DETAILED ACTION The following is a non-final office action is response to communications received on 12/08/2023 . Claims 1-20 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. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US (11,857,422) . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent and the instant application all recite the same basic structure with a permutation of similar elements throughout. Regarding Claim s 1 & 2 , patent claim 1 also recite s the same limitations. Regarding Claim 3 , patent claim 2 recite s the same limitations. Regarding Claim 4, patent claims 3 & 4 recite the same limitations. Regarding Claim 5, patent claim 5 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 6, patent claim 6 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 7, patent claim 7 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 8, patent claim 8 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 9, patent claim 9 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 10, patent claim 10 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 11, patent claim 11 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 12, patent claim 12 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 13, patent claim 13 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 14, patent claim 14 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 15, patent claim 15 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 16, patent claim 16 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 17, patent claim 17 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 18, patent claim 18 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 19, patent claim 19 recites the same limitations. Regarding Claim 20, patent claim 20 recites the same limitations. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if a timely filed terminal disclaimer(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is filed to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most pertinent art found, fails to teach and/or fairly suggest the instant invention. Ex amination of similar structures was established and discussed in parent application 17/166,665. As set forth in the parent application, Hutton et al. (US 10,307,255) di scloses the invention substantially as claimed . Regarding Claims 1 & 20, Hutton teaches an acetabular cup system (Fig 3), comprising: a cup (100) configured to receive any one of a plurality of liners (200), the cup comprising: an outer surface (122) configured to engage an anatomy, and a generally concave inner surface (117), comprising: an inner spherical surface (117) having a substantially uniform radius (Fig 3) of curvature and a single groove (shown) interrupting the spherical surface; and a liner (200) comprising: a substantially convex outer surface (210) configured to be received within the concave inner surface of the cup (Fig 3) , and a locking feature (250) configured to be secured within the single groove (Col 5: lines 48-49) disposed in the inner spherical surface of the cup, the locking feature comprising: an angled portion (shown) that has a substantially vertical orientation so as to diverge from the convex outer surface of the liner (Fig 3) , and an extension lip (shown) extending substantially perpendicularly from the angled portion (Figs 3 & 5) , the extension lip configured to engage the single groove of the cup (Col 5: lines 48-49). However, the prior art either individually or in combination, does not teach or render obvious wherein a first distance between an upper inside surface of the single groove of the cup and an upper surface of the extension lip of the locking feature is greater than or equal to a second distance from the angled portion to the outermost tip of the extension lip of the locking feature . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN AINSLEY DUKERT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3258 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melanie Tyson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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