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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,964,865 to Burkhead et al. (Burkhead).
Regarding at least claim 1
Burkhead teaches a glenoid prosthesis and method for affixing the same (abstract).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
267
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Burkhead meets the limitations of an implant for repairing an articular cartilage defect site, the implant comprising: a top articulating portion (301); and a supporting plate (302), the supporting plate comprising a top surface and a bottom surface (fig. 9 shows a top and bottom surface of the supporting plate), wherein the top surface of the supporting plate is coupled to the top articulating portion and the bottom surface of the supporting plate being configured to facilitate insertion into the articular cartilage defect site (fig. 10 shows the top articulating portion being coupled to the top surface of the supporting plate and the bottom surface of the supporting plate configured to facilitate insertion in the defect site as disclosed in col. 5, lines 45-50).
Regarding at least claim 2
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 1, wherein the implant has a cross-sectional shape, the cross-sectional shape being one of an oval, a rectangle, or an oblong shape (fig. 10 shows that a cross-sectional shape of the implant that is an oval, a rectangle, or oblong).
Regarding at least claim 3
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 2, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the implant is oblong (fig. 10 shows that a cross-sectional shape of the implant that is oblong).
Regarding at least claim 4
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 2, wherein the supporting plate (302) further comprises: at least one implant fixation portion, wherein the at least one implant fixation portion is integrally connected to and extending away from the bottom surface of the supporting plate (col. 7, lines 36-43 discloses a central boss; 314 and pegs; 320-322 each extending from the medial surface; 312).
Regarding at least claim 8
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 3, wherein the top articulating portion (301) comprises: an articulating surface (303); and an engagement surface (304).
Regarding at least claim 9
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 8, wherein the supporting plate (302) comprises: an upper segment, wherein the upper segment is configured to couple to the engagement surface (fig. 10 shows an upper segment of the supporting plate coupled to the engagement surface of the top articulating portion).
Regarding at least claim 10
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 9, wherein the engagement surface comprises: at least two protrusions (protrusions; 306 as shown in fig. 9) coupled to and extending away from the engagement surface of the top articulating portion, wherein the at least two protrusions have tapered edges (col. 7, lines 15-35 discloses that the protrusions are L-shaped and therefore have tapered edges).
Regarding at least claim 11
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 10, wherein the upper segment comprises: at least two channels (grooves; 311 as shown in fig. 9) recessed into the top surface of the supporting plate, wherein the at least two channels have tapered edges extending from a top surface of the upper segment toward the at least one implant fixation portion (col. 7, lines 26-35 discloses that the grooves are L-shaped and therefore have tapered edges extending from a top surface of the upper segment toward the implant fixation portion as shown in fig. 15).
Regarding at least claim 16
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 1, wherein the supporting plate (302) further comprises: at least two implant fixation portions (any two of 314, 320, 321, 322) integrally connected to and extending away from the bottom surface of the supporting plate (col. 7, lines 36-43 and fig. 16 disclose that the boss and pegs are integrally connected to and extending away from the bottom surface of the supporting plate).
Regarding at least claim 17
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 16, wherein the implant has an oblong a cross-sectional shape (fig. 10 shows a cross-sectional shape that is oblong).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhead.
Regarding at least claim 5
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 4, wherein the at least one implant fixation portion (boss; 314 and pegs; 320-322) comprises: at least one stem (boss; 314, or one of pegs 320-322), wherein the at least one stem further comprises: a proximal cylindrical section (fig. 14 shows a proximal cylindrical section of each of the boss and pegs); and a distal bone fixation section (fig. 14 shows a distal bone fixation section of the each of the boss and pegs).
Burkhead also teaches other embodiments of the implant (figs. 1-7) wherein at least two barbs (teeth) project away from an outer surface of pegs (12, 13), for the purpose of providing an increased bonding area for the cement (col. 6, lines 13-27 discloses grooves/teeth provided on the outer faces of pegs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distal bone fixation section of the at least one stem to include at least two barbs projecting away from an outer surface of the distal bone fixation section, in order to provide an increased bonding area for cement, as taught by Burkhead.
Regarding at least claim 6
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 5, wherein the at least one stem is two stems (two of pegs 321 and 322, for example).
Regarding at least claim 7
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 6, wherein the two stems are equally spaced apart along a longitudinal axis of the supporting plate (pegs 321 and 322 are shown to be spaced apart as claimed in fig. 16).
