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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7 and 8 of the claim repeat the same limitation of “a convex outer face configured to contact a pelvic bone” and appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11,12,14,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Link et al. (WO 2020/239585). 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.
[AltContent: textbox (Width of bulbous section that have openings from edge to edge across is of a larger dimension)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Width across connection between openings is with a smaller dimension edge to edge)]
PNG
media_image1.png
209
327
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.
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(s) 1,4,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (EP 1493406) in view of Cook et al. (5989293). Fig. 1 shows a pelvic implantation device 10 with the device comprising a fastening ring 18, the fastening ring forming an opening 100, along with a socket support body 16 comprising: a convex outer face 38 configured to contact a pelvic bone. Figs. 7,8 shows a distal edge that extends substantially orthogonally from a circumferential surface of the socket support body; and a tab 54, 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. However, Richards did not explicitly disclose at least two outwardly directed, flat fastening brackets arranged at an edge of a fastening ring for a pelvic implantation device. Cook et al. teach (Fig. 2) that a pelvic implantation device include at least two outwardly directed, flat fastening brackets 36 on a fastening ring 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate at least two outwardly directed, flat fastening brackets on a fastening ring as taught by Cook et al. with the pelvic implantation device of Richards such that it provides enhanced securement with pelvic bone and can be any length, see col. 3, lines 43-47 of Cook. Regarding claim 4, it can be seen (Fig. 2) that Cook et al. teach the fastening brackets 36 are made in one piece with the fastening ring 16. With respect to claim 5, Fig. 6 of Cook et al. show the fastening brackets 36 comprise openings 40 configured to receive a fastener 42. In addition Richards show (Fig. 7) the fastening ring 18 is configured to receive the socket support body 16.
Claim(s) 1-7,9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link et al. (WO 2020/239585) in view of Richards (EP 1493406). 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. Richards teaches (Fig. 1) a pelvic implantation device 10 with a socket support body 16 comprising: a convex outer face 38 configured to contact a pelvic bone. In addition Richards shows (Figs. 7,8) a distal edge that extends substantially orthogonally from a circumferential surface of the socket support body; and a tab 54, 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternatively use an attachment arrangement such as having a 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 as taught by Richards and use with the prosthetic pelvic socket implant of Link et al. in order to provide an easy coupleable apparatus for the surgeon to use and join elements. 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 Richards 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 above and explanation for claim 11 that recited the same feature.
Claim(s) 2,3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (EP 1493406) in view of Cook et al. (5989293) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trieu (2008/0234753). Richards in view of Cook et al. is explained as before. It is also noted that Richards does disclose the fastening ring can be made of titanium, paragraph 34. Additionally, Cook et al. teach (col. 3, lines 24, 34,35, 45-47) the fastening ring having the fastening brackets is made of metal. However, Richards as modified with Cook et al. did not explicitly state the fastening brackets comprise a reshapeable material that is biocompatible, such as titanium alloy. Trieu teaches (Figs. 7A-D) fastening brackets 30 comprise a reshapeable material that is biocompatible, such as titanium alloy, paragraph 35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fastening brackets that are formed from a reshapeable material that is biocompatible, such as titanium alloy as taught by Trieu with the pelvic implantation device fastening ring of Richards as modified with Cook et al. such that it has the fastening bracket conform to the shape of the bone (see Trieu) or pelvic region in which it is attached.
Claim(s) 6,9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (EP 1493406) in view of Cook et al. (5989293) and Pack (2005/0165401). Fig. 1 shows a pelvic implantation device 10 with the device comprising a fastening ring 18, the fastening ring forming an opening 100, along with a socket support body 16 comprising: a convex outer face 38 configured to contact a pelvic bone. Figs. 7,8 shows a distal edge that extends substantially orthogonally from a circumferential surface of the socket support body; and a tab 54, 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. However, Richards did not explicitly disclose at least two outwardly directed, flat fastening brackets arranged at an edge of a fastening ring for a pelvic implantation device. Cook et al. teach (Fig. 2) that a pelvic implantation device include at least two outwardly directed, flat fastening brackets 36 on a fastening ring 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate at least two outwardly directed, flat fastening brackets on a fastening ring as taught by Cook et al. with the pelvic implantation device of Richards such that it provides enhanced securement with pelvic bone and can be any length, see col. 3, lines 43-47 of Cook. It is noted Cook taught fastening brackets for pelvic devices, but did not teach the fastening brackets comprise a narrow portion between adjacent openings on the fastening brackets. Pack teaches (Figs. 5-7) pelvic repair brackets 10 that comprise a narrow portion between adjacent openings on the fastening brackets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the fastening brackets having a narrow portion between adjacent openings on the fastening brackets as taught by Pack with the pelvic repair device of Richards as modified by Cook et al. such that it increases the versatility of the fastening brackets to the bone contour, paragraphs 9,38-40. Regarding claim 9, it can be seen (Fig. 2) that Cook et al. teach the fastening brackets 36 are made in one piece with the fastening ring 16. With respect to claim 10, Fig. 6 of Cook et al. show the fastening brackets 36 comprise openings 40 configured to receive a fastener 42. In addition Richards show (Fig. 7) the fastening ring 18 is configured to receive the socket support body 16.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (EP 1493406) in view of Cook et al. (5989293) and Pack (2005/0165401) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Trieu (2008/0234753). Richards in view of Cook et al. and Pack is explained as before. It is also noted that Richards does disclose the fastening ring can be made of titanium, paragraph 34. Additionally, Cook et al. teach (col. 3, lines 24, 34,35, 45-47) the fastening ring having the fastening brackets is made of metal. However, Richards as modified with Cook et al. did not explicitly state the fastening brackets comprise a reshapeable material that is biocompatible, such as titanium alloy. Trieu teaches (Figs. 7A-D) fastening brackets 30 comprise a reshapeable material that is biocompatible, such as titanium alloy, paragraph 35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fastening brackets that are formed from a reshapeable material that is biocompatible, such as titanium alloy as taught by Trieu with the pelvic implantation device fastening ring of Richards as modified with Cook et al. and Pack such that it has the fastening bracket conform to the shape of the bone (see Trieu) or pelvic region in which it is attached.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (EP 1493406) in view of Cook et al. (5989293) and Pack (2005/0165401) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kurze et al. (2015/0238653). Richards in view of Cook et al. and Pack is explained as before. It is also noted that Richards does disclose the fastening ring can be made of alloys, paragraph 34. Additionally, Cook et al. teach (col. 3, lines 24, 34,35, 45-47) the fastening ring having the fastening brackets is made of metal. However, Richards as modified with Cook et al. 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 utilize 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 Richards as modified with Cook et al. and Pack such that it provides the desirable property needed to match the bone site condition.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link et al. (WO 2020/239585) in view of Richards (EP 1493406) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kurze et al. (2015/0238653). Link et al. (WO 2020/239585) in view of Richards 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 Richards 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 Richards such that it provides the desirable property needed to match the bone site condition.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link et al. (WO 2020/239585) in view of Kurze et al. (2015/0238653). Link et al. 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. 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. such that it provides the desirable property needed to match the bone site condition.
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
Prosecution Insights