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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
In the information disclosure statements, some references were not considered because a complete copy (37 CFR § 1.98(a)(2); MPEP § 609.04(a)II) was not provided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 15B, reference characters “226a” and “226b” should be --266a-- and --266b--, respectively (specification: page 12, paragraph 0050), and because reference numerals “226” (paragraph 0048) and “266” (paragraph 0050) do not appear in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0008, “presents” should be --present--. In paragraph 0014, “depicts” should be --depict--. In paragraph 0032, eleventh line, “extend” should be --extends--. In paragraph 0037, first line, “illustrates” should be --illustrate--. In paragraph 0044, first line, “shows” should be --show--. In paragraph 0050, first line, “shows” should be --show--. In paragraph 0058, fourth line, --of--should be inserted after “use”. 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.
Claims 4 and 23-24 are 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. In claim 4, line 4, “the cement application surface” lacks a proper antecedent basis. In claim 23, line 3, “a position that inside” lacks proper grammatical syntax, and “the stabilization ring” (not followed by “structure”) lacks a proper antecedent basis; on lines 2-3, “the anchoring post” lacks a proper antecedent basis
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 1-3, 5, 9-15 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Terrill, US 2021/0007858 A1, which discloses a glenoid implant comprising a main body having an articulation surface configured to interface with a humeral head and an opposite surface for anchoring in bone (abstract; Figures 3A-3C; paragraph 0025) and various fixation structures extending away from the anchoring surface and comprising porous osteogenous metallic material portions (Figures 2A-2C, 4A-7C; paragraphs 0030, 0042, 0045, 0047, 0049, 0052, 0056, 0059, 0063). Regarding claim 3, 5, 9, and 15, fixation structures are certainly capable (MPEP § 2114) of accommodating an amount of bone cement applied to one or more surfaces, such as along the longitudinal grooves or flutes of anchoring posts or pegs 614 (Figures 6A-6B; paragraphs 0056-0057). Regarding claim 10, fins are defined by said grooves or flutes (Figures 6A-6B, 7A). Regarding claims 11-14, several fixation structures depicted in Figures 5A-5B, 6A-6D, and 7A-7C are viewed as keels (paragraphs 0045, 0047, 0052, 0059, 0066). Regarding claims 19-20, various pegs and augments are of a porous osteogenous metal and are modular by virtue of the screw threading, dovetail connections, and the like (paragraphs 0049-0065). Regarding claims 21-24, bases 520, 522, 620, 622, 720, and 722 are viewed as anchor posts and as stabilization ring structures, with each threaded engagement defining a geometric center (Figure 6D; paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0060); as explained above, the scope of instant claims 23-24 is indefinite and thus has a broad interpretation.
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 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrill, US 2021/0007858 A1, in view of Mutchler et al., US 2013/0144393 A1. A crossbar segment extending between anchoring posts so as to define an I-beam extension was well known in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention, as seen from Figures 6-7 of Mutchler et al., and would have been an obvious variant or supplement to the arrays of posts or pegs described in Terrill because of the improved stability of the implantation (Mutchler et al.: paragraphs 0057-0060), with further motivation (to combine) provided by Mutchler et al. likewise being directed to anchorage and osseointegration (paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0010, 0047-0048, 0051, 0074, 0078) and Terrill utilizing different geometries to support various joint reaction forces (Figures 3A-3C; paragraphs 0032+); the crossbar comprising or being coated with osteogenic porous metallic material would have been obvious from the various other Terrill fixation structures being of such a material, as demonstrated above.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrill, US 2021/0007858 A1, in view of Rolfe et al., US 2005/0112397 A1. Regarding claims 16-17, an osteogenous material portion comprising a porous metallic material and a porous UHMWPE would have been obvious from Rolfe et al. (paragraphs 0014, 0069-0071, 0081, 0129, 0131) in order to exploit favorable characteristics of each material (Rolfe et al.: paragraphs 0106, 0137, 0145, 0147, 0192), with further motivation (to combine) provided by Rolfe et al. encompassing shoulder joint implants, augmentation elements, and anchoring structures (paragraphs 0062, 0123, 0142, 0191, 0198-0199). Regarding claim 18, a core formed of porous UHMWPE would have been obvious to the ordinary practitioner in order to form, mount, or attach the composite structure to other portions of a Terrill glenoid implant (Rolfe et al.: paragraphs 0134, 0137).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2009/0281630 A1: drawings; paragraphs 0040+.
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