In a separate interpretation from above, claim(s) 10 and 11 are additionally rejected, along with claims 12-15 and 18-20, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhead in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0091273 A1 to Hazebrouck (Hazebrouck).
Regarding at least claim 10
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 9, including a protrusion (boss; 314) coupled to and extending away from the engagement surface of the top articulating portion (fig. 14). Burkhead also teaches secure attachment and resistance to rotation between the implant components (col. 7, lines 57-68 through col. 8, lines 1-8). However, Burkhead does not teach at least two protrusions, wherein the at least two protrusions have tapered edges.
Hazebrouck teaches a prosthetic knee system that includes a tibial tray, a non-rotating tibial insert, and a rotating tibial insert (abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
625
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hazebrouck also teaches an implant having a top articulating portion (insert; 4304) with an articulating surface (4322); an engagement surface (4324), at least two protrusions (at least two of the outwardly extending portions of the cruciform base; 4328) extending away from the engagement surface on a bottom of the top articulating portion (4304), and at least two channels (at least two of the recesses of the cavity; 4316) recessed into the top surface of the supporting plate (4302), for the purpose of preventing rotation of the insert (top articulating portion) relative to the base (abstract). Hazebrouck also teaches that the protrusions, and corresponding channels, may have other shapes, such as a star-shape, which has tapered edges (paragraph 0264, lines 14-20 and fig. 75).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement surface of the top articulating portion of Burkhead, which is intended to be fixed relative to the supporting plate, to include at least two protrusions on the central boss, wherein the at least two protrusions have tapered edges, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
Regarding at least claim 11
Burkhead in view of Hazebrouck teaches the implant of claim 10. Burkhead also teaches wherein the upper segment comprises a central bore (313) recessed into the top surface of the supporting plate (302) (fig. 15). Burkhead also teaches secure attachment and resistance to rotation between the implant components (col. 7, lines 57-68 through col. 8, lines 1-8). However, Burkhead does not teach at least two channels, wherein the at least two channels have tapered edges extending from a top surface of the upper segment toward the at least one implant fixation portion.
Hazebrouck teaches an implant having a top articulating portion (insert; 4304) with an articulating surface (4322); an engagement surface (4324), at least two protrusions (at least two of the outwardly extending portions of the cruciform base; 4328) extending away from the engagement surface on a bottom of the top articulating portion (4304), and at least two channels (at least two of the recesses of the cavity; 4316) recessed into the top surface of the supporting plate (4302), for the purpose of preventing rotation of the insert (top articulating portion) relative to the base (abstract). Hazebrouck also teaches that the protrusions, and corresponding channels, may have other shapes, such as a star-shape, which has tapered edges that extend from a top surface of the upper segment toward the at least one implant fixation portion (paragraph 0264, lines 14-20 and fig. 75).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper segment of the supporting plate of Burkhead, which is intended to be fixed relative to the top articulating portion, to include at least two channels extending radially from the central bore, wherein the at least two channels have tapered edges extending from a top surface of the upper segment toward the at least one implant fixation portion, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
Regarding at least claim 12
Burkhead in view of Hazebrouck teaches the implant of claim 11. Hazebrouck also teaches that the at least two protrusions form a cross-shape where a center point of each protrusion overlaps with a center point of the engagement surface (fig. 97).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the at least two protrusions form a cross-shape where a center point of each protrusion overlaps with a center point of the engagement surface, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
Regarding at least claim 13
Burkhead in view of Hazebrouck teaches the implant of claim 12. Hazebrouck also teaches wherein the at least two channels form a cross-shape wherein a center point of each of the channels overlaps a center point of the upper segment (fig. 97 shows that the channels form a cross-shape where a center point of each overlaps a center point of the upper segment/top portion of the plate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the at least two channels form a cross-shape wherein a center point of each of the channels overlaps a center point of the upper segment, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
Regarding at least claim 14
Burkhead in view of Hazebrouck teaches the implant of claim 13. Hazebrouck also teaches wherein the at least two protrusions of the engagement surface of the top articulating portion engage the at least two channels on the upper segment of the supporting plate (paragraph 0264 discloses that the cruciform shape 4328 is configured to be received in the keyed opening 4318), for the purpose of preventing rotation between the components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the at least two protrusions of the engagement surface of the top articulating portion engage the at least two channels on the upper segment of the supporting plate, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
Regarding at least claim 15
Burkhead in view of Hazebrouck teaches the implant of claim 14. Hazebrouck also teaches wherein the at least two protrusions terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the top articulating portion, and wherein the at least two channels terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the supporting plate (fig. 97 shows that the protrusions and channels terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the top articulating portion and supporting plate, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the at least two protrusions terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the top articulating portion, and wherein the at least two channels terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the supporting plate, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
Regarding at least claim 18
Burkhead teaches the implant of claim 16, wherein the top articulating portion (301) comprises: an articulating surface (303); and an engagement surface comprising: a protrusion (314) coupled to and extending away from the engagement surface of the top articulating portion (fig. 14). Burkhead also teaches secure attachment and resistance to rotation between the implant components (col. 7, lines 57-68 through col. 8, lines 1-8). However, Burkhead does not teach at least two protrusions, wherein the at least two protrusions have tapered edges, wherein the at least two protrusions form a cross- shape and a center point of each protrusion overlaps with a center point of the engagement surface, and wherein the at least two protrusions terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the top articulating portion.
