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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 07/27/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 have been amended, claims 15-20 are canceled, and claim 21 is newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation "the laser modification" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13 and 14 depend directly from claim 1, and the amendment of 07/27/2026 deleted the only recitation of "laser modification" from claim 1. Amended claim 1 recites only "laser irradiation" from "a laser beam," which is not the same thing as a laser modification, and it is unclear what structure or surface "the laser modification" refers to. For purposes of examination, claims 13 and 14 are interpreted as requiring that the implant device include a laser-modified surface made by laser engraving (claim 13) or laser etching (claim 14).
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 8, 9, 11, 12, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of Robinson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,771,528) in view of McLean et al. (U.S. 12,161,565 B2).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, claims 1 and 7 of the '528 patent disclose the invention of claims 8 and 9 of the application except for explicitly disclosing the implant body structure of claim 1, namely an implant body structure having load-bearing superior and inferior surfaces, one or more exterior side surfaces and one or more interior side surfaces extending between the superior and inferior surfaces, and one or more facet features extending from the interior side surfaces, each forming a surface positioned to receive laser irradiation from a laser beam oriented substantially perpendicular to the superior or inferior surface. Patent claim 1 recites an implant device configured to be at least partially in contact with bone having an improved osteoinductive feature; bone growth surfaces formed by subtractive laser etching and forming a random or non-random network of trenches, grooves, or surface recesses; nano scale prominences projecting less than 200 nanometers from the bone growth surfaces, only visible through magnification of sub-micron resolution, exhibiting large surface areas relative to their size; and a surface area greater "with no additional volume" than the unmodified surface (i.e., the same volume or less). Patent claim 7 recites that the implant device is a spine implant for bone fusion between vertebrae.
McLean discloses, in the same field of endeavor, a spinal interbody fusion device 100 having an upper plate 116 and a lower plate 118 with load-bearing contact regions 116a, 118a (superior and inferior surfaces), a bellows shaped shell 120 having a wall 122 with an exterior side surface and an interior side surface defining a hollow interior 124 for bone graft, and wall segments angled inwardly between the plates and flaring outwardly toward each plate (facet features), each flared segment forming an inclined surface that faces the adjacent plate and is directly exposed through central opening 116b or 118b along a line perpendicular to that plate (see Figs. 14-17 and the description thereof).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the laser-etched bone growth surfaces of patent claims 1 and 7 on a spinal implant having the body structure and facet features taught by McLean, in order to obtain a hollow interbody device that contains bone graft for through-growth fusion and has stiffness mimicking a PEEK implant while permitting radiographic imaging of the graft, as taught by McLean.
Regarding claim 11, patent claim 1 recites a "non-random network," and McLean further discloses a textured surface in a geometric pattern of projections and recesses 130 (see Fig. 14), i.e., an organized pattern.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation is a product-by-process limitation. A surface formed by the subtractive laser etching of patent claim 1 is necessarily a surface lying unobstructed in the path of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 21, McLean's flared segments of wall 122 form part of the inner boundary of hollow interior 124 and are directly exposed through central openings 116b, 118b, and therefore provide laser access to the interior side surfaces.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McLean et al. (U.S. 12,161,565 B2).
Concerning claim 1, McLean discloses an implant device (spinal interbody fusion device 100; see Figs. 14-17) configured to be at least partially in contact with bone on implantation (porous contact regions 116a, 118a contact the vertebral endplates) having an improved osteoinductive feature to enhance new bone formation (gyroid lattice structures 126, 128 with laser ablated textured surfaces provide enhanced osteointegration), the implant device comprising: an implant body structure (upper plate 116, lower plate 118, and bellows shaped shell 120) having a superior or first surface (116a) and an inferior or second surface (118a), both surfaces configured to be load bearing upon implantation (i.e., the plates bear the load between opposing vertebral bodies), and one or more exterior side surfaces (outer face of wall 122; see Fig. 15 below) and one or more interior side surfaces (inner face of wall 122 defining hollow interior 124; see Fig. 15 below) extending between the superior and inferior surfaces; and one or more facet features (sloped segments of wall 122 adjoining porous contact regions 116a, 118a; see Fig. 15 below) extending from the interior side surfaces, each of the facet features forming a surface positioned to receive laser irradiation from a laser beam configured to remain substantially perpendicular to the superior or inferior surface of the implant body structure (wall 122 is angled inwardly between plates 116, 118 and flares outwardly toward each plate; each flared segment therefore presents an inclined surface that faces the adjacent plate and is directly exposed through central opening 116b or 118b, such that a beam traveling perpendicular to plate 116 or 118 through the opening would strike it; see Fig. 15 below).
[AltContent: textbox (laser beam perpendicular to superior surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Exterior Side surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Interior Side surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Facet Features)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
390
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim directed to "an implant device." The laser beam is not positively recited as an element of the claimed device. The limitation "each of the facet features forming a surface positioned to receive laser irradiation from a laser beam configured to remain substantially perpendicular to the superior or inferior surface of the implant body structure" describes how the device is intended to be processed during manufacture, and the recited laser beam is part of that manufacturing environment rather than part of the implant.
A recitation of the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114(II); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The only structure imparted by this limitation is a facet surface that is oriented non-parallel to the superior-inferior axis and exposed along a line of sight perpendicular to the superior or inferior surface, such that a beam traveling perpendicular to that surface could strike it. A prior art facet surface having that orientation and exposure meets the limitation. The same interpretation applies to the "configured to facilitate laser modification" language of claim 2, the "allow for laser modification" language of claim 7, and the "configured to provide laser access" language of claim 21.
Concerning claim 2, wherein the facet features are configured to facilitate laser modification to enhance osteoinductivity and promote bone ingrowth located in an internal or central bone graft space (hollow interior 124 receives bone graft for through-growth fusion; the exposed titanium facet surfaces are capable of laser modification in the same manner McLean laser ablates the implant's titanium surfaces).
Concerning claim 3, wherein at least a portion of the implant body structure is exposed to subtractive laser modification which creates a laser modified network having a random or non-random network of trenches, grooves or recesses (struts 126a, 128a are laser ablated with a nanosecond pulsed laser to form a geometric pattern of projections and recesses 130 up to at least 100 μm deep; see Fig. 14) having nano scale features or prominences for new bone growth formation to attach (ultrafast (femtosecond) laser ablation forms nano-structures of projections and recesses less than 1 μm deep and preferably not greater than 200 nm; see col. 8, lines 49-55).
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, and 12-14 recite that surfaces are "exposed to subtractive laser modification," "exposed to subtractive laser engraving," "formed by the subtractive laser modification process," "formed by emitting laser beams unobstructed," or "made by laser engraving"/"laser etching." These are product-by-process limitations. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; if the product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985). These limitations are therefore given weight only to the extent of the structure they imply, namely a textured surface having a network of trenches, grooves, or recesses with nano-scale features.
Concerning claim 4, wherein the facet features are exposed to subtractive laser engraving which creates a laser modified network having a random or non-random network of trenches, grooves or recesses having nano scale features or prominences for new bone growth formation to attach (the facet features include the adjoining porous contact regions 116a, 118a, whose struts 126a, 128a carry the laser ablated pattern 130 and nano-structures; see Figs. 14-15). The laser ablated surface is structurally indistinguishable from a laser engraved surface.
Concerning claim 6, wherein the facet features are inclined at an angle greater than zero off from parallel relative to the interior side surface or off perpendicular relative to the superior and inferior surfaces (wall 122 is angled at an inclusive bellows angle β of approximately 69° to 120°, so each flared segment is inclined off perpendicular relative to plates 116, 118; see Fig. 17).
Concerning claim 7, wherein the implant body structure has one or more apertures in the side surface (threaded hole 127 through thicker anterior portion 122a of wall 122; see Figs. 14-15) extending through to an internal or central bone graft space (hollow interior 124; hole 127 is used for graft delivery) that allow for laser modification of interior surfaces across from the apertures (a beam directed through hole 127 has line-of-sight access to the opposite inner face of wall 122).
Concerning claim 8, wherein the nano scale features are prominences projecting less than 200 nanometers from one or more bone growth surfaces (nano-structures with projections and recesses preferably not greater than 200 nm on struts 126a, 128a; see col. 8, lines 49-55) only visible through magnification of sub micron resolution (inherent to features of this size) exhibiting large surface areas relative to the size of the nano scale prominences (McLean incorporates U.S. 5,473,138 to Singh, "Method for Increasing the Surface Area of Ceramics, Metals and Composites" - see col. 8, lines 42-48) configured to enhance and receive new bone growth providing the improved osteoinductive feature (texturing to enhance osteointegration) and variations of surface features resulting from the manufacturing process and the material composition of the implant device (surface features vary with the laser type, pulse duration, and the titanium or titanium alloy composition).
Concerning claim 10, wherein the inferior and superior surfaces are exposed to subtractive laser modification which creates a laser modified network having a random or non-random network of trenches, grooves or recesses having nano scale features or prominences for new bone growth formation to attach (struts 126a, 128a of the upper and lower porous contact regions 116a, 118a are laser ablated to form pattern 130 and nano-structures; see Fig. 14).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean et al. (U.S. 12,161,565 B2).
Concerning claim 9, McLean discloses the implant device of claim 8 as set forth above, wherein the nano scale features as prominences are formed on the one or more bone growth surfaces by the subtractive laser modification process (outer surfaces of struts 126a, 128a are ablated by an ultrafast pulsed laser to form nano-structures; see col. 8, lines 49-55), the nano scale features as prominences projecting from the one or more bone growth surfaces and configured to provide a greater surface area than corresponding non-laser-modified bone growth surfaces (the ablation creates projections and recesses where the as-printed strut surface was smooth, and McLean incorporates Singh, "Method for Increasing the Surface Area of Ceramics, Metals and Composites"), wherein the one or more bone growth surfaces with the nano scale features on them have the same volume or less than the corresponding non-laser-modified bone growth surfaces (laser ablation removes material and adds none, so the ablated surface necessarily has the same or less volume).
McLean discloses nano-structure depths of "less than 1 μm and preferably not greater than 200 nm," which overlaps and substantially coincides with the claimed "less than 200 nanometers." In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form McLean's nano-structures with prominences projecting less than 200 nanometers, within McLean's disclosed range, in order to obtain the enhanced osteointegration McLean attributes to its ultrafast laser nano-texturing.
Concerning claim 11, wherein the laser modified network when having a non-random network is an organized pattern (geometric pattern of projections and recesses 130; see Fig. 14).
Concerning claim 12, wherein the laser modified network is formed by emitting laser beams unobstructed to surfaces within the path of the laser beams. This is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). McLean's ablated strut surfaces are necessarily surfaces that lay unobstructed in the beam path, and the resulting textured surface is structurally indistinguishable from the claimed surface.
Concerning claim 21, wherein the surface formed by each of the facet features and positioned to receive laser irradiation from the laser beam is configured to provide laser access to the interior side surfaces (each flared segment of wall 122 forms part of the inner boundary of hollow interior 124 and is directly exposed through central opening 116b or 118b; see Fig. 15 above).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean et al. (U.S. 12,161,565 B2) in view of Ullrich, Jr. et al. (U.S. 11,096,796 B2, "Ullrich '796") and Ullrich, Jr. et al. (U.S. 11,510,786 B2, "Ullrich '786").
Concerning claim 5, McLean discloses the implant device of claim 3 as set forth above, wherein the laser modified network includes superior and inferior surfaces configured to contact bone on implantation (laser ablated struts of porous contact regions 116a, 118a contact the vertebral endplates). McLean does not disclose the laser modified network also including the interior side surfaces and exterior side surfaces of the device.
Ullrich '796 discloses, in the same field of endeavor, a titanium interbody spinal implant having a top surface 10, a bottom surface 20, opposing lateral sides 30, and a vertical aperture 60 defining a substantially hollow center, wherein a roughened surface topography having macro-, micro-, and nano-scale features, which may be formed by laser etching, is provided on the top and bottom surfaces and also on the internal surfaces surrounding the hollow center, including sidewalls 66 of vertical aperture 60 and sidewalls 76 of transverse aperture 70 (see Figs. 35-45; col. 13, lines 51-59; col. 14, lines 40-61). Ullrich '796 teaches that the internal roughening promotes bone growth into graft material in the internal passages of the implant (see col. 22, lines 7-14).
Ullrich '786 discloses, in the same field of endeavor, a spinal implant having a bioactive surface roughening with macro-, micro-, and nano-scale structural features on its anterior, posterior, and lateral (exterior) surfaces that contact vertebral bone and facilitate bone growth and osteointegration (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend McLean's laser modified network to the interior side surfaces of wall 122, as taught by Ullrich '796, in order to promote bone growth into the graft contained in hollow interior 124, and to the exterior side surfaces of wall 122, as taught by Ullrich '786, in order to promote osteointegration with adjacent bone that helps secure the device after fusion. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, with predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean et al. (U.S. 12,161,565 B2) in view of Ullrich, Jr. et al. (U.S. 11,096,796 B2).
Concerning claims 13 and 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, McLean discloses the implant device of claim 1 including a laser-modified surface (struts 126a, 128a ablated by nanosecond and ultrafast pulsed lasers to form a recessed geometric pattern 130 and nano-structures; see Fig. 14). McLean describes the process as laser ablation and does not use the terms "laser engraving" or "laser etching."
Ullrich '796 teaches that bone-integrating roughened topography on an interbody implant may be formed by laser etching, among other subtractive processes that remove metal (see col. 13, lines 51-59). The limitations of claims 13 and 14 are product-by-process limitations, and McLean's subtractively laser-ablated, recessed pattern is structurally indistinguishable from a surface made by laser engraving or laser etching. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form McLean's textured surface by laser engraving or laser etching, as taught by Ullrich '796, since these are known subtractive laser processes for producing bone-integrating implant surface texture, and substituting one known surface-forming technique for another yields predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (Remarks, pp. 7-8) that McLean does not teach "one or more facet features extending from the interior side surfaces, each of the facet features forming a surface positioned to receive laser irradiation from a laser beam configured to remain substantially perpendicular to the superior or inferior surface of the implant body structure." It is noted that the laser beam is not an element of the claimed implant. The limitation describes how the implant is intended to be processed, and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. The only structure the limitation requires is a facet surface oriented and exposed so that a beam perpendicular to the superior or inferior surface can strike it. Wall 122 of McLean is angled inwardly between plates 116, 118 and flares outwardly toward each plate. Each flared segment therefore presents an inclined surface that faces the adjacent plate and lies in direct line of sight through central opening 116b or 118b. A beam directed perpendicular to plate 116 through opening 116b would strike the upper flared segment (see annotated Fig. 15 above). McLean's structure is capable of performing the recited function, which is all the claim requires.
It is also noted that the amendment did not add structure that distinguishes McLean. Previously presented claim 1 required each facet feature to be "inclined off parallel relative to the exterior side surface or off perpendicular relative to the superior and inferior surfaces at an angle." The amendment deleted that angular recitation and replaced it with functional language tied to an unclaimed laser beam. Amended claim 1 therefore recites less structure for the facet features than the claim previously rejected over McLean.
Applicant argues that McLean's angled wall sections are "configured to control stiffness and optimize implant biomechanics" rather than to create laser-accessible interior surfaces. That McLean angles wall 122 for a different reason does not avoid anticipation. A reference need not teach what the application teaches; it is enough that the claim reads on something the reference discloses. A prior art structure capable of the recited use anticipates regardless of the purpose its designer had in mind.
Applicant relies on paragraphs [0046]-[0048] of the specification, arguing that the facets "enable laser processing without substantial repositioning of a laser beam," permit "rapid laser processing of interior structures," and allow the interior surfaces 18 to be engraved "at a very fast rate." None of these features is recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. If Applicant intends the facet features to have a particular structural relationship to the interior side surfaces and the graft space (for example, a specific inclination range, a specific location relative to apertures, or a laser-modified network formed on the facet surfaces themselves), that structure should be positively recited.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 9) that Keller and Robinson '804 fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of McLean, and that Robinson '804 describes additive manufacturing "as opposed to post-formation laser modification." These arguments are moot because the new grounds of rejection of claims 5, 9, 11-14, and 21 do not rely on Keller or Robinson '804 for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new grounds were necessitated by Applicant's amendment of claims 1, 5, and 9 and the addition of claim 21. To the extent Applicant's argument rests on McLean's alleged failure to teach the facet features, McLean is not deficient, for the reasons given above. McLean also expressly textures the implant by laser ablation after it is additively manufactured so it teaches post-formation laser modification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-3819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4 PM .
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo C. Robert, at 571 272-4719. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELLEN C HAMMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
