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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 6/8/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serafin, JR. et al (US 20100076566 A1) in view of He et al (CN 111166532 A).
Serafin teaches orthopedic implants (i.e., casing plates) comprising zirconia ceramic having a metal/metal alloy (i.e., metal layer) coating; wherein the implant may take the shape of a plate (i.e., board) (para 10, 34, 35, 69; figs 38, 39) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention casing plate comprising a substrate board consisting of a ceramic board, and comprising a first surface, a second surface, and a circumferential wall, wherein the first surface is opposite to the second surface, the circumferential wall connects the first surface and the second surface; and an inorganic protective layer, covering the first surface, the second surface, the circumferential wall, wherein the inorganic protective layer is a metal layer.
Serafin fails to teach a distance between the first surface and the second surface ranges from 0.6 mm to 1.8 mm; at least two dovetail grooves are formed on the second surface, and a depth of each dovetail groove ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm; wherein an acute angle is formed between the bottom surface and at least one of the wall surfaces of the dovetail groove; wherein the acute angle ranges from 20 degrees to 80 degrees; wherein the depth of the dovetail groove ranges from 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm; herein four dovetail grooves are provided on the substrate board, and the four dovetail grooves are symmetrically arranged on the second surface; wherein the bottom surface of the dovetail groove has a circular shape, a round rectangle an ellipse shape, a semicircular shape, or a semi-elliptical shape; wherein the distance between the first surface and the second surface ranges from 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm.
He teaches an artificial joint (i.e., an implant) comprising a joint main body (100) (i.e., board) comprising a first surface, a second surface, and a circumferential wall, wherein the first surface is opposite to the second surface, the circumferential wall connects the first surface and the second surface, at least two grooves (located between units 230, 200) are formed on the second surface (page 2-4; fig 2). He teaches the purposes of its structure(s) (e.g. hook parts) is that of a joint or to bind with human bone tissue; and can provide excellent adhesion to bone tissue cells and the growing environment, which is good for the growth of human bone tissue (abstract, page 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to shape the orthopedic implants of Serafin with the shapes of He for orthopedic implants that provide excellent adhesion to bone tissue cells and the growing environment, which is good for the growth of human bone tissue; therein resulting in an embodiment comprising a casing plate, comprising a substrate board selected from the group consisting of a ceramic board, and comprising a first surface, a second surface, and a circumferential wall, wherein the first surface is opposite to the second surface, the circumferential wall connects the first surface and the second surface, at least two grooves are formed on the second surface, and an inorganic protective layer, covering the first surface, the second surface, the circumferential wall, and a bottom surface and a plurality of wall surfaces of each groove, wherein the inorganic protective layer is a metal layer.
The limitations “a distance between the first surface and the second surface ranges from 0.6 mm to 1.8 mm;” “dovetail;” “a depth of each dovetail groove ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm;” “wherein an acute angle is formed between the bottom surface and at least one of the wall surfaces of the dovetail groove;” “wherein the acute angle ranges from 20 degrees to 80 degrees;” “wherein the depth of the dovetail groove ranges from 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm;” “wherein four dovetail grooves are provided on the substrate board, and the four dovetail grooves are symmetrically arranged on the second surface;” “wherein the bottom surface of the dovetail groove has a circular shape, a round rectangle shape, a semicircular shape, or a semi-round rectangle shape;” and “wherein the distance between the first surface and the second surface ranges from 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm;” would be considered changes in size, scale, proportionality and shape.
It is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the artificial joint of He with the dimensions (i.e., board thickness and shape, spacing, and number of the grooves) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Furthermore, He teaches the purposes of its structure(s) (e.g. hook parts) is that of a joint or to bind with human bone tissue (abstract, page 1-3); so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the board thickness and shape, spacing, and number of the grooves to optimize the strength of the joint.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights