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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, “state – starting from an undeformed resting state – by” should be changed to “state, starting from an undeformed resting state, by”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-3, “portions – in a region of the second partial length of the shaft adjoining the first partial length of the shaft and in the undeformed resting state of the shaft portions – have” should be changed to “portions, in a region of the second partial length of the shaft adjoining the first partial length of the shaft and in the undeformed resting state of the shaft portions, have”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “and/or in that the second projection” should be changed to “and/or the second projection”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 8, and 9 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second boundary surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second boundary surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the second projection” in line 2, and the limitation "the second boundary surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7, and 10 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in the claims, a first shaft portion comprises a first projection on a side of the first shaft portion facing a second shaft portion and forms a first constriction of the intermediate space and is arranged at a distance from the first partial length of the shaft, as seen along the shaft axis, wherein the first projection comprises a first boundary surface for alignment against the second shaft portion, wherein the first boundary surface is spaced at a distance from the second shaft portion in the undeformed resting state.
The closest prior art is:
Leszko: US PG Pub No. 2014/0277536 A1
Cheal et al.: US Patent No. 6,702,854 B1
Crowninshield et al.: US PG Pub No. 2008/0027559 A1
Heck et al.: US PG Pub No. 2006/0167555 A1
Regarding claim 1, Leszko discloses a prosthesis (Figs. 1 and 3, knee prosthesis 10) comprising a shaft (Figs. 3-4, stem component 50) for arrangement and mounting in a long bone (Paragraphs [0013 and 0039]), wherein the shaft (50) extends along a shaft axis (Paragraph [0046]) between a proximal end (Paragraph [0045], Fig. 3, tapered post 24) and a distal end (Fig. 3, distal end 54) that is insertable into the long bone (Paragraphs [0013 and 0039]), wherein, starting from the proximal end (24), the shaft (50) has a solid cross-section along a first partial length (See annotated Fig. 3 below) and wherein the shaft has a second cross-section (See annotated Figs. 3 and 4 below) deviating from the first cross-section along a second partial length (See annotated Fig. 3 below), said second cross-section (See annotated Fig. 3 below) including the distal end (54) of the shaft (50), wherein the shaft (50) has shaft portions (Fig. 3, elongated flutes 56) extending along the second partial length (See annotated Fig. 3 below) parallel (Paragraph [0046]) to the shaft axis that are separated from one another by a slotted intermediate space (Fig. 3, slot 60).
Leszko fails to disclose wherein the shaft portions are deformable, starting from an undeformed resting state, by bending loads such that the slotted intermediate space decreases, wherein a first shaft portion comprises a first projection on a side of the first shaft portion facing a second shaft portion and forms a first constriction of the intermediate space and is arranged at a distance from the first partial length of the shaft, as seen along the shaft axis, wherein the first projection comprises a first boundary surface for alignment against the second shaft portion, wherein the first boundary surface is spaced at a distance from the second shaft portion in the undeformed resting state.
Cheal also discloses a prosthesis (Col. 9, lines 14-27) comprising a shaft (Figs. 10 and 12, stem portion 10) for arrangement and mounting in a long bone (Col. 8, lines 22-28) with a slotted intermediate space (Fig. 10, slot 13). Cheal teaches wherein the shaft portions (Fig. 10, tines 9, Fig. 12, flutes 21) are deformable (Col. 14, lines 22-31), starting from an undeformed resting state (Figs. 10 and 12), by bending loads such that the slotted intermediate space decreases (Col. 14, lines 22-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leszko’s prosthesis wherein the shaft portions are deformable, starting from an undeformed resting state, by bending loads such that the slotted intermediate space decreases, as taught by Cheal, in order to increase the stem’s flexibility to loads (Col. 5, lines 38-40).
However, Leszko in view of Cheal fails to disclose or suggest a first shaft portion comprises a first projection on a side of the first shaft portion facing a second shaft portion and forms a first constriction of the intermediate space and is arranged at a distance from the first partial length of the shaft, as seen along the shaft axis, wherein the first projection comprises a first boundary surface for alignment against the second shaft portion, wherein the first boundary surface is spaced at a distance from the second shaft portion in the undeformed resting state.
Crowninshield also discloses a prosthesis (Fig. 1, intramedullary implant stem component 10) comprising a shaft (Fig. 1, shaft 12) for arrangement and mounting in a long bone (Paragraph [0014]) with a slotted intermediate space (Figs. 1 and 2C, flutes 20). Heck also discloses a prosthesis (Fig. 11) comprising a shaft (Fig. 11, stem extension 104) for arrangement and mounting in a long bone (Paragraph [0014]) with a slotted intermediate space (Fig. 11, slotted free end 106).
However, Crowninshield and Heck also fail to disclose or suggest a first shaft portion comprises a first projection on a side of the first shaft portion facing a second shaft portion and forms a first constriction of the intermediate space and is arranged at a distance from the first partial length of the shaft, as seen along the shaft axis, wherein the first projection comprises a first boundary surface for alignment against the second shaft portion, wherein the first boundary surface is spaced at a distance from the second shaft portion in the undeformed resting state.
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.”
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARI L COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00.
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 5712729062. 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.
/K.L.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights