Some 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. At present claims 4 and 20 discloses the terms first engagement means and second engagement means, where the first engagement means is defined in claim 6 as comprising first teeth or projections or recesses and the second engagement means defined in claim 6 as comprising recesses or openings or protuberances for engaging the first engagement means.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 states that it depends on claim 15 but claim 15 is directed to a mold while claim 18 is directed to a method. It seems that claim 18 was supposed to depend on claim 17 instead of claim 15 since claim 17 is a method claim. The Examiner will interpret claim 18 to be dependent of claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10, 11, 15 and 16 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.
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) 1 - 9, 12 - 14 and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foroni et al (US 2018/0319057).
With regards to claim 1, Foroni teaches a mold for obtaining a spacer device for replacing a joint prothesis or a part thereof (Abstract) comprising:
A first half-shell comprising or delimiting a first forming surface delimited by a first perimeter edge and designed to shape at least one first portion of the spacer device (Figure 1 item 4a)
A second half-shell comprising a second forming surface delimited by a second perimeter edge designed to shape at least one second portion of the spacer device (Figure 1 item 4b)
Where the first half-shell and the second half-shell are configured to be removably coupled, in use, so as to define a closed configuration for the mold and to delimit between the first forming surface and the second forming surface at least one molding cavity corresponding to an external configuration of the spacer device or of the part thereof to be formed (paragraphs 23 and 24) and
Where the mold comprises at least one extractor component configured to remove the spacer device or the part thereof formed in the mold when the mold is in an open configuration with the first half-shell removed from, and not in contact with, the second half-shell (Figure 1 item 14, paragraph 60).
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that at least one extractor component is displaceable between a rest position and at least one extraction position in a direction from an inside of a respective half-shell towards a respective forming surface so as to determine a detachment of the spacer device from respective forming surface (paragraph 41).
With regards to claim 3, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that at least one extractor component is housed in a seat delimited by the first half-shell or by the second half-shell and is mounted so as to be movable in the seat between a rest position, in which the at least one extractor component does not protrude within the at least one molding cavity or relative to a respective forming surface or protrudes therein for a first amount, and at least one extraction position, in which the at least one extractor component protrudes at least partially within the at least one molding cavity or relative to a respective forming surface by an amount greater than the rest position (as seen in Figure 1 item 14).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that the at least one extractor component has first engagement means and wherein a respective half-shell has at the seat second engagement means designed to engage the first engagement means at least when at least one extractor component is moved from the rest position to the at least one extraction position (Figure 1 item 17).
With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that the mold is configured to cause an engagement between the first and second engagement means to prevent or limit a return to the rest position of the at least one extractor component (paragraph 58).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that the first engagement means comprises first teeth or projections or recesses and where the second engagement means comprises second recesses or opening or protuberances for engaging the first engagement means (Figure 1 item 17).
With regards to claim 7, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that the seat is open towards the respective forming surface of the respective half-shell and towards an outside of the mold, so that starting from an outside of the mold the at least one extractor component can be manually pressed or moved to take the at least one extractor component from a rest position to an extraction position (as seen in Figure 1).
With regards to claim 8, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that the at least one extractor component has a base portion and a stem portion protruding from the base portion and is designed to engage the spacer device or the part thereof formed in the mold (as seen in Figure 1 item 14).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that at least one of the first or second half-shells defines an opening or through hole opening into the at least one molding cavity or into a respective forming surface and where the portion is slidably inserted into the through opening or hole (as seen in Figure 1 item 13).
With regards to claim 12, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that at least one of the first or the second half shell comprises at least one first wall or main face where the respective forming surface and a lateral extension consisting of one or more side wall or faces extending from the first wall or main face are defined or delimited, the seat being delimited in a zone defined between the at least one first wall or main face and the lateral extension (Figure 1 items 7a).
With regards to claim 13, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that the mold further comprises at least one second wall or main face for closing the half shell (Figure 1 item 7b).
With regards to claim 14, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that at least one of the first or the second half-shell delimits a secondary cavity open towards the first forming surface and where the at least one extractor component protrudes into the secondary cavity at least in the extraction position (Figure 1 item 6b).
With regards to claim 17, Foroni teaches a method of extracting a spacer device or a part thereof from a mold comprising, after the spacer device or the part thereof has been with the mold, opening the mold by moving apart the first half-shell and the second half-shell so that the spacer device or the part thereof remains in contact with the first or the second half-shell and actuating the at least one extractor component so as to remove the spacer device or the part thereof from the first or the second half-shell or from the respective forming surface in contact therewith (paragraphs 58 – 67).
With regards to claim 18, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that, when the at least one extractor component is actuated, moving the at least one extractor component between a rest position and an extraction position, in which the at least one extractor component protrudes within the at least one molding cavity or relative to a respective molding surface to a greater extent in the rest position (paragraphs 58 – 67).
With regards to claim 19, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that the at least extractor component is actuated manually by pressing against or acting on a base portion thereof (paragraphs 58 – 67).
With regards to claim 20, the teachings of Foroni are presented above. Additionally, Foroni teaches that, where after actuating the at least one extractor component, the first engagement means engage the second engagement means, so that an engagement between the first and second engagement means prevents or limits a return to the rest position of the at least one extractor component (paragraphs 58 – 67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights