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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In view of the amendment to page 18 in the Response filed on 29 June 2026, the now last paragraph confusingly refers to portions that have been deleted by the amendment.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: COMPOSITE STRUCTURE MADE OF TITANIUM AND/OR A TITANIUM ALLOY AND/OR NITI AND A POLYMER.
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 1-5 and 11-15 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is required by “main”. Does this mean at least 50 percent by weight? Does it mean predominant element by weight in the alloy? Does it have some other meaning?
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “titanium body” that consists essentially of NiTi, including nitinol, in dependent claims. NiTi would not be expected to require titanium as main ingredient by weight or even as predominant ingredient by weight. So, it is unclear how the body is to be a “titanium body” in this case. NITINOL is understood to be equiatomic Ni and Ti, which means its main ingredient is Ni by weight. In what sense would this be a “titanium body”?
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “at most titanium and/or mixed crystals including intermetallic phases of the titanium alloy and/or NiTi occur”. It is unclear what it is being excluded by use of “most” in particular since the composition of the body “consists essentially of”. Should the anchoring layer be understood to “consist of” or “consists essentially of” these possible components?
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by “completely enclosed by the polymer”. It is unclear what is the antecedent basis of “the polymer” The polymer in previous Claim 1 is characterized as being in a contact region. So, when this claim requires “completely,” it is unclear whether it means that the entirety of structure has a contact region and the polymer completely encloses or whether it means that in addition to a contact region that may or may not cover the entire body surface there is further coverage of the body with the same polymer that results in full enclosure.
Regarding Claim 15, it is unclear whether “inclusions” is limited by “non-titanium metals” or not. It is unclear what is meant by “free of . . . precipitates of other non-titanium metals”. Does this mean that there can be no precipitates that contain such non-titanium metals or that there can be no precipitates that contain only such non-titanium metals? It is unclear what is meant by “free of . . . and/or . . . and/or”. It is unclear whether “and/or” means “and” (both or all) or means “or” (alternative). In other words, does the claim preclude the presence of all of these listed possibilities? For example, could there be no deposits of alkali metals but deposits of aluminum where “or” means alternatively? Can there be none of these features? How does this requirement relate to “at most” of Claim 1 above, which seemingly could be understood to preclude these as well?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-5 and 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 1-5 and 11-15, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach, in combination, a claimed structure wherein the region of the anchoring layer is free of hydrogen-containing phases, as claimed, and any section meets claimed requirements, in the claimed context. For example, Baytekin-Gerngross USPA 2017/0218522 expressly teaches and suggests many claimed features except for being free of hydrogen-containing phases (Claims 1-8). Baytekin-Gerngross makes no express teaching or suggestion to avoid these phases. As well, Baytekin-Gerngross teaches using various acids such as sulfuric acid and HCl for etching. In contrast, the Specification uses electrolytic NaCl solution and explains that this use does not lead to hydrogen-containing phases, whereas acids such as those exemplified and suggested in Baytekin-Gerngross do. Thus, there is no basis for expecting the etched surface in Baytekin-Gerngross to be free of hydrogen containing phases. See Baytekin-Gerngross (entire document). As well, Banks USPN 5,853,561 teaches (Claim 1) an electrochemical etching method for titanium in which an electrochemical cell with titanium component is connected as anode and there is active electrolyte circulation during structuring (col. 3, lines 21-38). Banks teaches that etching is effectuated with aqueous electrolyte solution containing NaCl in water (col. 3, lines 9-11). Banks teaches the current source has current density range of not less than 1 A/cm2 (1.4 to 7 A/cm2) in etching process times in the range of from 60 to 180 sec (col. 3, lines 21-28). Banks teaches forming etched “pock mark cavities or pores” (col. 3, line 27; Figure 2). The cavities are rounded as depicted in Figure 2. Thus, while Banks teaches forming pores, they are not characterized as oval. As well, the concentrations of NaCl in Banks are generally much greater than those applicant uses and the etching times are generally longer than those applicant uses. So, while Banks may inherently teach or suggest absence of hydrogen-containing phases in view of use of NaCl etching, there is no basis for expecting the claimed section requirements to be satisfied since they are not expressly taught or suggested and since the conditions, including combinations of conditions, that applicant uses are not among those specifically suggested in Banks. See Banks (entire document).
Response to Amendment
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the objection to the Specification of the Office Action mailed on 28 January 2026. Objection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the claim objection of the Office Action mailed on 28 January 2026. Objection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 112, paragraph (b) rejection of the Office Action mailed on 28 January 2026. Except to the extent repeated above for the reasons above, rejections are withdrawn.
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 MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
8 July 2026
Prosecution Insights