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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-31 in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden between the groups of invention. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement, the search for each invention would require a different field of search (for example searching multiple classes/subclasses and electronic resources or employing different search queries). Additionally, the Examiner notes that the device as claimed can be used in a materially different process of use. As such the Examiner maintains that a serious search burden exists between the inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 32-43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1219/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/5/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no explanation of relevance is provided for EP2536466.
Additionally, the Examiner notes US 816339 is not a valid patent number.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig 1 is blurry due to the shading thereof. 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). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gripping piece” of claims 20 and 30 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the Brief Description of the Drawings, each figure must be separately listed and described. No new matter should be entered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “anti-rotational means” in claims 1, 12 and 22 is interpreted under 112, F as explained above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “once the external pillar placed” should read “is placed”. In claim 22, the term “maintenance of a bone generation substitute” should read “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 12 and 22, the term “its face” is indefinite and lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear what structure the term “face” of the pillar refers to. Additionally, the term “at least 2 flexible elongated lateral extensions in the continuation of this i) central part, which does not comprise any orifice intended for positioning of a fixing screw, and whose axis intersects perpendicularly the central axis, corresponding to the axis crossing the central part” is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear what the term “in continuation of this i) central part” attempts to describe. As best understood by the Examiner, the term appears to state that the lateral extensions are continuous with the central part and will be interpreted as such. Next, it is unclear which structure does not comprise any orifice; specifically it is unclear whether the term describes the lateral extensions or the central part. Further, the term “whose axis” is indefinite as it is unclear what part the term refers to. Similarly the term “the central axis” and “the axis” are indefinite as it is unclear what axes the terms refer too. The terms additionally lack antecedent basis in the claims. Still further, the term “on its face opposite the bone” is indefinite as it is unclear what face the term refers to. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 6, 17 and 27 the term “primers” is indefinite as it is unclear what specifically the term corresponds to and what structure the term specifically imparts onto the claim. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 19, the term “at least one cover membrane” is indefinite as it is unclear whether or not the term intends to refer back to the previously recited optional membrane as listed in claim 12 or another membrane. As best understood the claim intends to refer back and positively require the membrane. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 20 and 30, the claim as a whole is indefinite as it is unclear what specifically the claim corresponds to. The gripping piece is not shown in the drawings and is only basically described in the instant specification. It is unclear what the term would or would not otherwise encompass. Further the term “this central part” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the term intends to refer back to the central part of the device, or a central part of the tool. As best understood it intends to refer to the tool. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
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) 1-4, 7-15, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badih (WO 2019/081059, see attached Machine Translation) in view of Reggie (US 2006/0154205 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Badih discloses a bone regeneration system (see Figs. 1-4; and device (per claim 1); see below) for a bone defect site in a jaw bone of a patient with a bone regeneration substitute allowing the filling of said bone defect (capable of being used as such), which comprises: 1. at least one anchor foot (3) suitable for endosteal installation in the jaw bone (capable of being used as such)); 2. at least one device (5) intended to ensure the maintenance of a bone regeneration substitute over a bone defect in a jaw bone of a patient (capable of being used as such) comprising: a. at least one external pillar (4) on its face directed towards the bone (see Fig. 1), which is intended to be fixed in the anchor foot (via screw 12), which external pillar (4) comprises anti-rotational means (4a2) making it possible to inhibit the relative movements of the external pillar (4) relative to the anchor foot (3) once the external pillar (4) is placed in the anchor foot (3); and b. at least one cover piece (6/7) on its face opposite the bone (see Fig. 1), which is placed on the bone regeneration substitute (capable of being used as such) and, optionally, on a cover membrane (the Examiner choses to not include the cover membrane; e.g. optional), so as to delimit the volume of bone regeneration at said bone defect site in combination with said bone regeneration substitute (capable of being used as such) and, optionally, said cover membrane (not required, see above)), which cover piece (6/7) forms a single piece with the external pillar (see Fig. 1) and presents: i. a central part (6), in the continuation of the external pillar (4), and ii. at least 2 flexible elongated lateral extensions (7/7V/7P) in the continuation of this i) central part, and whose axis intersects perpendicularly the central axis , corresponding to the axis crossing the central part and the anchor foot (as best understood by the Examiner, see Fig. 1 and 3).
Badih further discloses wherein the a central part has two distinct halves for facilitating their differentiation by the practitioner of the vestibular side and the palatal side (e.g. vestibular and palatal halves thereof), with a half of the central part facing the vestibular side when placed by the practitioner (i.e., towards the outside the mouth) in the continuation of which the flexible elongated lateral extensions, or flexible elongated vestibular lateral extensions (7V), have a greater length than the flexible elongated lateral extensions in the continuation of the other half of the central part (12) which faces the palatal side when placed by the practitioner (i.e. towards the palate) or flexible elongated palatal lateral extensions (7P; see machine translation (MT) page 9, par 3; per claims 2 and 13); wherein the flexible elongated vestibular lateral extensions (7V) have a length of between 4 and 10 mm, and the flexible elongated palatal lateral extensions (7P) have a length of between 3 and 6 mm (see MT page 6, par 4; per claims 3 and 14); wherein the device comprises 2 to 5 flexible elongated vestibular lateral extensions, and 1 to 4 flexible elongated palatal lateral extensions (see MT page 5; paragraph 5; higher number of extensions would require the particular number of vestibular and palatal extensions in the claimed range; per claims 4 and 15); wherein the device comprises an intermediate pillar (11; and/or upper most portion of 4, just below where it joins 6) between the external pillar and the cover piece, and wherein the external pillar, the intermediate pillar, and the cover piece form a single piece (see Figs; pe claims 7 and 18); wherein the height of said intermediate pillar is in the range from 0.5 to 5 mm (see MT pg. 4, par 7; per claim 8); wherein the cover piece has a thickness of between 0.3 and 3 mm and the flexible elongated lateral extensions have a thickness of between 0.1 and 1.5 mm (see page 6, par 4 and Fig. 1 showing the lateral extensions having the same thickness as the cover piece, which is within the claimed range; per claim 9); wherein the central part is circular (see Fig. 3; per claim 10); wherein said device is made of titanium (see page 4; par 5; per claim 11); and wherein said bone regeneration system further comprises at least one screw (12) having a head (wider top of screw) and an external thread (12a) at its distal end; wherein the external pillar of the device has an internal cavity (cavity of 4) allowing the passage of said screw but not of its head (see Fig. 1); and wherein the anchor foot has a cavity (central hole in 3) in which is provided a tapping (3c), which can cooperate with the thread (12a) of said screw (12) to allow the assembly of the at least one anchor foot (3) and of the at least one device (see Fig. 1; per claim 21).
Badih, however, does not teach wherein the lateral extensions do not comprise any orifice intended for positioning of a fixing screw as required.
Reggie, however, teaches a similar device (150) attached to an implant (100) comprising a central section (152) and lateral extensions (154/156/158) which can alternatively comprise barbs instead of holes for screws (see [0057]) and as such would not comprise any orifice intended for positioning of a fixing screw as required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Badih to include barbs instead of holes and screws as taught by Reggie, as such modification would provide for easier and faster installation, reduce the risk of loss of small separate screws, and would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2143). The Examiner notes that should the device of Badih be modified with the teachings of Reggie, as combined above, the resultant extensions would comprise barbs, not holes for screws, meeting the limitations of the claims.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badih in view of Reggie, as combined above, further in view of Rostami (US 2014/0248583 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 16-17, Badih/Reggie, as combined above, does not teach wherein the lateral extensions have one or more predetermined breaking points or one or more primers, facilitating folding, positioned along its length as required.
Rostami, however, teaches an implant extension plate (100) with lateral extensions (216a/b) which have comprise punch grooves for bending (see [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Badih/Reggie, to include Rostami’s punch grooves, as such modification would provide easier and more consistent shaping of the extensions (see Rostami, citations above). The Examiner notes that should the device of Badih/Reggie be modified with the teachings of Rostami, as combined above, the lateral extensions would comprise the punch grooves along their length, which the Examiner interprets as breaking points (per claims 5 and 16) as repeated folding at the groove can cause breakage, or alternatively as primers facilitating folding (per claims 6 and 17) as they are disclosed to aid in folding.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badi in view of Reggie, as combined above, further in view of Kim (KR 1020140128896, see attached Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 19, Badih/Reggie, as combined above, does not teach wherein said bone regeneration system further comprises: at least one cover membrane, which is of resorbable or non-resorbable nature, and whose surface makes it possible to cover at least the entire bone defect as required.
