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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 25, the applicant argues the claimed ratio would not have involved only “routine skill in the art”. A prima facie case of obviousness may be established when the claimed range is not asserted as seeking to solve a particular problem and does not have evidence of a difference in function from the prior art or give unexpected results. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the ratio between the inner diameter of the circumferential wall and an outer diameter of the flange would result in a difference in function of the Deransart in view of Metcalfe device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the implant assembly of Deransart and Metcalfe, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed ratios. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solved any stated problem and there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the ratio between the inner diameter of the circumferential wall and an outer diameter of the flange is between about 0.55-0.77 as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Further, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05) .
Claim Status
The drawing objection and 112(a) rejections have been overcome.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-15, 17-31 are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: "to engage a cortical rim of the bone" in line 7 should read "to engage against a cortical rim of the bone".
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: "to engage a cortical rim of the bone" in line.
Claim 27 objected to because of the following informalities: "to.
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.
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 15, 17-18 and 23 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 15 recites “a floor of the rounded base” in line 3. However, claim 11 has recited “a floor of the rounded base” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if this is the same floor of the rounded base or a separate and distinct floor of the rounded base. The Examiner interprets them to be the same floor and recommends amending claim 15 to read “the floor of the rounded base”. Dependent claims 17-18 are likewise rejected.
The term “substantial” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The portion of the articular implant has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9, 21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart (US 2021/0307918 A1) in view of Metcalfe (US 2012/0179263 A1) and Wiley (US 2007/0173945 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Deransart teaches a humeral implant assembly for an arthroplasty implant system (fig. 3), comprising:
an articular implant (160A, anatomic articular component or 180A, reverse articular component, fig. 2A); and
a stemless implant (108C, stemless bowl-shaped humeral anchor, fig. 5A) adapted to establish a convertible platform for receiving the articular implant (¶ [0089]);
a receiving cavity adapted to receive the articular implant (216C and 217C, first and second cavities, fig. 5C),
wherein the receiving cavity extends inwardly from the flange to a floor of a rounded base of the stemless implant (see annotated fig. 5C, below) and is sized to provide an inlay design (fig. 5E).
PNG
media_image1.png
301
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Deransart fails to teach a thread configured to engage a bone. However, Metcalfe teaches a stemless shoulder implant that includes a thread configured to engage a bone (13, thread, figs. 1 and 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart to include a thread configured to engage a bone as taught by Metcalfe in order to maximize retention (¶ [0012], Metcalfe).
Deransart and Metcalfe fail to teach a flange with a plurality of suture eyelets. However, Wiley teaches a humeral implant that includes a flange sized to engage a cortical rim of the bone (62, outer rim, figs. 3 and 4), wherein the flange includes a plurality of suture eyelets (66, suture holes, fig. 4), each configured to receive a thread-like material (¶ [0056]), and the plurality of suture eyelets are positioned radially outward of the receiving cavity (fig. 4) and arranged around the flange to facilitate reattachment of soft tissue to the bone adjacent the cortical rim (¶ [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart and Metcalfe to include a flange with a plurality of suture eyelets as taught by Wiley in order to attach soft tissue (¶ [0056], Wiley).
Regarding claim 2, Deransart further teaches wherein the articular implant includes a spacer that is coupled to the stemless implant (see annotated fig. 4I, below) and a liner that is coupled to the spacer (see annotated fig. 4I, below), and further wherein the liner includes a concave articular surface (CV, concave surface, fig. 4I).
PNG
media_image2.png
231
379
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Deransart further teaches wherein the spacer is coupled to the stemless implant by a C-clip (183A, snap ring, figs. 4H and 4K).
Regarding claim 6, Deransart further teaches wherein the floor establishes an inner surface of the rounded base (fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 7, Deransart fails to teach the thread is circumferentially disposed about a radially outer surface of a cylindrical shaped body of the stemless implant. However, Metcalf further teaches the thread is circumferentially disposed about a radially outer surface of a cylindrical shaped body of the stemless implant (fig. 1), and wherein an outer diameter of the flange is greater than an outer diameter of the cylindrical shaped body at a tip of the thread (see annotated fig. 1, below, the diameter at the top is already greater than the diameter at the tip of the thread, the combination with the flange of Wiley would only increase this difference).
