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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 October 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
Field of the Invention.
Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It does not appear that the Specification includes section headings.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The mentioning of the words “claim(s, ed)” should be avoided in the Specification as claims are only to be provided in the claims section.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 2, an ending conjunction such as “or” should be provided before the word “sphere”. Regarding Claims 6 and 7, the dashes appear to be extraneous. 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 1-7 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 the antecedent basis of “the contact region” since none is previously characterized.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is the antecedent basis of “the aforementioned mixed crystals” since none is previously mentioned. It is unclear what is the antecedent basis of “the intermetallic phases” since none is previously mentioned. As well, it is unclear whether the “mixed crystals” refers to intermetallics, alone or not at all, to these and possibly other crystals, or to something else.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is required by “shows no brittle fracture at least in the region of the first partial surface or completely under mechanical load”. It is unclear whether this is giving a reason for being free of hydrogen containing phases or whether it is further specifying a requirement. If a requirement, it is unclear what determines whether there is or is not brittle fracture under load. What are the load and conditions for determination?
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is the direction that is “extending perpendicularly to the anchoring layer”? Firstly, is this the “common anchoring layer”? Secondly, it is unclear what determines the direction of the anchoring layer so that perpendicular extension can be evaluated.
Regarding Claim 1, at the end, it is unclear what is the antecedent basis of “said surface”. Is it that of the “cut surface”, “the first partial surface”, or something else?
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what distinguishes “completely” versus “entirely”.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what it means for the polymer to be bonded to the Ti and/or Ti alloy and/or NiTi, whereas the polymer is to be arranged on first partial surface. Does this require that the surface itself be Ti and/or Ti alloy and/or NiTi?
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “at least partially or in sections or in the region of the first partial surface”. There appear to be missing words. Should it read “partially on” and “sections of”?
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is the antecedent basis of “the first structure” since no “first” structure is previously characterized.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “at most titanium and/or aforementioned mixed crystals”. It is unclear what “most” modifies. It is unclear what it is being excluded by use of “most”. For example, since the polymer is in the common anchoring layer, how does “most” relate to this component? Wouldn’t most exclude it?
Regarding Claim 1, in the phrase “any cut surface” does this refer to all such cut surfaces or to only at least one? Does it require there be a cut surface, or not necessarily?
Regarding Claim 1, the claim is indefinite and confusing due to the unconventional use of punctuation and lack of conjunctions. For example, there could be “and” inserted before third dashed element. The fourth dash could be eliminated. The end of the fifth dash phrase could be provided with a semicolon. The last dash element could be preceded by “and”. However, it is unclear whether this is what is intended and alternative changes to render conventional could affect meaning of claim.
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 on the at least first partial surface. So, when this claim requires “completely,” it is unclear whether it means that the entirety of structure, etc. is a first partial surface that results in complete enclosure or whether it means that in addition to first partial surface coverage there may be further coverage of same polymer or different polymer that results in complete enclosure.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear to which thickness range the claim is limited.
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear what is meant by “inclusions and/or precipitates of other metals”. It is unclear what would be “other” metals. Does it mean that inclusions and/or precipitates cannot contain any such other metals or that they cannot contain only such other metals?
Regarding Claim 6, there is no conjunction between “alkali metals” and “alkaline earth metals”. Thus, it is unclear what is their relationship between each other and among the other listed members. Should there be a conjunction that reads “and/or”. Is there some other meaning?
Regarding Claim 6 what is to be free is listed in the plural, such a “inclusions” and “metals”. It is unclear what is required. For example, could there be inclusion of a single other metal? Must there be more than one of the “regions”?
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by “the pores having a diameter in the range”. Does this refer to an average diameter, the existence of at least two pores having a diameter somewhere in the range, or something else?
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear whether “the surface” is necessarily “the first partial surface”.
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear whether use of the phrase “the workpiece” means that the claim is limited only to workpiece and not to structure or layer.
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear whether “statistically distributed elevations and depressions in the range of 100 nm or less” refers to an average value, the presence of at least more than one elevation and depression in this range, or something else.
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 2-7 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 1-7, 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 cut surface 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 cut surface 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).
Conclusion
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
23 January 2026