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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The terminology used in the claims does not appear in the originally filed specification: “sidewall”, “flaring”, and “subparts”.
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) 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2010/0331990 (Mroczkowski et al.).
Mroczkowski discloses a glenoid implant in Figures 1-2 comprising a medial part (30) with a bone facing surface;
a lateral part (40 and 50) comprising a first lateral portion (50) including a lateral surface (54) and a second lateral portion (40) including a medial surface (42), the second lateral portion (40) being arranged on a medial side of the first lateral portion (50), and the medial surface (42) being positionable over the medial part (30),
wherein the first lateral portion (50) includes a rim protruding relative to a perimeter of the second lateral portion (40) such that a perimeter of the lateral surface (54) is greater than a perimeter of the medial surface (42) (see especially Figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 32: Mroczkowski discloses the lateral part (40 and 50) is made of a material more flexible than the material of the medial part (see description of hydrogel and polymers forming lateral part at [0031] and medial part (30) formed of ceramic or metal [0025]).
Regarding claim 33, the lateral surface (54) of the first lateral portion (50) is concave, and the medial surface (42) of (40) is convex (see especially Figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 34, the first lateral portion (50) is a hollow ring (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 35, the rim (50) has a thickness that tapers towards a peripheral of the lateral surface (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, a radius of curvature of the rim (convex apex) is different from a radius of curvature of a central portion (concave portion) of the lateral surface (54), the rim surrounding the central portion. Mroczkowski also explains that the radius of curvature of the rim (50) can be greater than, less than or equal to the curvature of the concave articular surface (44) [0036].
Regarding claim 37, the lateral part (rim 50) has flexural properties consistent with a rubber material (see silicone material at [0039]).
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(s) 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2010/0331990 (Mroczkowski et al.) in view of USPAP 2008/0114463 (Auger et al.).
Regarding claim 21: Mroczkowski discloses a glenoid implant in Figures 1-2 comprising a medical part (30) configured to engage with a glenoid; and a lateral part (combination of 40 and 50) comprising an articular surface (44) including a central concave portion (see Figures 3-5) and a peripheral portion (50) surrounding the central concave portion (40) [0033];
a medial surface (42) opposite the articular surface, the medial surface being configured to engage to the medial part (30) [0030], a sidewall extending from the medial surface (42) to the articular surface (44),
wherein the lateral part includes two subparts (40 and 50).
Mroczkowski fails to disclose that the sidewall flaring outward approaching the peripheral portion of the articular surface. Auger discloses another implantable prosthesis in Figure 107 having a medial part (4702) configured to be implanted in bone and a lateral part (4704) with an articular surface (4720). Similar to the configuration of the medial part (30) of Mroczkowski, Auger discloses that the medial component (4702) defines a cavity (4716) for receiving the lateral part (4704). Auger teaches that the mating surfaces of the two components can be tapered, such that the sidewall of the lateral part flares outwardly from the medial surface (4722) towards the articular surface (4720) (see Fig. 107; [0305]) as an alternative to sidewalls (802/780) that are not tapered (Figure 87). 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 the sidewall of the Mroczkowski lateral part to flare outwardly towards the articular surface, as taught by Auger, as the modification merely involves a substitution of known shapes of connecting components that obtains a predictable result of an attachment between two modular prosthesis components that interlock with one another.
In regards to claim 22, Mroczkowski discloses the lateral part is made of a material more flexible than the material of the medial part (see description of hydrogel and polymers forming lateral part at [0031] and medial part (30) formed of ceramic or metal [0025]).
Regarding claim 23, the two subparts (40 and 50) of the lateral part include an outer subpart (50) and an inner subpart (40), the articular surface being on the outer subpart (articular surface 54 of rim 50 [0033]).
Regarding claim 24, wherein an outer subpart (50) of the two subparts is a
hollow ring (see Fig. 2; [0033]).
Regarding claim 25, the two subparts include an outer subpart (50) and
an inner subpart (40), the outer subpart (50) being disposed around the inner subpart (40) such that a portion of a side surface of the inner subpart is covered by the outer subpart.
Regarding claim 26, wherein the peripheral portion includes a thickness
that tapers towards an outer peripheral edge of the lateral part (see cross-section of Figures 3-5 in Mroczkowski showing the peripheral portion 50 decreasing in thickness towards an outer peripheral edge 54).
In regards to claim 27, Mroczkowski shows in cross-section of Figures 3-5 that a radius of curvature of the peripheral portion at the convex apex is different from a radius of curvature of the central concave portion (44). Mroczkowski also explains that the radius of curvature of the rim (50) can be greater than, less than or equal to the curvature of the concave articular surface (44) [0036].
Regarding claims 28-29, the two subparts (30 and 40) of the lateral part include an outer subpart (50) and an inner subpart (40), the outer subpart having a greater flexibility than the inner subpart [0008]; [0039]. The outer subpart (rim 50) has flexural properties consistent with a rubber material (see silicone material at [0039]).
Regarding claim 30, wherein the two subparts of the lateral part include an outer subpart (50) and an inner subpart (40). Auger teaches that one component can include a protrusion (4640) that engages with a groove (slot 4622) of another component (see Fig. 106; [0300]). It would have therefore been obvious to configure the outer subpart of modified Mroczkowski to have a protrusion that engages with a groove of the inner subpart, as taught by Auger, as the modification merely involves a combination of known connection features of prostheses that obtains a predictable result of a secure connection between modular components.
Claim(s) 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2010/0331990 (Mroczkowski et al.) in view of USPAP 2012/0277880 (Winslow et al.).
Regarding claim 38, Mroczkowski fails to discloses a central part positionable between the lateral part (40/50) and the medial part (30).
Winslow discloses another glenoid implant having a lateral part (12) and a medial part (14) (Figures 1-2) and teaches that a central part (16) can be included to attach the medial part and lateral part (see Figure 2B-2C; [0065]). Winslow states that the central part (16) may aid in supporting and distribute load from the lateral component (12) [0032]. 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 Mroczkowski prosthesis to have a central part that is positionable between the lateral part and the medial part, as the modification merely involves a combination of known modular glenoid prostheses that obtains predictable results of a secure connection between modular components and aids in supporting and distributing load applied to the lateral part.
Regarding claim 39, Winslow discloses the central part (16) may be formed of titanium [0031] and Mroczkowski discloses the lateral part is formed of relatively flexible polymeric materials [0008]; [0039].
Regarding claim 40, Winslow teaches that the central part (16) has a protrusion (lip 80) that engages with a chamfered edge of the bore ([0032]; alternatively the protrusion can be threads disclosed here). Winslow further teaches interlocking features wherein a lateral part has protrusions (40) that fit in grooves (59) of the medial part (Figure 3; [0025]). It would have therefore been obvious to configure the second lateral portion of modified Mroczkowski to have a protrusion that engages with a groove of the central part, as Auger teaches that this is a well-known type of connection feature for components of a modular prostheses that obtains a predictable result of a secure connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,228,119 discloses another glenoid implant wherein a perimeter of a lateral surface (282) is greater than a medial surface (284) of a lateral part (214) (see especially Figure 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WEBB ALEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5749. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, Th, Fr 9am - 3pm.
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.
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights