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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 12 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the second connection holes. However, the prior art fails to teach nor render obvious the second connection holes form rotational joints with fasteners configured to secured the second connection end to the skull, the rotational joints enabling lengthwise expansion of the attachment device.
Regarding Claim 7, Khanna et al. fails to teach nor render obvious a line passing through the second connection holes, the first connection end being on the other side of the line. Claim 8 depends from claim 7.
Regarding Claim 12, Khanna et al. fails to teach nor render obvious wherein the frame portion has a strut extending lengthwise from the coil portion.
.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khanna et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0197046 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Khanna et al. discloses an attachment device for cranioplasty comprising a body defined from a sheet material and including: a first connection end 4 having at least a first connection hole 1 (Figure 1) configured to cooperate with a fastener 30 (see Figure 13 and paragraph [0080]) to anchor the attachment device to a bone flap or prosthesis 29 (see Figure 13 and paragraph [0080]) covering at least part of the opening in the skull, a second connection end 5 having at least a second connection hole 2 configured to cooperate with a fastener 32 to anchor the attachment device to a skull 31 adjacent to an opening in the skull (see Figure 13), a frame portion extending from the first connection end 4 (see Figure 13), and a coil portion 3 between the frame portion and the second connection end (as seen in Figures 1, 3 and 13), the coil portion 3 having struts configured for deforming in flexion (paragraphs [0060-0062]), and webs between the struts configured for deforming in torsion (paragraphs [0061-0062]), wherein the frame portion is configured to be located over a periphery of the opening in the skull to block inward movement (as seen in Figures 11-13 and paragraphs [0012], [0015], [0056-0057], [0080]), and wherein the coil portion 3 enables an out-of-plane deformation of the attachment device for the first connection end to move out of a neutral plane with the second connection end (paragraphs [0060-0062]).
Regarding Claim 2, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the body extends lengthwise from the first connection end to the second connection end, with at least some of the struts extending at least partially lengthwise (as seen in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Khanna et al. discloses wherein at least some of the webs extending at least partially widthwise (see Figure 3, the coils 3 have “webs” extending widthwise).
Regarding Claim 4, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the second connection end has a pair of the second connection holes 2 (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the coil portion 3 has a first set of coils and a second set of coils (the coils run on opposite sides, top of the page and bottom of the page), the first set of coils and the second set of coils connected to a respective one of the second connection holes and merging at the frame portion (the coils connect to portion 5 having hole 2 and portion 4 having hole 1, see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the frame portion has a closed frame between the first connection end and the coil portion (the frame is completely connected and constitutes a “closed frame”).
Regarding Claim 10, Khanna et al. discloses wherein an entirety of the contour edges of the body is arcuate (as seen in Figures 3 and 13).
Regarding Claim 11, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the first connection end has a pair of the first connection holes 1 (as seen in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the attachment device has a symmetry axis extending lengthwise (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Khanna et al. discloses a cranioplasty prosthesis as seen in Figures 3 and 13 comprising: a pair of the attachment device 30, 32; and a prosthetic blade a body defined from a sheet of material (paragraph [0013], discloses a deformable plate which may be used instead of hinged plate, wherein this device protrudes outward from the skull surface, therefore the device is deformable out of plane) and including: a first connection end 4 configured to be anchored to a first position of a skull by one of the attachment devices 30, a second connection end 5 configured to be anchored to a second position of the skull by the other of the attachment devices 32 (see Figure 13), the first position and the second position being separated by a skull opening 33, and an elongated plate herein the sheet material is a rigid biocompatible material (paragraph [0023]) deformable out of plane (paragraph [0013], discloses a deformable plate which may be used instead of hinged plate, wherein this device protrudes outward from the skull surface, therefore the device is deformable out of plane).
Regarding Claim 15, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the body has holes 1, 2 (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the body is elongated (as seen in Figures 3 and 13).
Regarding Claim 17, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the attachment devices and the prosthetic blade are a monoblock component (as seen in figures 3 and 13).
Regarding Claim 18, Khanna et al. discloses a prosthetic blade for covering a skull opening in a cranioplasty (paragraph [0008] and as seen in Figures 3 and 13) comprising a body defined from a sheet of material (paragraph [0013], discloses a deformable plate which may be used instead of hinged plate, wherein this device protrudes outward from the skull surface, therefore the device is deformable out of plane) including: a first connection end 4 configured to be anchored 30 to a first position of a skull, a second connection end 5 configured to be anchored 32 to a second position of the skull (see Figure 13), the first position and the second position being separated by a skull opening 33, and an elongated plate portion between the first connection end 4 and the second connection end 5, the elongated plate portion having a main surface facing the skull (as seen in figure 13), wherein the sheet material is a rigid biocompatible material (paragraph [0023]) deformable out of plane (paragraph [0013], discloses a deformable plate which may be used instead of hinged plate, wherein this device protrudes outward from the skull surface, therefore the device is deformable out of plane).
Regarding Claim 19, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the body has holes 1, 2 (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Khanna et al. discloses wherein the body is elongated (as seen in Figures 3 and 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEEMA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571) 270-1452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am – 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE, Melanie Tyson 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEEMA MATHEW/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights