering, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07). Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin in view of Garber and Zhang, as applied to claim 27 above. Amin in view of Garber and Zhang teaches the hip joint implant of claim 27. Amin also teaches wherein the covering comprises a polymer (paragraph 0019). However, Amin does not teach that the polymer is a non-elastomeric polymer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a non-elastomeric polymer for the covering, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 06, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 21, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 24, 2024
Interview Requested
May 07, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
May 07, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 10, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 17, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 25, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 18, 2024
Interview Requested
Nov 19, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 19, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 12, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 20, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594165
EXPANDABLE MEDICAL IMPLANT FOR ADOLESCENT CRANIUM DEFECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569348
BEARING COMPONENT FOR ARTIFICIAL KNEE JOINT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564496
HYBRID FIXATION FEATURES FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL POROUS STRUCTURES FOR BONE INGROWTH AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12533239
CONICAL PATELLA RESURFACING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533237
CONNECTING SLEEVE FOR ANCHORING SHAFTS OF TWO OPPOSITELY ARRANGED PROSTHESES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+12.9%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 617 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month