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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 11 and 19 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. The Examiner is not clear what does the applicant means with: “comprises at least one drilling…”? The word: “drilling” is presented as a verb, such as, describing an action , the Examiner wants to remind the Applicant’s representative that the claims are directed to the product and not the method of using the device. Correction is required. 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)(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 1-5, 7-14 , and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhn et al US Patent Pub. 2022/0202574 A1 . NOTE: Some of the claims are disclosing functional limitations of the implantable product. For example, some claims are describing what does the implant is replacing and the location of the implant. Additionally, some other claims are disclosing which specific bone is replacing and the product by process of the implant, such as, manufactured by 3-D printing. Even the Examiner is giving patentable weight to those limitations, the Examiner just wants to point out that the Examiner is just required to find a reference capable of performing those tasks. Regarding claims 1 and 12, Kuhn et al discloses a device (37, see Fig. 10) intended for guided bone regeneration (see paragraph 194 disclosing a hydroxyapatite) which comprises at least one covering plate (43) whose shape permits the recreation of a bone's surface as the bone's surface was prior to the appearance of a bone defect by covering said bone defect while resting (capable, see paragraph 71), at least partially, on the healthy bone surrounding said bone defect (capable of), wherein said covering plate is made of grade 1 or grade 2 titanium (see tables 1 and 2 in paragraph 98). Regarding claim 2, see paragraph 106. Regarding claim 3, see table 1 in paragraph 98 showing different embodiments having a structure thickness between 0.3mm to 1mm. Regarding claim s 4 and 13 , a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman , 489 F2d 742, 180 U.S.P.Q. 324 (CCPA 1974) . Whether a product is patentable depends on w h ether it is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by w h ether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug , 333 F2d 905, 142 U.S.P.Q. 161 (CCPA 1964) . In an ex parte case, product-by-process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al. , 535 F2d 67, 190 U.S.P.Q. 15, see footnote 3 (CCPA 1976) . However, see paragraphs 190 and 198 disclosing the 3-D printing process. Regarding claim s 5 and 14 , see paragraph 96 disclosing a pore size of a minimum of 300 microns. Regarding claim s 7 and 16 , see Fig. 10 and paragraph 204 showing and disclosing the solid material at the circumferential periphery of the plate. Regarding claims 8-9 and 17-18 , even though the specification does not mention the width of the solid material, it is clearly disclosed in Fig. 10 that the width (element 45) of the solid material is very similar to the thickness of the plate, therefore, as disclosed in the different embodiments shown in Table 1 having foam thickness between 1mm and 3.2mm we can get from these measurements that the width of the solid material is approximately between 1mm to 3mm falling between the claimed range. Regarding claim 10, see paragraph 202, lines 5-6. Regarding claims 11 and 19, since the Examiner is not clear what does the Applicant’s representative is claiming , the Examiner is interpreting the “the at least one drilling” as a hole used with the screw in order to attached the implant to the targeted bone area. 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. Claim s 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn et al US Patent Pub. 2022/0202574 A1 . Kuhn et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kuhn et al does not disclose a range of pores sizes between 50 to 100 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reduce the diameter of the pore sizes between 50 to 100 microns , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4760 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Thomas Barrett can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ALVIN J STEWART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 2/26/26