Hazebrouck teaches a prosthetic knee system that includes a tibial tray, a non-rotating tibial insert, and a rotating tibial insert (abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
625
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hazebrouck also teaches an implant having a top articulating portion (insert; 4304) with an articulating surface (4322); an engagement surface (4324), at least two protrusions (at least two of the outwardly extending portions of the cruciform base; 4328) extending away from the engagement surface on a bottom of the top articulating portion (4304), and at least two channels (at least two of the recesses of the cavity; 4316) recessed into the top surface of the supporting plate (4302), for the purpose of preventing rotation of the insert (top articulating portion) relative to the base (abstract). Hazebrouck also teaches that the protrusions, and corresponding channels, may have other shapes, such as a star-shape, which has tapered edges (paragraph 0264, lines 14-20 and fig. 75).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement surface of the top articulating portion of Burkhead, which is intended to be fixed relative to the supporting plate, to include at least two protrusions, wherein the at least two protrusions have tapered edges, wherein the at least two protrusions form a cross- shape and a center point of each protrusion overlaps with a center point of the engagement surface, and wherein the at least two protrusions terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the top articulating portion, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
Regarding at least claim 19
Burkhead in view of Hazebrouck teaches the implant of claim 18. Burkhead also teaches wherein the supporting plate comprises an upper segment comprising a channel (313) recessed into the top surface of the supporting plate (fig. 15). However, Burkhead does not teach at least two channels, wherein the at least two channels have tapered edges extending from a top surface of the upper segment toward the at least two implant fixation portions, wherein the at least two channels form a cross-shape, wherein a center point of each of the channels overlaps a center point of the upper segment, and wherein the at least two channels terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the supporting plate; wherein the upper segment is configured to couple to the engagement surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement surface of the top articulating portion of Burkhead, which is intended to be fixed relative to the supporting plate, to include at least two channels, wherein the at least two channels have tapered edges extending from a top surface of the upper segment toward the at least two implant fixation portions, wherein the at least two channels form a cross-shape, wherein a center point of each of the channels overlaps a center point of the upper segment, and wherein the at least two channels terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the supporting plate; wherein the upper segment is configured to couple to the engagement surface, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
Regarding at least claim 20
Burkhead in view of Hazebrouck teaches the implant of claim 19. Hazebrouck also teaches wherein the at least two protrusions of the engagement surface of the top articulating portion engage the at least two channels on the upper segment of the supporting plate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implant of Burkhead to specify that the at least two protrusions of the engagement surface of the top articulating portion engage the at least two channels on the upper segment of the supporting plate, in order to further prevent rotation of the top articulating portion relative to the supporting plate, as taught by Hazebrouck.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 9, 12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,216,085 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims also recite an implant for repairing an articular cartilage defect site, the implant comprising: a top articulating portion; and a supporting plate, the supporting plate comprising a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the supporting plate is coupled to the top articulating portion and the bottom surface of the supporting plate being configured to facilitate insertion into the articular cartilage defect site (see patent claim 4; the “implant fixation portion” is the same as the supporting plate, the term “upper segment” is the top surface and the term “bone interfacing segment” is the bottom surface and patent claim 18).
