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 Claims 3-4 in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 2018/0296343) in view of Ulrich, et al. (US 2012/0312778) and Sameoto (US 2014/0363610).
In reference to Claim 3, Wei discloses creating a porous implant ([0010]) (a spinal implant device or orthopedic device or bone implant device) by 3-D printing ([0012]) (produced through a 3D printing additive process) creating porous structures out of biocompatible material ([0072]) the porosity more than about 80% and 90% ([0181]) (in a biocompatible material or materials wherein at least a portion of the device comprises a lattice structure of an open framework having openings or passages extending through the structure) a tool to etch after it is removed from the printing surface ([0169]) for nanopores ([0010]) creating pores on the nano scale ([293]) for attachment ([0118]) (that is further processed through a subtractive laser modificiation or etching process that results in a surface or surfaces with nanometer scale features or structural elements).
Ulrich discloses laser etching an implant ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the porous implant creation method of Wei using the laser etching of Ulrich because the subtractive process can be used to shape the implant to promote bone healing and fusion ([0051]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the laser etching of Ulrich to promote bone healing and fusion. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the laser etching to ensure proper adhesion of the implant and success for implantation.
Sameoto discloses a creation of microfluidic channels through direct printing ([0151]) using a laser ([0151]) (with a laser etching technology).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the porous implant creation method of Wei using the structure and laser etching of Sameoto because the subtractive process can be used to shape the implant to promote bone healing and fusion ([0051]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the laser etching of Sameoto to promote bone healing and fusion. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the laser etching to ensure proper adhesion of the implant and success for implantation.
In reference to Claim 4, modified Wei discloses the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Wei discloses 3-D printing ([0012]) to create a porous implant to mimic trabecular bone ([0304]) (the 3D printing additive process results in a lattice structure that mimics trabecular bone structure).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights