DETAILED ACTION The following is a non-final office action is response to communications received on 06/08/2023 . Claims 1-15 are currently pending and addressed below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status Th e present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim 1 , line 22 stat es “ means for fixedly securing said locking device to said meta physeal component ” Paragraph [0278] of the printed publication states “ the locking device 24 may be secured within the transverse hole 23 in any suitable manner, including but not limited to, threaded engagement therebetween” . Further [0278] states “ the distal end of the locking device 24 is illustrated to include external threads 24T and the distal end of the transverse hole 23 has internal threading 23T” . Therefore, the threaded engagement between the locking device and metaphyseal component is being interpreted as providing the association between the structure and the function of claim 1 . Claim 15 , line s 1-2 stat es “ means for fastening said diaphyseal nail to the femur or the humerus ” Paragraph [0277] of the printed publication states “ which first portion includes one or more fastening apertures 32 configured to receive one or more screws 31S for fastening that portion of the diaphyseal nail 3 to the femur .” Therefore, the screws are being interpreted as the association between the structure and the function of claim 15 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 9 & 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 1 & 7 of U.S. Patent No. (US 11,717,413) . The elements of the instant application are to be found in the Patent and therefore are anticipated. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent and the instant application all recite the same basic structure with a permutation of similar elements throughout. Regarding Claim 9 , patent claim 1 recite s the same limitations. Regarding Claim 13 , patent claim 7 recite s the same limitations. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1-8 are allowed. Claims 9 & 13 would be allowable if a timely filed terminal disclaimer(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is filed to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action Claims 10-12 , 14 & 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most pertinent art found, fails to teach and/or fairly suggest the instant invention. Regarding Claim 1, Podolsky (US 2013/0204390) teaches joint replacement prosthesis (10) for implantation in a patient, said joint replacement prosthesis comprising: a head component (100) , said head configured to replace a head of a femur [0032] or a head of a humerus [0032] , said head component comprising: a spherical cap (100) with a rear face (shown) ; a bore (shown) centrally positioned in said rear face (Fig 3) ; said bore comprising internal threading (150) ; a first recess (130) and a second recess (130) formed in said rear face (Fig 3) ; and wherein said first and second recesses are configured to be releasably engaged by an insertion device (140) capable of placement of said head component into an acetabulum of the patient’s pelvis or a glenoid of the patient’s shoulder blade; a metaphyseal component (200) , said metaphyseal component comprising: an elongated shape with a first end (shown) configured for threaded engagement (via threads 250) within said internally threaded bore (shown) of said head component . However, Podolsky does not teach w herein the metaphyseal component comprises a transverse aperture; and a diaphyseal nail, a portion of said diaphyseal nail configured for insertion through said transverse aperture of said metaphyseal component for placement into the femoral or humeral canal; wherein said metaphyseal component comprises: a longitudinal hole configured to begin at a second end of said metaphyseal component, and to transect and extend beyond said transverse aperture; a locking device, said locking device configured to be received in said longitudinal hole of said metaphyseal component, and through said transverse hole of said diaphyseal nail; and means for fixedly securing said locking device to said metaphyseal component. Keynan (US 2003/0050704) teaches a hip or shoulder prosthesis (Fig 5) comprising a metaphyseal component (20) comprises a transverse aperture (28); and a diaphyseal nail (70), a portion of said diaphyseal nail configured for insertion through said transverse aperture of said metaphyseal component (Fig 5 and [0070]) for placement into the femoral or humeral canal (72) . However, Keynan does not teach wherein said metaphyseal component comprises: a longitudinal hole configured to begin at a second end of said metaphyseal component, and to transect and extend beyond said transverse aperture; a locking device, said locking device configured to be received in said longitudinal hole of said metaphyseal component, and through said transverse hole of said diaphyseal nail; and means for fixedly securing said locking device to said metaphyseal component. Kebaish (US 2008/0140077) teaches a femoral implant device (60) comprising a metaphyseal component (66 & 110) comprises: a longitudinal hole (shown) configured to begin at a second end (shown) of said metaphyseal component; a locking device (65), said locking device configured to be received in said longitudinal hole (Fig 7a) of said metaphyseal component, and through said transverse hole (201) of said diaphyseal nail (62) ; and means (i.e., threads as proximal end of locking device (65)) for fixedly securing said locking device to said metaphyseal component. However, the prior art either individually or in combination, does not teach or render obvious wherein the metaphyseal component comprises a longitudinal hole configured to transect and extend beyond the transverse aperture of the metaphyseal component . Regarding Claim 9, Podolsky (US 2013/0204390) teaches a prosthesis (10) configured to replace at least a head of a femur or a head of a humerus [0032] , said prosthesis comprising: a head component (100) , said head component comprising: a front face (convex articulating surface) and a rear face (shown) ; a bore (shown) formed in said rear face; a metaphyseal component (200) , said metaphyseal component formed as a substantially straight component (Fig 4) having a first end (shown) and a second end (opposite side) , and comprising: a body portion (200) ; a shank portion (250) at said first end configured for threaded engagement within said bore of said head component (Fig 4) ; However, Podolsky does not teach wherein the metaphyseal component comprises a transverse aperture and a longitudinal hole configured to begin at a second end, and to transect and extend beyond said transverse aperture, at least a portion of said longitudinal hole comprising: internal threading; a diaphyseal nail, said diaphyseal nail comprising: a first portion and a second portion; wherein said first portion is configured to be received in a portion of the femoral or humeral canal; and wherein said second portion is configured to be received within said transverse aperture of said metaphyseal component, and comprises: a transverse hole; a fastener, said fastener configured to be received in said longitudinal hole of said metaphyseal component, with a portion of said fastener received through said transverse hole of said diaphyseal nail; and wherein at least a portion of said fastener is secured to said metaphyseal component within said longitudinal hole. Keynan (US 2003/0050704) teaches a hip or shoulder prosthesis (Fig 5) comprising a metaphyseal component (20) comprises a transverse aperture (28) ; a diaphyseal nail (70), said diaphyseal nail comprising: a first portion (distal) and a second portion (proximal); wherein said first portion is configured to be received in a portion of the femoral or humeral canal (72); and wherein said second portion is configured to be received within said transverse aperture (28) of said metaphyseal component (Fig 5 & [0070]) . However, Keynan does not disclose wherein the metaphyseal component comprises a longitudinal hole configured to begin at a second end, and to transect and extend beyond said transverse aperture, at least a portion of said longitudinal hole comprising: internal threading; and wherein the diaphyseal nail comprises a transverse hole ; and a fastener, said fastener configured to be received in said longitudinal hole of said metaphyseal component, with a portion of said fastener received through said transverse hole of said diaphyseal nail; and wherein at least a portion of said fastener is secured to said metaphyseal component within said longitudinal hole. Ke baish (US 200 8/0140077) teaches a femoral implant device (60) comprising a metaphyseal component (66 & 110) compris ing a longitudinal hole (shown) configured to begin at a second end (shown), at least a portion of said longitudinal hole comprising: internal threading (Fig 7a) ; and wherein the diaphyseal nail comprises a transverse hole (201) ; and a fastener (65) , said fastener configured to be received in said longitudinal hole of said metaphyseal component (Fig 7a) , with a portion of said fastener received through said transverse hole of said diaphyseal nail (Fig 7a) ; and wherein at least a portion of said fastener (65) is secured to said metaphyseal component (66 & 110) within said longitudinal hole (Fig 7a) . However, the prior art either individually or in combination, does not teach or render obvious wherein the metaphyseal component comprises a longitudinal hole configured to transect and extend beyond the transverse aperture of the metaphyseal component . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN AINSLEY DUKERT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3258 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 6am-4pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melanie Tyson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 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. /BRIAN A DUKERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774