PNG
media_image3.png
404
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Deransart further teaches the cylindrical shaped body includes a plurality of pockets adapted to facilitate bony ingrowth (272B, porous surface, [0107]).
Regarding claim 21, Deransart further teaches the articular implant includes a spacer coupled to the stemless implant (see annotated fig. 4I, below) and a liner coupled to the spacer (see annotated fig. 4I, below), and further wherein an entirety of the spacer is accommodated within the receiving cavity (¶ [0112], sloped surface 185A is the upper end of the spacer and engages the interior surface of the stemless anchor meaning the entirety of the spacer is within the anchor/recess).
PNG
media_image4.png
231
371
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Deransart further teaches the receiving cavity has a tapered profile (¶ [0008]) dimensioned to accommodate a substantial portion of the articular implant (fig. 5E, ¶ [0112]).
Regarding claim 24, Deransart further teaches a hollow (fig. 5A), concave geometry defined by a circumferential wall surrounding the receiving cavity (212C, interior surface, fig. 5A).
Deransart fails to teach the stemless implant is a thread cup. However, Metcalfe further teaches the stemless implant is a threaded cup (fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart to include a threaded cup as taught by Metcalfe in order to maximize retention (¶ [0012], Metcalfe).
Regarding claim 25, Deransart in view of Metcalfe fails to explicitly disclose the ratio between the inner diameter of the circumferential wall and an outer diameter of the flange is between about 0.55-0.77. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the ratio between the inner diameter of the circumferential wall and an outer diameter of the flange would result in a difference in function of the Deransart in view of Metcalfe device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the implant assembly of Deransart and Metcalfe, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed ratios. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solved any stated problem and there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the ratio between the inner diameter of the circumferential wall and an outer diameter of the flange is between about 0.55-0.77 as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Further, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05) .
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart, Metcalfe and Wiley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winslow (US 2010/0114326 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Deransart, Metcalfe and Wiley fail to teach the stemless implant is comprised of a polyether ether ketone material. However, Winslow discloses a stemless implant for a ball and socket joint that includes a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) material (¶ [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart, Metcalfe and Wiley to include comprising a polyether ether ketone material as taught by Winslow in order to use a suitable bio-compatible material (¶ [0010], Winslow) and since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 11-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart (US 2021/0307918 A1) in view of Metcalfe (US 2012/0179263 A1) and Wolfe (US 2023/0190482 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Deransart teaches An arthroplasty implant system (fig. 3), comprising:
a cup (108C, humeral anchor, fig. 5A) including a cylindrical shaped body (fig. 5C), a flange (244C, collar, fig. 5A), a rounded base (see annotated fig. 5C, below), and a receiving cavity (216C and 217C, first and second cavities, fig. 5C),
wherein the flange is sized to engage a cortical rim of the bone (fig. 3, The phrase “the flange is sized to engage a cortical rim of the bone” is a functional recitation (see MPEP 2114.II). The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the recited function, but merely have the capability of performing [or being manipulated to] the recited function in order to meet the claim requirements. In this case, the collar is considered to be capable of engaging a cortical rim of the bone); and
an articular implant (160A, anatomic articular component or 180A, reverse articular component, fig. 2A) received within the receiving cavity (fig. 5E), and coupled to the threaded cup (fig. 5E)
PNG
media_image5.png
301
533
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Deransart fail to teach a thread configured to engage a bone. However, Metcalfe teaches a stemless shoulder implant that includes a thread provided on the cylindrical shaped body (13, thread, fig. 1), wherein the thread is configured to engage a bone (fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart to include a thread configured to engage a bone as taught by Metcalfe in order to maximize retention (¶ [0012], Metcalfe).
Deransart and Metcalfe fail to teach cooperating coupling features to provide an inlaid connection. However, Wolfe teaches a shoulder implant that includes cooperating coupling features of the articular implant and the threaded cup (252 and 243, projection and locking feature, fig. 4A) that retain the articular implant to the threaded cup are located within the receiving cavity below the flange to provide an inlaid connection (fig. 4A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the articular implant of Deransart and Metcalfe to include cooperating coupling features providing an inlaid connection as taught by Wolfe in order to serve as anti-rotation features to inhibit relative rotation (¶ [0098], Wolfe).
Regarding claim 12, Deransart further teaches the flange is integrally formed with the cylindrical shaped body to establish a unitary single piece design of the threaded cup (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 13, Deransart further teaches the receiving cavity provides an inlay design (fig. 5E) that establishes a convertible platform for receiving the articular implant (¶ [0089]).
Regarding claim 14, Deransart further teaches the articular implant includes a spacer (see annotated fig. 4I, below) coupled to the threaded cup by a C-clip (183A, snap ring, figs. 4H and 4K), and a liner coupled to the spacer (see annotated fig. 4I, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
231
371
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Deransart further teaches the flange is provided on a first side of the cylindrical shaped body (see annotated fig. 5C, below) and the rounded base is provided on a second side of the cylindrical shaped body (see annotated fig. 5C, below), and the floor establishes an inner surface of the rounded base (see annotated fig. 5C, below).
PNG
media_image6.png
301
540
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Deransart fails to teach an outer diameter of the flange is greater than an outer diameter of the cylindrical shaped body at a tip of the thread. However, Metcalf further teaches an outer diameter of the flange is greater than an outer diameter of the cylindrical shaped body at a tip of the thread (see annotated fig. 1, below, the diameter at the top is already greater than the diameter at the tip of the thread, the combination with the flange of Deransart would only increase this difference).
PNG
media_image3.png
404
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Knox (US 2019/0175354 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe fail to teach an engagement opening formed through the rounded base. However, Knox teaches a stemless shoulder implant that includes at least on engagement opening form through the rounded base (276, lumen, fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe to include an engagement opening formed through the rounded base as taught by Knox in order to provide access for a k-wire such that implanting the base member can be controlled in an appropriate manner (¶ [0059], Knox).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bachmaier (US 2015/0134066 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe fails to teach a trap door. However, Bachmaier further discloses the rounded based includes a trap door (the limitation trap door is being given the broad definition of hinged or removable due to the lack of hinge in the instant application drawings/specification, 410, short stem, fig. 6, covers the opening in the same manner and can be removed for insertion of the stem). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe to include a trap door as taught by Bachmaier in order to use a stem when the retention of the cup within the bone is not sufficient (¶ [0057], Bachmaier) and since it is combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predicable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wiley (US 2007/0173945 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Deransart further teaches a plurality of pockets adapted to facilitate bony ingrowth (272B, porous surface, ¶ [0107]).
Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe fail to teach the flange includes a plurality of suture eyelets. However, Wiley teaches a humeral implant that includes the flange includes a plurality of suture eyelets (66, suture holes, fig. 4), each configured to receive a thread-like material (¶ [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe to include the flange with a plurality of suture eyelets as taught by Wiley in order to attach soft tissue (¶ [0056], Wiley).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Pranzetti (US 2003/0414372 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe fail to teach a cutout in the flange sized to receive a mating feature of the spacer. However, Pranzetti discloses a shoulder prosthesis that includes the flange includes a cutout that extends into a cylindrical shaped body of the stemless implant (124, cutouts, fig. 5), and further wherein the cutout is sized to receive a mating feature of the spacer (134, protrusions, fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the flange of Deransart, Metcalfe and Wolfe to include a cutout sized to receive a mating feature of the spacer as taught by Pranzetti in order to block relative rotations between components (¶ [0075], Pranzetti).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart in view of Metcalfe and Wiley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amstutz (US 4,261,062 A).
