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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/06/2026. As directed by the amendment: new claim 27 has been added. Thus, claims 14-27 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 14-21 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Pressacco et al. (2010/0191345) “Pressacco”; claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon (2005/0171614) in view of Pressacco et al. (2010/0191345) “Pressacco; claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressacco et al. (2010/0191345) “Pressacco” in view of Dunn et al. (2017/0143495) “Dunn”; claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressacco et al. (2010/0191345) “Pressacco” and claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressacco et al. (2010/0191345) “Pressacco” in view of Baege et al. (5965006) “Baege” have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 14-21, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressacco et al. (2010/0191345) “Pressacco” in view of Smith (9610164).
Regarding claim 14, Pressacco discloses a cotyle 10 for a hip prosthesis (Fig. 3 and par. 0049), which comprises a cotyle body (body of element 10; Fig. 3) provided with a plurality of holes 17 (Fig. 3) for the passage of fixing screws (par. 0063-0064 disclose constraint holes for insertion of pin or screw and a full-thickness porous layer of mesh 12 being provided (the mesh 12 is located in all areas of the surface of the body 10; Figs. 2 and 3).
Pressacco is silent regarding said holes being connected to each other by a plurality of ribs which define a grid and between the ribs a full-thickness porous layer. However, Smith teaches a similar cotyle 16 for a hip prosthesis 10 (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of ribs 40 (lattice 40; Figs. 1-2) which define a grid (the structure of the lattice 40 is interconnected with struts 50 forming a grid; Fig. 1) and between the ribs 40 a full-thickness porous layer 60 (col. 3, lin. 58-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cotyle in Pressacco to include holes being connected to each other by a plurality of ribs which define a grid and between the ribs a full-thickness porous layer, as taught and suggested by Smith, for providing reinforcement to the surface of the cotyle (col. 3, lin. 29-31).
Regarding claim 15, Pressacco discloses wherein said holes 17 are surrounded by reinforcement rings 19 (par. 0064; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Pressacco discloses a base region 16a which is provided solid and is frustum-shaped internally (as shown in Fig. 1; the cup element 10 has a flat top and a open base 16a).
Regarding claim 17, Pressacco is silent regarding wherein said ribs connect said reinforcement rings to each other. However, Smith discloses ribs 40, the combination of the reinforcement rings of Pressacco with the ribs of Smith would arrive at the ribs connecting the rings to each other, for providing reinforcement to the cotyle surface (col. 3, lin. 29-31 of Smith).
Regarding claims 18-19, Pressacco discloses further comprising a polar central hole (Fig. 2) further comprising a reinforcement ring arranged around said polar central hole (Fig. 2 discloses a constraint hole 17 located at the top pole with reinforcement ring 19).
Regarding claim 20, Pressacco discloses wherein said base region 16a is covered externally by a porous mesh 12 (par. 0058 and Figs. 1b).
Regarding claim 21, Pressacco is silent regarding said full-thickness porous mesh is provided in areas of a surface of the body without ribs or reinforcement rings of the holes. However, Smith teaches a similar cotyle 16 comprising full-thickness porous layer is provided in areas of a surface of the body without ribs or reinforcement rings of the holes (Figs. 1 and 2 disclose the porous layer 60 is present in between the ribs 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cotyle in Pressacco to include full-thickness porous mesh is provided in areas of a surface of the body without ribs or reinforcement rings of the holes, as taught and suggested by Smith, for providing reinforcement to the surface of the cotyle (col. 3, lin. 29-31).
Regarding claim 26, the claimed phrase “provided with EBM or SLM techniques” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and a product-by-process claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 23, Pressacco in view of Smith discloses the claimed invention of claim 14 including wherein said base region 16a has a height (Fig. 1 disclose the base region having a certain height); except for the a height comprised between 12 and 14 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the height to comprise between 12 and 14 mm, since these are result effective variables that contribute to the anatomical dimensions of the prosthesis, 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 and modifying th he height to comprise between 12 and 14 mm, would allow for the prosthesis to better fit the implantation site. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressacco et al. (2010/0191345) “Pressacco” in view of Smith (9610164) further in view of Dunn et al. (2017/0143495) “Dunn”.
Pressacco in view of Smith is silent regarding wherein there are pointed regions on the surface of said porous mesh that covers said base region, of said mesh, of said ribs and reinforcement rings. However, Dunn teaches a similar hip prosthesis 100 (abstract and Fig. 2) comprising pointed regions on a surface of a porous mesh that covers the whole area of hip prosthesis 100 (pars. 0201-0202 discloses a roughened surface texture located on the hip prosthesis). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hip prosthesis in Pressacco in view of Smith to include pointed regions on the surface of said porous mesh that covers said base region, of said mesh, of said ribs and reinforcement rings, as taught and suggested by Dunn, for enhancing integration of the prosthesis with the soft tissue at the implantation site (par. 0202 of Dunn).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressacco et al. (2010/0191345) “Pressacco” in view of Smith (9610164) further in view of Baege et al. (5965006) “Baege”.
Pressacco in view of Smith discloses the claimed invention of claim 14; except for wherein said holes are arranged in a configuration according to a spiral. However, Baege teaches a similar prosthesis 100 (abstract) comprising holes are arranged in a configuration according to a spiral (col. 2, lin. 25-30 discloses cavities arranged in a spiral configuration). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prosthesis in Pressacco in view of Smith to include wherein said holes are arranged in a configuration according to a spiral, as taught and suggested by Baege, for enhancing buildup of blood vessels during bone tissue ingrowth (col. 2, lin. 30-36 of Baege).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is 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 27 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter is allowable due to the limitations of “said porous mesh that covers said base region is thinner than said full-thickness porous mesh that covers the areas of the surface of the body without ribs or reinforcement rings of the holes” as set forth in claims 25 and 27, which has not been found anticipated by or obvious over prior art. The closest prior art of record of Pressacco et al. and Smith fail to disclose said porous mesh that covers said base region is thinner than said full-thickness porous mesh that covers the areas of the surface of the body without ribs or reinforcement rings of the holes.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASHITA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5417. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm M-Th; 8am-4pm Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Jerrah Edwards, can be reached at 408-918-7557. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YASHITA SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights