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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application. Amended claim 1 and newly added claims 21-22 are noted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the etching process does not establish a reasonably materially different use and there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the claimed apparatus is directed to coating, which is different from an etching process, as one adds material and the other removes material. In addition, a serious burden on the examiner exists in the search and prosecution of method and apparatus claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to an apparatus. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10 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.
In claim 5, the phrase “adjacent a bend” is deemed vague and confusing as a bend was never previously recited or required. It is not clear where the bend is.
In claim 7 lines 3-4, the phrase “thermally or non-thermally stable agent” is deemed confusing as it doesn’t appear to be further limiting. What other stable agents can there be?
In claim 9 line 3, the term “the implant” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 10, the phrase “or or” is confusing as to what is intended by the applicant.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Jehle et al. (WO 2014/090358) in view of Kunze et al. (EP 2594381).
Jehle teaches an implant system comprising a mounting element (title) in which a mould having openings (p.8 line 3-34) closed by removable plugs (p.9 lines 18-28). However, the reference fails to teach a cavity.
Kunze teaches of preparing a mould core (title) for manufacturing a hollow fibre composite component comprising fiber layers and a resin by providing a removable mould core material, filling the removable mould core material in a closed cavity and using removable plugs screwed to the flanges (0001-0002, 0008, claim 1). It would have been obvious to use a cavity win Jehle with the expectation of success because Kunze teaches of using a closed cavity in preparing a mould core.
Regarding claim 2, Jehle teaches a mounting element (p.1 last paragraph), which is a structural support.
Regarding claim 3, Jehle teaches thickness (p.10 lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 4, Jehle teaches a hole for the screw (p.12 lines 305).
Regarding claim 5, Jehle teaches an angle (claims 2, 4).
Regarding claim 6, Kunze teaches injection (0019, 0021,0023).
Regarding claim 8, Kunze teaches filling in the desired area (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kunze teaches different thicknesses (0013, 0018) which produces different densities.
Regarding claim 10, Jehle teaches a dental implant system (p.1 lines 8-33) which reads on replacing a body part.
Regarding claim 21, Jehle teaches thickness (p.10 lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 22, Kunze teaches a tube (0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
The prior art fails to teach or suggests a medical coating as required in claim 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 08/21/2026
Prosecution Insights