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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Picha et al US Patent Pub. 2021/0128308A1.
Picha et al discloses an implant imaging system (100) comprising:
a. one or more metal plates (124) including at least one bone contacting surface 'B' (120 & 140), the metal plates (124) are disposed on a joint implant; and
b. one or more coatings of osteoconductive material (see paragraph 134) being applied on the bone contacting surface 'B' (120 & 140) of the metal plates (124) to increase the rate of osteointegration. Wherein the joint implant is made of polymeric material (See paragraph 86 (PEEK)).
Regarding claim 2, see paragraph 69 disclosing that the pillars can be made of titanium.
Regarding claim 3, paragraph 9 discloses that the pillars can have a height between 100-450 microns, therefore the plate fall within the 1mm to 3mm.
Regarding claim 4, the implant is a knee implant.
Regarding claim 5, see figure 4 showing elements 140 over an inner surface of the femoral component.
Regarding claim 11, see paragraph 134 disclosing a osteoconductive material, wherein hydroxyapatite is an inherent material.
Regarding claim 12, the hydroxyapatite coating inherently can have a thickness ranging from 110 microns to 190 microns, since the pillars can have the claimed height.
Regarding claim 13, see para graph 151 disclosing PEEK.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha et al US Patent Pub. 2021/0128308A1 in view of Nguyen et al US Patent Pub. 2019/0343639A1.
Picha et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Picha et al is silent regarding having a plurality of slots in the inner portion of the femoral component.
Nguyen et al discloses a femoral component (110) having inner slots (see walls 340 and 322, etc) capable of holding the metal plates (300, 306, 310, etc…) for the purpose of being flushed with the interior border (320) of the femoral component.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have inner slots capable of holding a being flushed to the interior border of the femoral component.
Regarding claim 9, Picha et al does not disclose radiopaque markers in the knee implant. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Picha et al reference by adding radiopaque markers because Applicant has not disclosed that by having radiopaque markers provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well without the radiopaque markers because it would perform equally as well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Picha et al reference to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picha et al US Patent Pub. 2021/0128308A1 in view of Yao et al US Patent Pub. 2023/0225870A1.
Picha et al discloses an implant having a porous layer used in a knee prosthesis. However, Picha et al is silent regarding the use of the porous layer in a top surface of an acetabular component.
Yao et al teaches a porous layer used in different prosthetic devices. For example, discloses an acetabular cup, a femoral spherical head, and a knee prosthesis. See Figs. 11 and 11-12.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the knee prosthesis of the Picha et al reference with the acetabular cup pf the Yao et al reference in order to have the same bone growth characteristics of the Picha et al reference in the acetabular cup pf the Yao et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM EST.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/ALVIN J STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 7/23/26
Prosecution Insights