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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Evans (2011/0118852).
Regarding claim 1, Evans discloses an implanted piezoelectric bone material 100 (abstract and Fig. 1A), comprising: a main body 102 being a hollow pillar 104 (hollow body 102 has a bore 104; Figs. 1A and 3B) or a solid pillar (par. 0037 discloses bone screws and nails), wherein, when the main body is the hollow pillar, the hollow pillar has an inner side wall 104a at a center of the hollow pillar 104 and an outer side wall at an outer side of the hollow pillar 103 (par. 0016); wherein, when the main body is the solid pillar, the solid pillar only has the outer side wall at an outer side of the solid pillar (the hollow pillar is the elected embodiment, therefore, the solid pillar embodiment is considered withdrawn); and a piezoelectric material (par. 0037 and claim 14 disclose a piezoelectric coating), wherein the piezoelectric material is in contact with at least one of the inner side wall and the outer side wall (par. 0037 discloses the piezoelectric coating is applied to all surfaces of the implant and par. 0018 discloses the bore 104 is filled with the piezoelectric material).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Evans discloses wherein the main body 102 is made of a metallic material and wherein the main body is made of pure titanium, titanium alloy, or stainless steel (par. 0023).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Evans discloses wherein the piezoelectric material is ceramic and wherein the piezoelectric material is selected from the group consisting of BaTiO3, PbTiO3, Pb(ZrTi)O3, Na0.5K0.5NbO3, BaxSr1-xNb2O5, and Bi0.5Na0.5TiO3 (par. 0022 discloses the piezoelectric material is barium titanate).
Regarding claims 4-8, Evans discloses wherein the piezoelectric material covers the outer side wall and the inner side wall; wherein the piezoelectric material covers the inner side wall; wherein the piezoelectric material covers the outer side wall; wherein the piezoelectric material is filled in the center of the hollow pillar, and is in contact with the inner side wall; and wherein the piezoelectric material is filled in the center of the hollow pillar, and covers the outer side wall (par. 0037 discloses the piezoelectric coating is applied to all surfaces of the implant which includes the outer surface 103, bore 104 and inner surface 104a and par. 0018 discloses the bore 104 is filled with the piezoelectric material).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (2011/0118852).
Evans discloses the claimed invention of claim 1 including wherein, based on a total content of the implanted piezoelectric bone material being 100 vol% (the volume of the body 102; Fig. 1A); except for content of the piezoelectric material is at least 20 vol%. However, Evans discloses the piezoelectric material can be applied as coating to any surfaces of the body 102 (par. 0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the piezoelectric material in Evans to include at least 20 vol%, since these are result effective variables that contribute to the overall bone ingrowth, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the piezoelectric material in Evans to include at least 20 vol%, would allow for sufficient bone growth and implant integration (par. 0018 of Evans). MPEP 2144.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (2011/0118852) in view of Bu Park (2023/0088596).
Evans discloses the claimed invention of claim 1; except for wherein the piezoelectric material is piezoelectric plastic. However, Bu Park teaches a similar piezoelectric bone material (abstract) comprising PVDF (par. 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric material in Evans to include plastic, as taught and suggested by Bu Park, for using a biocompatible piezoelectric material.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the piezoelectric material to be plastic since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASHITA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5417. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm M-Th; 8am-4pm Fri (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Jerrah Edwards, can be reached at 408-918-7557. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YASHITA SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774