Regarding claim 26, Deransart in view of Metcalfe and Wiley fails to teach the flange is elliptical shaped. However, Amstutz discloses a shoulder prosthesis that includes the flange is elliptical shaped (col 3 lines 62-66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the flange of Deransart, Metcalfe and Wiley to include an elliptical shape as taught by Amstutz in order to match the shape of the corresponding glenoid recess in the scapula (abstract, Amstutz) and since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart (US 2021/0307918 A1) in view of Metcalfe (US 2012/0179263 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Deransart teaches a humeral implant assembly (fig. 3), comprising:
a cup (108C, humeral anchor, fig. 5A) including a cylindrical shaped body (fig. 5C), a flange sized to directly engage a cortical rim of the bone (244C, collar, figs 3 and 5A, The phrase “the flange is sized to directly engage a cortical rim of the bone” is a functional recitation (see MPEP 2114.II). The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the recited function, but merely have the capability of performing [or being manipulated to] the recited function in order to meet the claim requirements. In this case, the collar is considered to be capable of engaging a cortical rim of the bone), a rounded base having a floor (see annotated fig. 5C, below), and a receiving cavity extending inwardly from the flange to the floor of the rounded base(216C and 217C, first and second cavities, fig. 5C);
a spacer (see annotated fig. 4I, below) positioned within the receiving cavity and coupled to the threaded cup (fig. 5K); and
a liner coupled to the spacer (see annotated fig. 4I, below), the liner providing an articular surface of the humeral implant assembly (CV, concave surface, fig. 4I),
wherein the receiving cavity is dimensioned to provide an inlay design (fig. 5K) in which an entirety of the spacer is accommodated within the receiving cavity (fig. 5K) .
PNG
media_image5.png
301
533
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
231
371
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Deransart fails to teach a thread configure to engage a bone. However, Metcalfe teaches a stemless shoulder implant that includes a thread provided on the cylindrical shaped body and configured to engage a bone (13, thread, fig. 1), and a majority of the liner is accommodated within the receiving cavity (fig. 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stemless implant of Deransart to include a thread configured to engage a bone as taught by Metcalfe in order to maximize retention (¶ [0012], Metcalfe).
Regarding claim 28, Deransart further teaches a C-clip (183A, snap ring, figs, 4A and 4K) received in a first circumferential groove of the threaded cup (300 C, groove, fig. 5C) and a second circumferential groove of the spacer (190A, annular groove, fig. 4H) to couple the spacer to the threaded cup (¶ [0014-0015]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart and Metcalfe as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Parran (US 3,853,413 A).
Regarding claim 29, Deransart and Metcalfe fail to teach a lock block. However, Parran solves a similar problem of preventing the snap ring from collapsing that includes a lock block (24, deformable key, fig. 2) of either the liner or the spacer is arranged to prevent radially inward deformation of the C-clip that would otherwise allow disengagement of the spacer from the threaded cup (col 1 lines 49 – col 2 lines 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the liner or spacer of Deransart and Metcalfe to include a lock block as taught by Parran in order to prevent the snap ring form collapsing (col 1 lines 49-60, Parran).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart and Metcalfe as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Wolfe (US 2023/0190480 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Deransart and Metcalfe fail to teach a plurality of de-rotation pegs with corresponding engagement openings. However, Wolfe teaches a shoulder implant that includes a plurality of de-rotation pegs (353, peg, fig. 6B) that are received within corresponding engagement openings formed in the floor of the rounded base of the threaded cup (321, recess, fig. 6D), and further wherein the plurality of de-rotation pegs and the corresponding engagement openings cooperate to rotationally stabilize the spacer relative to the threaded cup (¶ [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the implant assembly of Deransart and Metcalfe to include a plurality of e-rotation pegs and corresponding engagement openings as taught by Wolfe in order to facilitate rotational alignment (¶ [0108], Wolfe).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deransart and Metcalfe as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Winslow (US 2010/0114326 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Deransart further teaches the cup is a separate and distinct components of the humeral implant assembly.
Deransart and Metcalfe fail to teach the spacer and the liner are separate and distinct components. However, Winslow teaches a stemless shoulder implant that includes the spacer and the liner are separate and distinct components (53, 54, cups, fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate the spacer and the liner, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M DUDDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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.
/T.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights