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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,6,11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically the new limitation argued that the references of record did not suggest in the art rejections is now taught in the new reference made of record to Drescher and detailed below. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., separate centering ring distinct from the fastening ring) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 8 and 9 of the claim recite " a concave inner face configured as a receiving seat, the receiving seat configured to receive a joint head of a femoral component of a hip prosthesis” repeat the same limitation again in lines 19,20 and appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7,9-12,14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link et al. (WO 2020/239585) in view of Drescher (EP 2198808). Link et al. show (Fig. 4) a pelvic implantation device. Fig. 2 shows one element defined by at least two outwardly directed, flat, fastening brackets 2 arranged at an edge of a fastening ring 4, the fastening ring forming an opening 40. Fig. 3 shows another element in the form of a socket support body 6 comprising: a convex outer face configured to contact a pelvic bone; a distal edge that extends substantially orthogonally from a circumferential surface of the socket support body. However, Link et al. did not disclose the socket body with a tab, wherein the tab forms a portion of the circumferential surface of the socket support body, the tab comprising a proximal edge that extends substantially orthogonally from a surface of the tab, wherein the distal edge and the proximal edge are configured to contact an upper surface of the fastening ring and the tab is configured to move toward a center of the socket support body upon application of a pressure, wherein the proximal edge does not contact the upper surface of the fastening ring in a pressed configuration of the tab, wherein the socket support body is separable from the fastening ring in a pressed configuration of the tab. Drescher teaches (Fig. 2) a socket body 8 with a tab 30, wherein the tab forms a portion of the circumferential surface of the socket support body. Fig. 5 also shows the tab comprising a proximal edge 42 that extends substantially orthogonally from a surface of the tab, wherein the distal edge and the proximal edge are configured to contact an upper surface of the structure to be engaged with, see Fig. 10 of Drescher. Drescher also teach (Fig. 6) the tab 30 is configured to move toward a center of the socket support body upon application of a pressure, wherein the proximal edge does not contact the upper surface of the connecting structure in a pressed configuration of the tab. Additionally Drescher teaches (paragraph 27) the socket support body is separable from the outer support structure in a pressed configuration of the tab. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the socket body with a tab, wherein the tab forms a portion of the circumferential surface of the socket support body, the tab comprising a proximal edge that extends substantially orthogonally from a surface of the tab, wherein the distal edge and the proximal edge are configured to contact an upper surface of the structure to seat therein and the tab is configured to move toward a center of the socket support body upon application of a pressure, wherein the proximal edge does not contact the upper surface of the structure seated therein in a pressed configuration of the tab, wherein the socket support body is separable from the structure seated therein in a pressed configuration of the tab as taught by Drescher with the pelvic implantation device of Link et al. such that it allows an orthopedic surgeon to remove for revision, see paragraph 3 of Drescher. Regarding claims 2,7 Link et al. disclose (paragraph 43 of translation) the fastening brackets comprise a reshapeable material that is biocompatible. With respect to claim 3, Link et al. disclose the fastening brackets can be made of titanium, paragraph 43 of translation. Regarding claims 4,9 Link et al. show (Fig. 2) the fastening brackets 2 are made in one piece with the fastening ring 4. With respect to claims 5,10 Link et al. show (Fig. 4) the fastening ring 4 is configured to receive the socket support body 6. Regarding claim 6, the same explanation of obviousness is made of modifying the Link apparatus in view of Drescher for the tab feature on the socket since claim 6 has the same limitations as claim 1 other than the additional feature of the "narrow portion between adjacent openings on the fastening brackets" which explained above to be disclosed by Link, see annotation below and explanation for claim 11 that recited the same feature. Regarding claim 11, Link et al. show (Fig. 4) a pelvic implantation device. Fig. 2 shows at least two outwardly directed, flat, fastening brackets 2 arranged at an edge of a fastening ring 4, the fastening ring forming an opening 40, the fastening brackets comprising openings 21 configured to receive a fastener, see paragraph 42 of translation. It can also be seen (Fig. 2) the fastening brackets comprise a narrow portion (width is less for area between openings than midpoint transverse axis of opening width) between adjacent openings on the fastening brackets. See below annotation. Fig. 3 shows a socket support body 6 and Fig. 1 shows a convex outer face configured to contact a pelvic bone 9. Link et al. further disclose there is a concave inner face of the body 6 configured as a receiving seat, the receiving seat configured to receive a joint head of a femoral component of a hip prosthesis, paragraph 45 of translation. Please note the added limitations of the tab as recited in claim 1 is explained above as for claims 1 and 6 such that the same obvious rejection is applicable and repeated as above.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Link et al. disclose (paragraph 43 of translation) the fastening brackets comprise a reshapeable material. Regarding claim 14, Link et al. show (Fig. 2) the fastening brackets 2 are made in one piece with the fastening ring 4.
With respect to claim 15, Link et al. show (Fig. 4) the fastening ring 4 is configured to receive the socket support body 6. With respect to claim 16, Fig. 3 of Drescher show the tab 30 is separated from a remaining portion of the circumferential surface of the socket support body by two tab slots 36. Regarding claim 17 as best understood, the distal edge is just an opposing side of the socket support body and since Drescher shows (Fig. 2) an opposite side tab there is a distal edge extending along only a portion of the circumference of the socket support body. Regarding claim 18, Link shows the fastening ring comprises a centering ring 4 configured to position the socket support body in a substantially central position within the opening of the fastening ring. With respect to claim 19, Fig. 1 of Drescher shows how the socket body has an interference fit with the supporting structure and thus per the modification to include a tab on socket support body of Link results in the fastening ring being configured to form an interference fit with the socket support body upon insertion of the socket support body into the opening of the fastening ring. Regarding claim 20, it can also be seen (Fig. 2) that incorporating the tabs per Drescher includes a support shoulder configured to define an axial stop position of the fastening ring on the socket support body.
Claim(s) 8,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link et al. (WO 2020/239585) in view of Drescher (EP 2198808) as applied to claims 6,11 above, and further in view of Kurze et al. (2015/0238653). Link et al. (WO 2020/239585) in view of Drescher is explained as before. It is also noted that Link et al. does disclose the fastening ring can be made of metal, paragraph 43. However, Link et al. as modified with Drescher did not explicitly state the fastening brackets comprise an aluminum magnesium alloy. Kurze et al. teach (paragraphs 28,29) fastening brackets or bone plates can be an implant for repair. Kurze et al. further teach (paragraph 18) the implant can be made of aluminum magnesium alloy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternatively use fastening brackets that are formed from an alloy material, such as aluminum magnesium alloy as taught by Kurze et al. with the pelvic implantation device fastening ring of Link et al. in view of Drescher such that it provides the desirable property needed to match the bone site condition.
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 BRIAN E PELLEGRINO whose telephone number is (571)272-4756. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/BRIAN E PELLEGRINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
