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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0149488, filed on 11/03/2021.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Examiner notes the present abstract is written similar to claim formatting. Abstract should be corrected to read as a written in narrative form, see MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1, and 7 and 15 are in poor quality rendering them ineligible and insufficient quality so that all details in the drawings are reproducible in the printed patent. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show element 141 (first boundary) and element 143 (second boundary) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein one end of the stem and an edge of fixing holes vertically penetrating the base are exposed without being covered by the porous layer”. For the sake of compact prosecution and examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to read “wherein one end of the stem and an edge of the peripheral fixing holes, which vertically penetrate the base, are exposed without being covered by the porous layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by Kovacs et al US 9844440 B2, herein referred to as Kovacs.
Regarding claim 1, Kovacs discloses a glenoid baseplate (Fig 11, 10e) comprising: a base (20e) configured to be settled on a scapular glenoid (Col 6, lines 9-23); an augment (134/136) formed on a surface of the base (Fig 11); and a stem (134) extending from the base in a direction with a central axis (Annotated Fig 11 below), wherein the augment comprises a plate having a first surface extending perpendicularly to the central axis (Fig 11), and a wedge (136) having a second surface extending in a direction from one end of the plate (Fig 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kovacs disclosed wherein the augment is formed to be spaced apart from the central axis (Fig 1), and one surface of the augment is formed to be inclined while having a first angle with the first surface in one direction (Fig 11, top of 134), from a point spaced apart from the central axis by a first length (Fig 11).
Regarding claim 3, Kovacs discloses wherein a first boundary (Fig 11, 150) between the augment and the first surface is formed as a straight line spaced a first length apart by from a straight line passing through the central axis on the plate (Fig 11).
Regarding claim 4, Kovacs discloses herein the wedge increases in thickness as it extends in a first direction (Fig 11), thus a second surface forms a convex curved surface to one side (Fig 12B, 144; Col 10, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 11, Kovacs discloses wherein the stem comprises a reinforcement member extending along the outer surface (Annotated Figure 12b below, labeled as flange); and the reinforcement member comprises a rib protruding and extending from one end of the stem to the other end of the stem with a predetermined width (Fig 12b).
Regarding claim 12, Kovacs discloses wherein the reinforcement member further comprises a rim protruding in a ring shape with a predetermined width from at least one end of the stem (Fig 12b).
Regarding claim 13, Kovacs discloses wherein the base comprises a central fixing hole formed vertically through the base (Fig 9-A, 48), a peripheral fixing hole formed around the central fixing hole (Fig 9A, 36), and a recessed part recessed and formed by a predetermined depth in at least one surface of the base (Fig 13, 90f), while the recessed part is recessed on a surface of the base at least a predetermined distance from the edge of at least one of the central fixing hole, the peripheral fixing hole, and the edge of the base (Fig 13).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs in view of Neichel et al. US 20170273795 A1, herein referred to as Neichel.
Regarding claim 5, Kovacs discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wedge does not change in thickness as it extends in a second direction.
But Neichel teaches wherein the wedge (2c) does not change in thickness as it extends in a second direction (Fig 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs to incorporate wherein the wedge does not change in thickness as it extends in a second direction, as taught and suggested by Neichel in order to allow the implant to compensate for wear (Neichel [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Kovacs/Neichel discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first direction and the second direction form a right angle.
However, in another embodiment Neichel also teaches wherein the first direction and the second direction form a right angle (Neichel Fig 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs/Neichel to incorporate wherein the first direction and the second direction form a right angle, as taught and suggested by Neichel in order to allow advancement of compression (Neichel [0058]).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs in view of Winslow et al. US 20140257499 A1, herein referred to as Winslow.
Regarding claim 8, Kovacs discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the glenoid baseplate comprises a porous layer having a predetermined thickness on one side of the base and the stem, and having plural pores therein, wherein the porous layer has a complementary shape to the base and the stem.
But Winslow teaches further comprising a porous layer (Fig 21, 320) having a predetermined thickness on one side of the base and the stem (Fig 21), and having plural pores therein ([0082]), wherein the porous layer has a complementary shape to the base and the stem (Figs 21, 26, and 27; 356 is complimentary to 370).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs to incorporate further comprising a porous layer having a predetermined thickness on one side of the base and the stem, and having plural pores therein, wherein the porous layer has a complementary shape to the base and the stem, as taught and suggested by Winslow, in order to promote bone growth in a positioned area (Winslow [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Kovacs/Winslow discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 8, and additionally teaches wherein the base comprises: a central fixing hole formed (Kovacs Fig 9-A, 48) to vertically pass through the base and the stem (Kovacs Fig 9A); a peripheral fixing hole (Kovacs Fig 9A, 36) formed around the central fixing hole (Fig 9A); and a flange (Annotated Kovacs Fig 12B below) protruding from a surface of the base along the edge of the peripheral fixing hole (Annotated Fig 12B below).
Kovacs/Winslow does not explicitly disclose wherein one end of the stem and an edge of fixing hole vertically penetrating the base are exposed without being covered by the porous layer.
However, in another embodiment Winslow also teaches wherein one end of the stem (Winslow Fig 26) and an edge of fixing hole (Winslow Fig 15, cavity for 210) vertically penetrating the base are exposed without being covered by the porous layer (Winslow Fig 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs/Winslow to incorporate wherein one end of the stem and an edge of fixing hole vertically penetrating the base are exposed without being covered by the porous layer, as taught and suggested by Winslow, in order to restrict rotation (Winslow [0074]).
PNG
media_image2.png
487
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kovacs/Winslow discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the augment is formed as a porous structure having plural pores therein.
However, in another embodiment Winslow also teaches wherein the augment is formed as a porous structure having plural pores therein (Winslow Fig 21, 324).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs/Winslow to incorporate wherein the augment is formed as a porous structure having plural pores therein, as taught and suggested by Winslow, in order to allow the augment to be created through additive manufacturing (Winslow [0084]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian Flores whose telephone number is (571)272-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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.
/A.F./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights