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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 1/15/26 has been entered.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 16 are amended.
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) 1-8, 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iannotti et al. (US 20120143267 A1) in view of BOLLINGER (US 20140163564 A1) and further in view of GELAUDE et al. (US 20140236158 A1).
Iannotti discloses a system capable to guiding a glenoid prosthesis that includes a glenoid component, the system comprising: a glenoid guide figs 34-37 that comprises: a guide feature 428; at least three arms 2278 having a first end coupled with the guide feature 428 and a second end disposed away from the guide feature; at least three peripheral pegs 520, each peripheral peg extending from the second end of a corresponding arm and comprising an engagement surface capable to engage a scapula of a patient; and a strut (see modified fig. 34-35 below) extending laterally from the guide feature, the strut comprising a positioning opening (see modified fig. 34-35 below); wherein the positioning opening is capable to provide to be positioned along a supero-inferior axis of the glenoid component when the glenoid guide is being used to guide the glenoid component with respect to the scapula of the patient, wherein the guide feature 428 comprises a tubular element having a lumen figs. 34-37, wherein a position and orientation of the tubular element is capable to control a translational and rotational position of the glenoid component during implantation, wherein the position and orientation of the tubular element capable to provide translational control along an axis, wherein the tubular element is a central tubular element fig. 34-37, wherein the guide is configured so that one or more pins are insertable through the guide to establish one or more axes about which subsequent bone preparation procedures can be carried out, wherein the at least three peripheral pegs comprises four peripheral pegs figs 36-37, wherein three peripheral pegs of the four peripheral pegs is capable to be positioned to engage an anterior border of a glenoid and a fourth peripheral peg of the four peripheral pegs capable to be positioned to engage a supero-posterior border of the glenoid (see modified fig. 36 below), wherein each of the at least three peripheral pegs extends transversely (blue line in modified fig. 35 below) from an axis (red line in modified fig. 35 below) defined by the corresponding arm of the at least three arms (see modified fig. 35 below) such that each arm of the at least three arms is spaced apart from a glenoid when each engagement surface of the at least three peripheral pegs engages the scapula.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Iannotti fails to teach a pin guide configured to engage the guide feature, wherein the pin guide comprises a tapered surface, and wherein the guide feature is tapered to receive the tapered pin guide.
BOLLINGER teaches a pin guide 122, fig. 1 configured to engage the guide feature 124 to provide stability during the insertion of an alignment pin that can define the alignment axis (para. 38) , wherein the pin guide comprises a tapered surface (para. 37), and wherein the guide feature is tapered to receive the tapered pin guide (para. 37). The complementary tapers can ensure appropriate and selected alignment of the bore 124 and the insert bore 126. Thus, the bore 124 and the insert bore 126 can be concentric and coextensive (para. 37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Iannotti with a pin guide configured to engage the guide feature, wherein the pin guide comprises a tapered surface, and wherein the guide feature is tapered to receive the tapered pin guide in view of BOLLINGER in order to provide stability during the insertion of an alignment pin that can define the alignment axis and to ensure appropriate and selected alignment of the guide feature and the pin guide bore. Thus, the guide feature and the pin guide bore can be concentric and coextensive.
Iannotti in view of BOLLINGER fail to teach that each peripheral peg extending from the second end of a corresponding arm, extending away from a bone-facing surface of the
corresponding arm, and comprising an engagement surface configured to engage a
scapula of a patient; and wherein a longitudinal direction of each of the at least three peripheral pegs extends substantially orthogonally from an axis defined by the corresponding arm of the at least three arms such that each am of the at least three arms is spaced apart from a glenoid when each engagement surface of the at least three peripheral pegs engages the scapula, and the at least three peripheral pegs have a cross- section that is round.
GELAUDE teaches peripheral pegs 5, figs. 4 extending from the second end of a corresponding arm, extending away from a bone-facing surface of the corresponding arm (see modified fig. 4 A, C below), and comprising an engagement surface (para. 102) configured to engage a scapula of a patient; and wherein a longitudinal direction of each of the peripheral pegs 5 extends substantially orthogonally (fig. 4a, c) from an axis defined by the corresponding arm such that each am is spaced apart from a glenoid when each engagement surface of the peripheral pegs engages the scapula fig. 4a.
GELAUDE also teaches peripheral pegs 7, fig. 1 have a cross- section that is round.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the pegs of Iannotti in view of BOLLINGER to extending away from a bone-facing surface of the corresponding arm, and wherein a longitudinal direction of each of the peripheral pegs extends substantially orthogonally from an axis defined by the corresponding arm, and to modify the pegs with around shape further in view of GELAUDE in order to enhancing the stability and the support of the pegs in place on the bone.
PNG
media_image3.png
716
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iannotti in view of BOLLINGER, GELAUDE and further in view of Dross (US 20070005067 A1).
Iannotti in view of BOLLINGER and GELAUDE fail to teach the guide feature comprises two or more lumens having parallel axes.
Dross teaches a guide feature fig. 11 comprises two or more lumens 202 and 216 having parallel axes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the guide feature of Iannotti in view of BOLLINGER and GELAUDE with two or more lumens having parallel axes in view of Dross in order to facilitating insertion more than one alignment pin to provide stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH RAAFAT BOLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5537. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/SAMEH R BOLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775