DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action is response to communications received on 06/22/2026. Claims 21-26 & 29-40 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 29, applicant argues that Lennox (US 5,507,824) in view of Ryland et al. (US 5,169,399) fails to teach the claims as currently amended.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A new ground(s) of rejection is made infra in view of Lennox (US 5,507,824) addressing all the claim limitations as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-26 & 36-39 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The Examiner notes the change in prior art was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
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) 21 & 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennox (US 5,507,824) in view of Scott et al. (US 7,572,296).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Lennox discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Lennox teaches a liner (20) for an acetabular cup (16), comprising:
a proximal surface (shown), at least a portion of the proximal surface is configured to extend along a plane (P5) at an angle relative to an outer rim (shown) of the acetabular cup (16) when the liner is seated in the acetabular cup;
an outer convex surface (shown) configured to at least partially extend into (in cavity 32) an acetabular cup (16) when the liner is seated in the acetabular cup;
a concave bearing surface (socket 62) recessed relative to the proximal surface (shown) and configured to receive a head (68) of a femoral stem (14); and
one or more visual indicators (reference mark 57) on the liner (Fig 5) that is fully capable of identifying a location for applying an impaction force on the liner (as it identifies the center line of the liner).
However, Lennox does not disclose wherein the proximal surface is configured to incline from a first end of the liner to an opposing end of the liner, wherein the first end of the liner and the opposing end of the liner are each at an outer rim of the liner.
PNG
media_image2.png
747
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Scott teaches an acetabular prosthesis (Fig 12) in the same field of endeavor. Said acetabular prosthesis comprising a liner (36) wherein liners proximal surface (shown) is configured to incline from a first end (shown) of the liner to an opposing end (shown) of the liner, wherein the first end of the liner and the opposing end of the liner are each at an outer rim of the liner (Fig 12). Said inclined proximal surface of the liner provides additional support for femoral head and reduced wear (Col 1: lines 36-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the proximal surface of the liner of Lennox, in the manner as taught by Scott, in order to provide additional support to the femoral head and reduce wear.
Regarding Claim 24, Lennox teaches wherein the one or more visual indicators are fully capable of being virtual indicators applied or projected onto the concave bearing surface. An image projected onto the bearing would not structurally change the bearing, and as the device casting the projection is not positively claimed, the device of Lennox is fully capable of receiving a projected image.
Regarding Claim 25, Lennox teaches wherein the one or more visual indicators (57) comprise a visual indicator indicating a center location (Fig 5) of the acetabular cup that is fully capable of applying an impaction force square with the acetabular cup.
Regarding Claim 26, Lennox teaches wherein the one or more visual indicators comprise a visual indicator (57) indicating an offset location (as the socket 62 is offset relative to the liner) of a center of the acetabular cup when the liner is seated in the acetabular cup.
Claim(s) 29 & 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennox (US 5,507,824) in view of Ryland et al. (US 5,169,399). Please refer to the annotated figure(s) supra in consideration of the following rejections.
Regarding Claim 29, Lennox discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Lennox teaches a liner (20) for an acetabular cup, comprising:
a liner (20) comprising:
a proximal surface (shown) configured to extend along a plane (P5) at an angle relative to an outer rim (shown) of the acetabular cup (16) when the liner is seated in the acetabular cup;
an outer convex surface (shown) configured to at least partially extend into (in cavity 32) an acetabular cup (16) when the liner is seated in the acetabular cup;
a concave bearing surface (socket 62) recessed relative to the proximal surface (shown) and configured to receive a head (68) of a femoral stem (14); and
one or more visual indicators (reference mark 57) on the liner (Fig 5) that is fully capable of identifying a location for applying an impaction force on the liner (as it identifies the center line of the liner).
However, Lennox does not disclose an impactor having an angled impaction surface corresponding to the proximal surface of the liner.
Ryland teaches an impactor (10) for impacting an acetabular liner (114) in the same field of endeavor. Said impactor comprising an angled impactor surface (53) corresponding to the proximal surface of the liner (114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the impactor, as taught by Ryland, in the assembly of the acetabular cup of Lennox. As Lennox teaches that the liner (20) can be secured to the shell member with various mechanisms (Col 12: lines 21-23), utilizing Ryland’s impactor would have been an obvious tool/mechanism for the surgeon to assemble the device of Lennox during surgery.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination teaches wherein the one or more visual indicators are fully capable of being virtual indicators applied or projected onto the concave bearing surface. An image projected onto the bearing would not structurally change the bearing, and as the device casting the projection is not positively claimed, the device of Lennox is fully capable of receiving a projected image.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination teaches wherein the concave bearing surface (62) extends about an axis (shown in green) that is offset from an axis (shown in yellow) of the acetabular cup when the liner is seated in the acetabular cup.
PNG
media_image3.png
649
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 34, the combination teaches wherein the impactor (10) comprises a shaft (shown), wherein the impaction surface extends at an angle (shown) relative to a length of the shaft of the impactor (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 35, the combination teaches wherein the impactor comprises a shaft (shown), wherein a first portion of the impaction surface extends at an angle (shown) relative to a length of the shaft of the impactor (as shown on Fig 1), wherein a second portion (shown) of the impaction surface extends perpendicular to the length of the shaft.
Claim(s) 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryland et al. (US 5,169,399) in view of Scott et al. (7,572,296).
PNG
media_image4.png
758
571
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 36, Ryland discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ryland teaches a method for implanting a liner in an acetabular cup, comprising:
identifying a size of an acetabular cup (112) for an acetabular hole;
identifying a liner (114) for use with the acetabular cup;
inserting the acetabular cup in the acetabular hole (Fig 2);
inserting the liner in the acetabular cup, the liner (114) having a concave bearing surface (shown) and a proximal surface (shown) that extends along a plane (shown in blue) at an angle relative to an outer rim (shown as red) of the acetabular cup when the liner is seated in the acetabular cup (Fig 2); and
impacting the liner into place in the acetabular cup (Col 6: lines 23-27) with an impactor (10) square with the acetabular cup to seat the liner in the acetabular cup, the impactor having an impaction surface (where impactor contacts the liner in Fig 2) corresponding to one or both of the proximal surface and the concave bearing surface of the liner.
However, Ryland does not disclose wherein the liners proximal surface is configured to extend along a single plane, and wherein the proximal surface configured to incline from a first end of the liner to an opposing end of the liner, the first end of the liner and the opposing end of the liner each at an outer rim of the liner.
Scott teaches an acetabular prosthesis (Fig 12) in the same field of endeavor. Said acetabular prosthesis comprising a liner (36) wherein liners proximal surface (shown) is configured to incline from a first end (shown) of the liner to an opposing end (shown) of the liner, wherein the first end of the liner and the opposing end of the liner are each at an outer rim of the liner (Fig 12). Said inclined proximal surface of the liner provides additional support for femoral head and reduced wear (Col 1: lines 36-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the proximal surface of the liner of Ryland, in the manner as taught by Scott, in order to provide additional support to the femoral head and reduce wear.
Regarding Claim 37, Ryland teaches wherein impacting the liner with the impactor (10) includes applying an impaction force (Col 6: lines 23-27) on the liner so that the applied force is centered on a visual indicator (i.e., the liner opening) on the liner.
Regarding Claim 38, Ryland teaches wherein impacting the liner with the impactor (10) includes applying an impaction force (Col 6: lines 23-27) square on the liner (114) relative to the acetabular cup (112).
Regarding Claim 39, Ryland teaches wherein impacting the liner with the impactor (10) includes applying an impaction force (Col 6: lines 23-27) centered at an offset location (as the central axes of the liner and cup are offset from one another) of a center of the acetabular cup when the liner is seated in the acetabular cup.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 23, 30, 31 & 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 AINSLEY DUKERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-4pm.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at (571)272-9062. 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 A DUKERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights