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
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanders et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0204386).
Sanders et al. (hereinafter, Sanders) discloses a joint arthroplasty implant (abstract) comprising an implant body 100 having an articular surface 112 (e.g., fig. 1A), an osseo-interface section 130, and a projection 140 from the osseo-interface section (e.g., fig. 1C), wherein the articular surface is configured to interface with the joint (e.g., fig. 1D), the osseo-interface section is configured to interface with a recess in a bone (e.g., para. 47), and the projection is configured to engage with a mating portion of the recess (e.g., fig. 1D).
For claim 2, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 1, wherein the projection has a geometry configured to interlock with a recess in a bone.
For claim 4, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 1, wherein the articular surface is configured to be flush with an articular surface of the resected bone (e.g., fig. 1D).
For claim 5, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 2, wherein the projection has at least one of a plurality of bone engagement projections thereupon (e.g., fig. 1C).
For claim 6, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 2, wherein the projection has rounded fillet 140’ at an end thereof (e.g., fig. 1C, 3A).
For claim 7, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 2, wherein the projection has a substantially T-shaped end thereof (e.g., fig. 7A).
For claim 8, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 2, wherein the projection tapers along a chamfered surface of the osseo-interface section (e.g., fig. 5B).
For claim 9, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 2, wherein the implant body is substantially polygonal and the projection is formed by a vertex of implant body (e.g., fig. 3A).
For claim 10, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 2, wherein the osseo-interface section has a concave central surface and the projection further comprises plural projections bounding the concave central surface of the osseo-interface section (e.g., fig. 3A).
For claim 11, Sanders discloses the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 2, wherein the osseo-interface section further comprises a convex surface 140’ and the projection further comprises a region of the convex surface furthest from the articular surface (e.g., fig. 3A).
For claim 19, Sanders discloses a method of implanting the joint arthroplasty implant of Claim 1, comprising the steps of forming a seating recess in at least one bone of a joint, and implanting the implant body into the seating recess (e.g., para. 56)
For claim 20, Sanders discloses a method of implanting the mid-foot arthritis arthroplasty system of Claim 1, comprising the step of implanting the implant body into a subtalar joint by a medial/lateral/posterior surgical approach (e.g., fig. 3C).
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.
Claims 3, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0204386) in view of Sanders et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0128985).
For claim 3, Sanders lacks disclosure of the implant body comprising one of ceramic on metal or metal on ceramic. Instead, Sanders suggests any known material may be used for the components (para. 49). Sanders ‘985 teaches ceramic and metal components for the joint arthroplasty implant (para. 73), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the implant of Sanders as comprising ceramic and metal as taught by Sanders ‘985 as an obvious selection of a known material suitable for use as a joint arthroplasty implant. This modification would have occurred using known methods and would have yielded predictable results.
For claims 21 and 22, Sanders fails to teach or suggest implanting the implant body into the calcaneocuboid joint or the talonavicular joint. Sanders ‘985 teaches a similar joint arthroplasty implant suitable for implantation in the subtalar joint as well as the calcaneocuboid and talonavicular joints (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implanted the implant of Sanders into the calcaneocuboid or talonavicular joint as taught by Sanders ‘985 for the purpose of addressing defects within those anatomical regions. This modification would have occurred using known methods and would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0204386) in view of Mertens et al. (U.S. Pat. No.: 8,512,409).
Sanders lacks a compression member comprising a staple coupled to the projection and the bone. Mertens teaches fixation members 145 in the form of staples (col. 5 lines 44-55) as a suitable anchor for the prosthesis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the implant of Sanders with staples as taught by Mertens as an obvious anchoring means suitable for anchoring a prosthesis to the underlying bone. This modification would have occurred using known methods and would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBA GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM Mountain Time.
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, 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 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.
/SUBA GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights