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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the outer wall” in lines 8, 9, and 16, which appears to be referring to – the convex outer wall –.
Claim 1 recites “wherein when the plate is positioned on the acetabular shell component a distal surface of the central ring engages a proximal surface of the lip”. It appears that the words “distal” and “proximal” should be switched based on the distal surface (56) of the lip and the proximal surface (14) of the central ring as shown in fig. 1.
Claim 9 recites “the outer wall” in line 2, which appears to be referring to – the convex outer wall –.
Claim 13 recites “the outer wall”, in line 3, which appears to be referring to – the convex outer wall – and “the inner wall”, which appears to be referring to – the concave inner wall –.
Claim 14 recites “the inner wall” in line 3, which appears to be referring to – the concave inner wall –.
Claim 15 recites “the outer wall” in lines 11 and 12, which appears to be referring to – the convex outer wall –.
Claim 15 recites “engaging a distal surface of the central ring of the first plate with a proximal surface of the lip”. It appears that the words “distal” and “proximal” should be switched based on the distal surface (56) of the lip and the proximal surface (14) of the central ring as shown in fig. 1.
Claim 19 recites “the outer wall” in line 3, which appears to be referring to – the convex outer wall –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 3, 4, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2020109617 A1 to Schneider et al. (Schneider) in view of US Patent No. 5,871,548 to Sanders et al. (Sanders). It is noted that the English translation of Schneider has been relied upon in the rejection below.
Regarding at least claim 1
Schneider teaches a revision hip joint endoprosthesis including a joint socket for implantation in the pelvic bone of a patient and at least one plate-shaped fastening tab so that an optimal fastening of the acetabulum is made possible (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
761
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schneider meets the limitations of an orthopedic prosthetic system comprising: a plate comprising a central ring (314) and one or more flanges (218, 220, 222), and wherein each flange of the one or more flanges extends radially away from a corresponding predetermined position on the central ring (as shown in fig. 5), and wherein each of the one or more flanges includes a proximal surface to engage a patient's bone (fig. 1 shows a proximal surface of the flanges engaging a patient’s bone);
and an acetabular shell component (socket; 216) comprising a distal rim (324), a convex outer wall (224) extending from the distal rim, and a circumferential lip (226) positioned on the outer wall and extending away from the outer wall (as shown in fig. 6), wherein the lip is separated from the distal rim by a lateralization distance (see annotated fig. 6 below), and wherein an inclination angle is defined between a first imaginary plane defined by the lip and a second imaginary plane defined by the distal rim (see annotated fig. 6 below), wherein the outer wall of the acetabular shell component comprises an annular outer surface that extends from the distal rim to a hemispherical outer surface (annotated fig. 6 below shows an annular outer surface as claimed), and wherein when the plate (314) is positioned on the acetabular shell component, a proximal surface of the central ring engages a distal surface of the lip (as shown in fig. 6), and the central ring receives the distal rim of the acetabular shell component (as shown in fig. 6); and wherein the acetabular shell component comprises a concave curved inner wall that extends inwardly from the distal rim to define a hemispherical cavity sized to receive an acetabular bearing (page 5, 3rd paragraph, discloses a joint socket insert with a receptacle to receive a joint head).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hemispherical outer surface)]
PNG
media_image2.png
771
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schneider also teaches a bayonet connection (318; page 20, 13th paragraph) or a screw connection (page 22, 3rd paragraph) between the central ring and the shell component. However, Schneider does not teach wherein a plurality of apertures are defined in the central ring or wherein a plurality of apertures are defined in the lip; wherein the plate is configured to be positioned on the acetabular shell component such that each aperture of the central ring is aligned with a corresponding aperture of the lip of the acetabular shell component.
Sanders teaches a modular acetabular reinforcement system, including a substantially cup-shaped reinforcement body having a peripheral flange portion, that is mountable within the acetabulum of a patient (abstract). More particularly, the system (10) includes body (acetabular shell component; 12) having a dome (14) and rim (16), as well as a peripheral flange portion (lip; 18). One or more fixation wings (plate/ring; 20) are selectively and separately attachable to flange portion (18), using fixation elements (22), which may be screws, rivets, and the like (col. 3, lines 17-25) that extend through holes (42) in the wings and corresponding holes (36) in the flange, for the purpose of allowing firm and selective fixation of the wings to the body (col. 3, lines 51-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bayonet or screw connection configuration between the central ring and lip of Schneider, which fixes the central ring to the lip, for a plurality of apertures defined in the central ring and a plurality of apertures defined in the lip such that the plate is configured to be positioned on the acetabular shell component such that each aperture of the central ring is aligned with a corresponding aperture of the lip of the acetabular shell component, and fixed via rivets or the like, as taught by Sanders, since the substitution of one known connection configuration for another would yield predictable results of fixation in this instance. See MPEP 2141. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the connection configuration claimed, indicating simply that the plate and shell component “may” be attached using pins, rivets, or other appropriate fastener (specification pp. [0049]).
Regarding at least claim 3
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 1. As explained above, Sanders also teaches further comprising a fastener (22) that, when the plate (wing; 18) is positioned on the acetabular shell component (12), extends through an aperture of the central ring (36) into a corresponding aperture of the lip (42) to secure the plate to the acetabular shell component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bayonet or screw connection configuration between the central ring and lip of Schneider, which fixes the central ring to the lip, for a connection configuration that includes a fastener that, when the plate is positioned on the acetabular shell component, extends through an aperture of the central ring into a corresponding aperture of the lip to secure the plate to the acetabular shell component, as taught by Sanders, since the substitution of one known connection configuration for another would yield predictable results of fixation in this instance. See MPEP 2141. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the connection configuration claimed, indicating simply that the plate and shell component “may” be attached using pins, rivets, or other appropriate fastener (specification pp. [0049]).
Regarding at least claim 4
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 1, wherein the one or more flanges comprises an ilial flange configured to engage an ilium of the patient and an ischial flange configured to engage an ischium of the patient (one of the tabs of Schneider in view of Sanders may engage an ilium of the patient and another of the tabs of Schneider in view of Sanders may engage an ischium of the patient as claimed).
Regarding at least claim 9
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 1. Schneider also teaches wherein the proximal surface of each of the one or more flanges and the outer wall of the acetabular shell component includes a porous coating to promote bone ingrowth (page 9, 4th and 6th paragraphs disclose an osteointegrative coating on the underside of the tabs/flanges and the bone abutment surface of the socket/shell).
Regarding at least claim 10
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 1. Schneider also teaches wherein a flange of the one or more flanges comprises an aperture configured to receive a fastener to attach the flange to the patient's bone (288 and 290; fig. 5).
Regarding at least claim 11
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 1. Schneider also teaches further comprising a spacer ring (at least one annular flange; 326 located along the outer edge of lip as shown in annotated fig. 6 above is construed to be a spacer ring because it is positioned along a ring-shaped component and has a greater width than the remaining portions of the component), and wherein the spacer ring is configured to be positioned between the lip of the acetabular shell component and the central ring of the plate (fig. 6 further shows that the spacer ring/flange is positioned between the lip which is made up of the smaller width portions and the central ring of the plate).
However, Schneider does not teach wherein a plurality of apertures extend through the spacer ring or positioning such that each aperture of the spacer ring is aligned with a corresponding aperture of the lip and a corresponding aperture of the acetabular shell component.
Sanders teaches a modular acetabular reinforcement system, including a substantially cup-shaped reinforcement body having a peripheral flange portion, that is mountable within the acetabulum of a patient (abstract). More particularly, the system (10) includes body (acetabular shell component; 12) having a dome (14) and rim (16), as well as a peripheral flange portion (lip; 18). One or more fixation wings (plate/ring; 20) are selectively and separately attachable to flange portion (18), using fixation elements (22), which may be screws, rivets, and the like (col. 3, lines 17-25) that extend through holes (42) in the wings and corresponding holes (36) in the flange, for the purpose of allowing firm and selective fixation of the wings to the body (col. 3, lines 51-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of apertures that extend through the spacer ring and positioned such that each aperture of the spacer ring is aligned with a corresponding aperture of the lip and a corresponding aperture of the acetabular shell component, in order to allow firm and selective fixation of the components, such as via rivets or the like, as taught by Sanders.
Regarding at least claim 12
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 1, wherein the acetabular shell component further comprises a concave inner wall that extends inwardly from the distal rim to define a cavity sized to receive an acetabular bearing (page 5, 3rd paragraph, discloses a joint socket insert with a receptacle to receive a joint head).
Regarding at least claim 13
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 12. Schneider also teaches a first subcomponent (246) and a second subcomponent (244), and wherein the first subcomponent comprises the outer wall and the lip (see annotated fig. 6 above), and the second subcomponent comprises the distal rim and the inner wall (fig. 6), and wherein the second component is mechanically coupled to the first subcomponent (fig. 6 shows the second component mechanically coupled to the first subcomponent).
In an alternative embodiment, Schneider teaches a dual mobility prosthesis that is made up of a first subcomponent includes a second concave inner wall that defines a cavity sized to receive the second subcomponent (fig. 8 shows that the first subcomponent includes a second concave inner wall that defines a cavity that receives the second subcomponent), for the purpose of forming a dual mobility prosthesis (page 4, 2nd full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the prosthesis of Schneider to have been made up of a first subcomponent includes a second concave inner wall that defines a cavity sized to receive the second subcomponent, in order to form a dual-mobility prosthesis, as taught by Schneider.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Sanders, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0190089 A1 to Montoya et al. (Montoya).
Regarding at least claim 5
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 1, including that the plate (314) is a first plate. However, Schneider in view of Sanders does not teach wherein the plate is a first plate of a plurality of plates, each plate having a different configuration from other plates of the plurality of plates.
Montoya teaches an acetabular cup assembly for a prosthetic hip joint including an outer shell for attachment to the acetabulum (abstract). More specifically, the assembly of Montoya includes a kit of component parts comprising a plurality of outer shells (plate; 12) with flanges (30), a plurality of adaptors (shell component; 14), and a plurality of bearing inserts (16), each component having different characteristics, the plurality of outer shells with flanges provided for the purpose of allowing selection of an assembly with characteristics corresponding to those that result in a desired engagement with various areas of the pelvis (paragraphs 0015-0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schneider in view of Sanders to include a kit of component parts, particularly one that includes a plurality of plates, each plate having a different configuration from other plates of the plurality of plates, in order to allow the surgeon to choose a plate having the best configuration to meet a particular patient’s anatomical requirements, for example, by providing a desired engagement with various areas of the pelvis which is especially helpful when the pelvis is deformed or otherwise missing natural bone, as taught by Montoya. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to construct as comprehensive a "kit" as was needed in order to attain the variability required. Kits are common as patient’s anatomies, pathologies, and lifestyles may dictate the need for a wide range of sizes that no single or universal implant size can provide. Adding another level(s) of adjustability to the prosthetic system of Schneider in view of Sanders would allow the surgeon more flexibility in providing an implant which more closely replicates the patient’s natural joint structure and physiology.
Regarding at least claim 6
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 6. Schneider also teaches wherein: each flange (218, 220, 222) of the one or more flanges of each plate extends radially away from the corresponding predetermined position on the central ring to a corresponding flange end (fig. 5 shows that tabs/flanges extend radially from the ring; 314), wherein a flange length is defined between the central ring (314) and the flange end for each flange of the one or more flanges. However, Schneider in view of Sanders does not teach that the different configuration of each plate includes at least one of the flange length of one or more flange or the predetermined position on the central ring of one or more flange.
Montoya teaches that the flanges may have various lengths such that the longer the length, the greater the engagement with various areas of the pelvis are possible (paragraph 0017).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Schneider in view of Sanders to specify that the different configuration of each plate includes at least one of the flange length of one or more flange or the predetermined position on the central ring of one or more flange, in order to allow the possibility to achieve a desired engagement with various areas of the pelvis, as taught by Montoya.
Regarding at least claim 7
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 1. Schneider also teaches wherein the acetabular shell component (216) is a first shell component. However, Schneider in view of Sanders does not teach wherein the acetabular shell component is a first shell component of a plurality of acetabular shell components, each acetabular shell component having a different configuration from other acetabular shell components of the plurality of acetabular shell components.
Montoya teaches an acetabular cup assembly for a prosthetic hip joint including an outer shell for attachment to the acetabulum (abstract). More specifically, the assembly of Montoya includes a kit of component parts comprising a plurality of outer shells (plate; 12) with flanges (30), a plurality of adaptors (shell component; 14), and a plurality of bearing inserts (16), each component having different characteristics (paragraph 0015), the plurality of adaptors provided for the purpose of allowing selection of an assembly with an orientation which best corresponds to the anatomy of the patient (paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schneider in view of Sanders to include a kit of component parts, particularly one that includes a plurality of acetabular shell components, each acetabular shell component having a different configuration from other acetabular shell components of the plurality of acetabular shell components, in order to allow the surgeon to choose a shell component having the best configuration to meet a particular patient’s anatomical requirements, for example, by providing an orientation which best corresponds to the anatomy of the patient, as taught by Montoya. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to construct as comprehensive a "kit" as was needed in order to attain the variability required. Kits are common as patient’s anatomies, pathologies, and lifestyles may dictate the need for a wide range of sizes that no single or universal implant size can provide. Adding another level(s) of adjustability to the prosthetic system of Schneider in view of Sanders would allow the surgeon more flexibility in providing an implant which more closely replicates the patient’s natural joint structure and physiology.
Regarding at least claim 8
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 8. Montoya also teaches wherein the different configuration of each acetabular shell component includes at least one of the lateralization distance or the inclination angle (Montoya teaches that the plurality of adaptors have different inclinations with respect to the polar axis of the outer shell/plate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the different configuration of each acetabular shell component of Schneider in view of Sanders by including at least one of the lateralization distance or the inclination angle, in order to allow the possibility to achieve an orientation which best corresponds to the anatomy of the patient, as taught by Montoya.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Sanders, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0259318 A1 to Preuss et al. (Preuss).
Schneider in view of Sanders teaches the orthopaedic prosthetic system of claim 13. Schneider also teaches wherein: the second concave inner wall of the first subcomponent defines a first polar axis; the inner wall of the second subcomponent defines a second polar axis (fig. 8 shows a polar axis defined by each of the concave inner walls). However, Schneider does not teach a nonzero inclination angle is defined between the first polar axis and the second polar axis.
Preuss teaches a socket and socket insert that are asymmetrical in their inner or outer geometries, for the purpose of avoiding squeaking (abstract). More specifically, fig. 3 shows a socket (first subcomponent; 4) and a socket insert (second subcomponent; 3) that is received within the concave inner cavity of the socket (4). Fig. 3 also shows that the axis of symmetry (second polar axis; 5) of the socket insert (3) is tilted in relation to the axis of symmetry (first polar axis; 6), for the purpose of achieving a reduction in vibrations that manifest in squeaking.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schneider, which includes a first and second subcomponent each defining a polar axis, to include a tilted relationship between the polar axes, in order to achieve a reduction in vibrations that manifest in squeaking, as taught by Pruess.
Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Montoya.
Regarding at least claim 15
Similar to the explanation above, Schneider teaches the method for assembling an orthopaedic prosthesis (fig. 5), the method comprising: selecting a first plate (314), wherein the plate comprises a central ring (fig. 5 that the plate includes a central ring) and one or more flanges (218, 220, 222), wherein each flange of the one or more flanges extends radially away from a corresponding predetermined position on the central ring (fig. 5 shows that the flanges extend from the central ring at corresponding predetermined positions), and wherein each of the one or more flanges includes a proximal surface to engage a patient's bone (fig. 1 shows that the flanges engage the patient’s bone); selecting a first shell component (216), wherein the acetabular shell component comprises a distal rim (324), a convex outer wall (224) extending from the distal rim, a concave curved inner wall that extends inwardly from the distal rim to define a hemispherical cavity sized to receive an acetabular bearing (page 5, 3rd paragraph, discloses a joint socket insert with a receptacle to receive a joint head), and a circumferential lip (226) positioned on the outer wall and extending away from the outer wall (fig. 6), wherein the outer wall comprises an annular outer surface that extends from the distal rim to a hemispherical outer surface (see annotated fig. 6 above); and mechanically attaching the lip of the first shell component to the central ring of the first plate (page 20, 13th paragraph discloses a bayonet connection and page 22, 3rd paragraph discloses a screw connection, both of which are mechanical attachments between the shell and ring as claimed), comprising engaging a distal surface of the central ring of the first plate with a proximal surface of the lip of the first shell component (fig. 6 shows the surface of the ring 314 is engaged with a surface of the lip 226), wherein the central ring (314) of the first plate receives the hemispherical outer surface of the first shell component (fig. 6 shows that the ring receives the hemispherical outer surface as claimed).
However, Schneider does not teach a plurality of plates or a plurality of acetabular shell components.
Montoya teaches an acetabular cup assembly for a prosthetic hip joint including an outer shell for attachment to the acetabulum (abstract). More specifically, the assembly of Montoya includes a kit of component parts comprising a plurality of outer shells (plate; 12) with flanges (30), a plurality of adaptors (shell component; 14), and a plurality of bearing inserts (16), each component having different characteristics, for the purpose of allowing selection of an assembly with characteristics that best correspond to the anatomy of the patient (paragraphs 0015-1109 and 0036)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schneider to include a kit of component parts, particularly one that includes a plurality of plates, and a plurality of acetabular shell components, in order to allow the surgeon to choose a plate having the best configuration to meet a particular patient’s anatomical requirements, as taught by Montoya. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to construct as comprehensive a "kit" as was needed in order to attain the variability required. Kits are common as patient’s anatomies, pathologies, and lifestyles may dictate the need for a wide range of sizes that no single or universal implant size can provide. Adding another level(s) of adjustability to the prosthetic system of Schneider would allow the surgeon more flexibility in providing an implant which more closely replicates the patient’s natural joint structure and physiology.
Regarding at least claim 18
Schneider in view of Montoya teaches the method of claim 15. Schneider also teaches wherein mechanically attaching the lip of the first shell component to the central ring comprises (i) attaching a spacer ring to the central ring (at least one annular flange; 326 located along the outer edge of lip as shown in annotated fig. 6 above is construed to be a spacer ring attached to the central ring of the plate because it is positioned along a ring-shaped component and has a greater width than the remaining portions of the component) and (ii) attaching the spacer ring to the lip (fig. 6 further shows that the spacer ring/flange is attached to the lip, which is made up of the smaller width portions).
Regarding at least claim 19
Schneider in view of Montoya teaches the method of claim 15. Schneider also teaches a first subcomponent (246) and a second subcomponent (244), and wherein the first subcomponent comprises the outer wall and the lip (see annotated fig. 6 above), and the second subcomponent comprises the distal rim and the inner wall (fig. 6), and wherein the second component is mechanically coupled to the first subcomponent (fig. 6 shows the second component mechanically coupled to the first subcomponent).
In an alternative embodiment, Schneider teaches a dual mobility prosthesis that is made up of a first subcomponent includes a second concave inner wall that defines a cavity sized to receive the second subcomponent (fig. 8 shows that the first subcomponent includes a second concave inner wall that defines a cavity that receives the second subcomponent), for the purpose of forming a dual mobility prosthesis (page 4, 2nd full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schneider to specify that selecting the first shell component comprises: selecting a first subcomponent, wherein the first subcomponent comprises the outer wall and the lip of the first shell component; selecting a second subcomponent, wherein the second subcomponent comprises the distal rim and a concave inner wall that extends inwardly from the distal rim; and attaching the first shell subcomponent to the second shell subcomponent, in order to form a dual-mobility prosthesis, as taught by Schneider.
Regarding at least claim 20
Schneider in view of Montoya teaches the method of claim 16. Schneider also teaches that the method further comprises: inserting the first shell component (216) into a surgically prepared acetabulum of a patient (fig. 1 shows the prosthetic device being inserted into the acetabulum) in response to mechanically attaching the lip (244) of the first shell component to the central ring (314) of the first plate; and contacting the one or more flanges of the first plate against the patient's bone in response to inserting the first shell component (fig. 1 shows the flanges contacting the bone when the device is inserted).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Montoya, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sanders.
Schneider teaches the method of claim 15. Schneider also teaches a bayonet connection (318; page 20, 13th paragraph) or a screw connection (page 22, 3rd paragraph) between the central ring and the shell component. However, Schneider does not teach wherein a plurality of apertures are defined in the central ring or wherein a plurality of apertures are defined in the lip; wherein the plate is configured to be positioned on the acetabular shell component such that each aperture of the central ring is aligned with a corresponding aperture of the lip of the acetabular shell component.
Sanders teaches a modular acetabular reinforcement system, including a substantially cup-shaped reinforcement body having a peripheral flange portion, that is mountable within the acetabulum of a patient (abstract). More particularly, the system (10) includes body (acetabular shell component; 12) having a dome (14) and rim (16), as well as a peripheral flange portion (lip; 18). One or more fixation wings (plate/ring; 20) are selectively and separately attachable to flange portion (18), using fixation elements (22), which may be screws, rivets, and the like (col. 3, lines 17-25) that extend through holes (42) in the wings and corresponding holes (36) in the flange, for the purpose of allowing firm and selective fixation of the wings to the body (col. 3, lines 51-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bayonet or screw connection configuration between the central ring and lip of Schneider, which fixes the central ring to the lip, for a plurality of apertures defined in the central ring and a plurality of apertures defined in the lip such that the plate is configured to be positioned on the acetabular shell component such that each aperture of the central ring is aligned with a corresponding aperture of the lip of the acetabular shell component, and fixed via rivets or the like, as taught by Sanders, since the substitution of one known connection configuration for another would yield predictable results of fixation in this instance. See MPEP 2141. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the connection configuration claimed, indicating simply that the plate and shell component “may” be attached using pins, rivets, or other appropriate fastener (specification pp. [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of elements claimed, particularly including an acetabular shell component that includes a circumferential lip defining a first imaginary plane and a distal rim defining a second imaginary plane such that the lip is separated from the rim by a lateralization distance, and the first imaginary plane is non-parallel to the second imaginary plane rim so as to also define an inclination angle between the two planes.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA A HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/M.A.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights