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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the Amendments to the Specification of June 30, 2026, the first line of each of paragraphs 0044 and 0050 lacks proper grammatical syntax. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 8 depends from canceled claim 6.
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 16, 19-20, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Boulris, US 2016/0367375 A1. Figure 10, for example, illustrates a glenoid implant comprising a polyethylene main body 101 having an articulation surface 103 configured to interface with a humeral head (abstract; paragraphs 0003-0004, 0180, 0208) and having an opposite anchoring surface 102 away from which extends a fixation structure including fins 106E and 106G radially extending from and circumscribing respective polyethylene fixation posts covered by porous metallic caps 109A, 109B, 110A, 110B, 112A, 112B (paragraphs 0184, 0194-0195, 0202-0203, 0216). Both the polyethylene and the metal of the composite fixation structure are osteogenic (paragraphs 0005, 0181, 0187, 0189-0190, 0213, 0216, 0219), and with regard to claims 16 and 25, fins 106E, 106G are clearly disposed between anchoring surface 102 and a corresponding metallic cap (Figures 7 and 9-14).
Regarding claim 19, the central polyethylene post (having fins 106G) is a stabilization ring structure extending from anchoring surface 102 and surrounding a proximal portion of metal core 109B of first anchoring post 109B, 110B, 112B, portions of which may be modularized via screw threads 111A (Figure 10) and other means (paragraphs 0195, 0202-0203, 0216, 0228; page 10, claims 17-18). Regarding claims 26-27, the posts inside the periphery of main body 101 and surrounding the central polyethylene stabilization ring structure (Figures 2, 5, 7-8; paragraphs 0007, 0191, 0194, 0211) may have channels sized and configured to accommodate bone cement therein [paragraphs 0184 (last sentence), 0187, 0205].
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulris, US 2016/0367375 A1. Official notice is taken that ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) was ubiquitous in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application and would have been immediately obvious to the ordinary practitioner for the disclosed polyethylene components particularly because of the articulation surface 103 and the well-known advantages of UHMWPE for such a function (biocompatibility, excellent wear resistance, etc.). Porosity for accommodating the raised textured surface 111G (Figure 14; paragraph 0195) would have been innate and would also have been obvious in order to enhance osseointegration (paragraphs 0187, 0189-0190, 0219, 0222).
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulris, US 2016/0367375 A1, in view of Mutchler et al., US 2013/0144393 A1. Regarding claim 1, Boulris discloses all the elements (as explained above) except for the crossbar segment extending between anchoring posts. However, such a feature was common in the art, as seen in Figures 6-7 of Mutchler et al. To incorporate a crossbar segment between anchoring posts of Boulris would have been obvious in order to further improve the stability of the implantation (Mutchler et al.: paragraphs 0058-0060), with further motivation (to combine) provided by the similarities in design and purpose (Mutchler et al.: Figures 8, 11, 14; abstract; paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0019, 0021, 0041, 0049-0051, 0074, 0079) and by Boulris contemplating various ways of imparting stability and osseointegration [paragraphs 0180 (“larger surface area”), 0186, 0222]. Fins 6 are of a polymer material or polyethylene (Mutchler et al.: paragraph 0060) and are thus of a different material than the metallic components of the Bouris anchoring posts and effect osteogenesis by encouraging bone ingrowth into spacings between fins 6, optionally along with other passages (Mutchler et al.: paragraphs 0006, 0048, 0051, 0080).
The further limitations of claims 2 and 3 are explained above relative to present claims 17-18 and 26-27, respectively. Regarding claims 2, 4, 7-9, and 15, I-beam structure 52, 54, 56 (Mutchler et al.: Figures 6-7; paragraph 0058) being of a porous metallic material surface (which is different from the polyethylene portions of the Boulris anchoring posts) would have been obvious from the use of metals and porous surfaces in Mutchler et al. (paragraph 0074) and in Boulris (demonstrated above) in order to provide a more structural element (relative to the deformable fins 6: paragraph 0060 of Mutchler et al.) for helping to support against rotational movements (Mutchler et al.: paragraphs 0003, 0079); bone cement is capable (MPEP § 2114) of being applied to a distal end surface of the I-beam extension or keel, including portions of the anchoring posts, whether or not such was the intent. Regarding claims 4, 11-12, and 14, more than one keel or I-beam extension may exist, because the number of cylindrical parts is not limited (Mutchler et al.: paragraph 0057). Regarding claims 13-14, “full thickness” and “edge” could refer to different portions of the keel, such as fins 6 of Mutchler et al.; moreover, porosity throughout an I-beam structure would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to facilitate bone ingrowth into and across a thickness of the structure and thereby enhance osseointegration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The new claims and the altered scope of other claims necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. (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 David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights