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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Justin, applicant argues Justin fails to hint/suggest about the femoral component with ratios or lengths of the condylar structure and trochlea as disclosed in the present invention. Applicant argues the office action is merely guessing the lengths or ratios based on the figure 7 disclosed in Justin with imaginary lengths, argues the office action “merely interprets the measurement of dimensions relating to the anterior flange and posterior flange without any reference in the description rather is based on interpretation of the examiner”, and argues the interpretation of such lengths seems to have occurred without any proper basis, and the comparison has been made by mere comparison of looking at fig.7 of Justin. Applicant cites MPEP 2125 as stating “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value”. These arguments are not persuasive because the drawings were not relied up for any specific dimension value and instead were relied upon for clearly showing a 1 to 1 ratio of an anterior flange length and a posterior flange length. While Justin does not disclose particular sizes/lengths, in for example inches or centimeters, figure 7 of Justin clearly shows an implant that is symmetric with respect to a long axis of the femur. MPEP 2125 I states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed” and “When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In this case, figure 7 of Justin clearly shows equal anterior and posterior lengths which meets the limitation of the anterior flange defined with a length of about 0.75 to 1.4 times the length of the posterior flange since 1 times lies within the claimed range. It is further noted that while MPEP 2125 II states “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value”, MPEP 2125 II further states “However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.” Justin discloses in par.62 that “opposing grooves 79a-b” are formed, which means the grooves are opposite one another. Since the lips 78a-b are formed at the ends of the anterior and posterior flanges and the lips are received in the opposing/opposite grooves, it is clear that the ends of the flanges are also opposite one another. Therefore, the description in par.62 in combination with figure 7 of Justin reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art that the anterior and posterior flanges are equal in length such that the anterior flange defines a length of about 1 times the length of the posterior flange as claimed.
Applicant further argues “the interpretation made in the Office Action, is considering the imaginary length from Figure 7 of Justin, which is based on the outer surface of the condylar member. However, the present invention requires the posterior flange and the anterior flange to extend from a portion of the condylar member and subsequently the lengths of both the posterior flange and the anterior flange are calculated from that portion the condylar member”. This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not require any particular location for the length to be measured from. The claims actually only require that the flanges extend from opposite ends of the condylar member and broadly say the posterior flange is “defined by a predetermined length” and the anterior flange is “defined with a length”. The claims do not specify where the length is measured from. Nevertheless, as shown in the annotated fig.7 of Justin below, it is clear that the length of the flanges as measured from opposite inner ends of the condylar member are equal.
PNG
media_image1.png
499
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the rejection of claims 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justin in view of Roger, applicant argues “Justin merely teaches about the femoral component having the anterior portion of lateral condylar section”. The examiner does not understand this statement. The femoral component of Justin comprises an anterior flange, a posterior flange, and medial and lateral condyles (see at least figs. 5-6 and par.55 which discloses “both the anterior end of the medial condyle and the anterior end of the lateral condyle”) just like the instant application. Applicant argues in Justin the femoral component (22) is configured to have multiple components that are assembled to form the femoral component which causes difficulties for the user. This argument is not persuasive because 1) the claims do not preclude a multiple component implant and 2) Justin discloses a single piece component which was relied upon in the rejection (figs. 5-7). Regarding Rogers, applicant argues Rogers is silent about the ratios of length of the anterior flange and the posterior flange, but this argument is not persuasive because Rogers was not relied upon for teaching this feature. Justin discloses a ratio of about 1. Applicant argues “nowhere in teachings of Justin there is a disclosure that focuses to eliminate irritation of muscles and soft tissues around the knee prosthesis when the knee joint is in a static and flexed-extended movement”, but this feature is not claimed and even if it were claimed would be directed to an intended use of the device.
Finally, applicant argues Justin and Roger cannot be combined and the person of ordinary skill in the art would have no knowledge or any motivation to render aspects of the present invention obvious. Applicant argues such interpretation is hindsight. This is not persuasive because Justin specifically says the femoral component is designed to articulate against a tibial component (par.91). Rogers was applied to simply teach additional components of a total knee joint prosthesis, which are commonplace and standard in the art of knee prostheses. No hindsight is needed to add a tibial implant, a tibial insert, and patella implant to the femoral implant of Justin since most total knee replacements require each of these implant components and Rogers specifically teaches the combination for replacing a total knee joint.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/22/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Justin et al. US 2003/0220697 (hereafter referred to as Justin).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Justin discloses a femoral orthopedic implant 70 (fig.7) of a knee prosthesis, the femoral orthopedic implant comprising: a condylar member, considered the distal portion of the implant 70; a posterior flange 77b extending away from one end of the condylar member and defined by a predetermined length (“predetermined” is a mental step; the length of the posterior flange is inherently “predetermined”), and an anterior flange 77a extending from another end, opposite and away from the one end of the condylar member (fig.7), wherein the anterior flange is defined with a length ranging from about 0.75 to 1.4, specifically 1, times the predetermined length of the posterior flange (fig.7 shows the length of the anterior flange 77a is equal to the predetermined length of the posterior flange 77b as measured from at least the distalmost surface of the implant; par.62 refers to “opposing grooves 79a-b”, which means the grooves are opposite one another). See the annotated fig.7 of Justin in the response to arguments above for further information.
Regarding claim 3, see fig.5 for the central groove extending along the anterior flange and condylar portion. Note that par.53 states “main body 71 has the same or substantially the same configuration as the femoral component 22 shown in FIGS. 3, 5 and 6”.
Regarding claim 4, see figs. 3 and 5 and par.54 for medial and lateral parallel posterior flange attachment members extending from the condylar member.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, see fig.7 for a U-shaped femoral orthopedic implant that is integrally formed as a unitary structure. Par.53 specifically uses the term “u shaped”.
Regarding claim 7, see fig.7 for chamfers on the first surface 73 of the condylar member, anterior flange, and posterior flange.
Regarding claim 8, see fig.7 for projections 78a and 78b which secure and lock the implant to the femur 74.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justin in view of Roger US 2012/0059485 (hereafter referred to as Roger; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Justin discloses the femoral orthopedic implant component of claim 1 as discussed above. Justin further mentions the femoral component is designed to articulate against a tibial component (par.91) as is conventional in knee prostheses, but Justin does not disclose the femoral component in combination with a tibia orthopedic implant connectable to a top end of a tibia, an insert connectable to the tibia orthopedic implant, and a patella orthopedic implant connectable to a patella.
Roger teaches a knee prosthesis, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the knee prosthesis comprises a femoral implant 11 in combination with a tibia orthopedic implant 12 connectable to a top end of a tibia, an insert 13 connectable to the tibia orthopedic implant, and a patella orthopedic implant 35 connectable to a patella (figs. 1-2) for the purpose performing a total knee replacement (par.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a tibia orthopedic implant connectable to a top end of a tibia, an insert connectable to the tibia orthopedic implant, and a patella orthopedic implant connectable to a patella as taught by Roger to the femoral implant of Justin in order to perform a total knee replacement for a patient in need of replacement of all compartments in the knee. It is conventional in the art of knee prostheses to include each of these components in a knee prosthesis.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 2, Justin discloses the length of the anterior flange is equal to the length of the posterior flange as shown in fig.7.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, see fig.7 of Justin for a U-shaped femoral orthopedic implant that is integrally formed as a unitary structure. Par.53 specifically uses the term “u shaped”.
Regarding claim 13, see fig.7 of Justin for chamfers on the first surface 73 of the condylar member, anterior flange, and posterior flange.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEGAN Y WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3071. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-2pm.
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.
/MEGAN Y WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774