Regarding claim 2, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 1, wherein the implant has a cross-sectional shape, the cross-sectional shape being one of an oval, a rectangle, or an oblong shape (see patent claim 12).
Regarding claim 3, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 2, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the implant is oblong (see patent claim 12).
Regarding claim 4, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 2, wherein the supporting plate further comprises: at least one implant fixation portion, wherein the at least one implant fixation portion is integrally connected to and extending away from the bottom surface of the supporting plate (see patent claim 9).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,619. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims also recite an implant for repairing an articular cartilage defect site, the implant comprising: a top articulating portion; and a supporting plate, the supporting plate comprising a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the supporting plate is coupled to the top articulating portion and the bottom surface of the supporting plate being configured to facilitate insertion into the articular cartilage defect site (see patent claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 19; the “implant fixation portion” is the same as the supporting plate, the term “upper segment” is the top surface and the term “bone interfacing segment” is the bottom surface).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,405,982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims also recite an implant for repairing an articular cartilage defect site, the implant comprising: a top articulating portion; and a supporting plate, the supporting plate comprising a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the supporting plate is coupled to the top articulating portion and the bottom surface of the supporting plate being configured to facilitate insertion into the articular cartilage defect site (see patent claim 1).
Claims 1-5 and 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,690,722 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims also recite an implant for repairing an articular cartilage defect site, the implant comprising: a top articulating portion; and a supporting plate, the supporting plate comprising a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the supporting plate is coupled to the top articulating portion and the bottom surface of the supporting plate being configured to facilitate insertion into the articular cartilage defect site (see patent claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 1, wherein the implant has a cross-sectional shape, the cross-sectional shape being one of an oval, a rectangle, or an oblong shape (see patent claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 2, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the implant is oblong (see patent claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 2, wherein the supporting plate further comprises: at least one implant fixation portion, wherein the at least one implant fixation portion is integrally connected to and extending away from the bottom surface of the supporting plate (see patent claims 3 and 12).
Regarding claim 5, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 4, wherein the at least one implant fixation portion comprises: at least one stem, wherein the at least one stem further comprises: a proximal cylindrical section; and a distal bone fixation section, wherein at least two barbs project away from an outer surface of the distal bone fixation section (see patent claims 4, 13, and 17).
Regarding claim 9, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 8, wherein the supporting plate comprises: an upper segment, wherein the upper segment is configured to couple to the engagement surface (see patent claims 5 and 15).
Regarding claim 10, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 9, wherein the engagement surface comprises: at least two protrusions coupled to and extending away from the engagement surface of the top articulating portion, wherein the at least two protrusions have tapered edges (see patent claims 6 and 14).
Regarding claim 11, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 10, wherein the upper segment comprises: at least two channels recessed into the top surface of the supporting plate, wherein the at least two channels have tapered edges extending from a top surface of the upper segment toward the at least one implant fixation portion (see patent claims 7 and 15).
Regarding claim 12, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 11, wherein the at least two protrusions form a cross-shape and a center point of each protrusion overlaps with a center point of the engagement surface (see patent claims 8 and 14).
Regarding claim 13, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 12, wherein the at least two channels form a cross-shape wherein a center point of each of the channels overlaps a center point of the upper segment (see patent claims 9 and 15).
Regarding claim 14, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 13, wherein the at least two protrusions of the engagement surface of the top articulating portion engage the at least two channels on the upper segment of the supporting plate (see patent claim 10).
Regarding claim 15, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 14, wherein the at least two protrusions terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the top articulating portion, and wherein the at least two channels terminate before reaching an outer perimeter of the supporting plate (see patent claim 11).
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,575,954 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims also recite an implant for repairing an articular cartilage defect site, the implant comprising: a top articulating portion; and a supporting plate, the supporting plate comprising a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the supporting plate is coupled to the top articulating portion and the bottom surface of the supporting plate being configured to facilitate insertion into the articular cartilage defect site (see patent claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 1, wherein the implant has a cross-sectional shape, the cross-sectional shape being one of an oval, a rectangle, or an oblong shape (see patent claim 7).
Regarding claim 3, the patent claims also recite the implant of claim 2, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the implant is oblong (see patent claim 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA A HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 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.
/M.A.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774