Kim et al, however, teaches an implant system with an implant (110), a maintenance device (340) with 2 elongated lateral extensions (340) and a cover membrane (121; implicitly either resorbable or non-resorbable), whose surface covers an entire bone defect and bone graft substitute (60; see Figs. 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Badih/Reggie, as combined above, to include Kim’s cover membrane, as such modification would aid in maintaining the bone graft material in place and aid in shaping the newly developing bone.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badih in view of Reggie, as combined above, further in view of Chenaux (WO 2021/064491 A1).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, Badih/Reggie, as combined above, does not teach at least one piece facilitating the gripping of the device by the practitioner, taking the form of a sleeve, and which clips to the central part of the device in a complementary housing located within this central part as required.
Chenaux, however, discloses an implant tool (230/240) which engages and grips a head/extension component (70) connected to the implant, via a sleeve (e.g. cavity of 230) that clips to the central part (head of 70) in a complementary housing (see Fig. 3b and [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Badih/Reggie, as combined above, to include Chenaux’s tool, as such modification would provide a means for easily placing, removing and/or carrying the device.
Claim(s) 22-25, 28-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badih in view of Reggie in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 22 and 29, Badih discloses a bone regeneration kit (see Figs. 1-4; and device (per claim 1); see below) for a bone defect site in a jaw bone of a patient (capable of being used as such), which comprises: at least one anchor foot (3) suitable for endosteal installation in the jaw bone (capable of being used as such)); at least one device (5) intended to ensure the maintenance of a bone regeneration substitute over a bone defect in a jaw bone of a patient (capable of being used as such) comprising: a. at least one external pillar (4) on its face directed towards the bone (see Fig. 1), which is intended to be fixed in the anchor foot (via screw 12), which external pillar (4) comprises anti-rotational means (4a2) making it possible to inhibit the relative movements of the external pillar (4) relative to the anchor foot (3) once the external pillar (4) is placed in the anchor foot (3); and b. at least one cover piece (6/7) on its face opposite the bone (see Fig. 1), which is placed on the bone (capable of being used as such) and, optionally, on a cover membrane (the Examiner choses to not include the cover membrane; e.g. optional), so as to delimit the volume of bone regeneration at said bone defect site (capable of being used as such) and, optionally, said cover membrane (not required, see above)), which cover piece (6/7) forms a single piece with the external pillar (see Fig. 1) and presents: i. a central part (6), in the continuation of the external pillar (4), and ii. at least 2 flexible elongated lateral extensions (7/7V/7P) in the continuation of this i) central part, and whose axis intersects perpendicularly the central axis, corresponding to the axis crossing the central part and the anchor foot (as best understood by the Examiner, see Fig. 1 and 3).
Badih further discloses wherein the a central part has two distinct halves for facilitating their differentiation by the practitioner of the vestibular side and the palatal side (e.g. vestibular and palatal halves thereof), with a half of the central part facing the vestibular side when placed by the practitioner (i.e., towards the outside the mouth) in the continuation of which the flexible elongated lateral extensions, or flexible elongated vestibular lateral extensions (7V), have a greater length than the flexible elongated lateral extensions in the continuation of the other half of the central part (12) which faces the palatal side when placed by the practitioner (i.e. towards the palate) or flexible elongated palatal lateral extensions (7P; see machine translation (MT) page 9, par 3; per claim 23); wherein the flexible elongated vestibular lateral extensions (7V) have a length of between 4 and 10 mm, and the flexible elongated palatal lateral extensions (7P) have a length of between 3 and 6 mm (see MT page 6, par 4; per claim 24); wherein the device comprises 2 to 5 flexible elongated vestibular lateral extensions, and 1 to 4 flexible elongated palatal lateral extensions (see MT page 5; paragraph 5; higher number of extensions would require the particular number of vestibular and palatal extensions in the claimed range; per claim 25); wherein the device comprises an intermediate pillar (11; and/or upper most portion of 4, just below where it joins 6) between the external pillar and the cover piece, and wherein the external pillar, the intermediate pillar, and the cover piece form a single piece (see Figs; pe claim 28); and wherein said bone regeneration system further comprises at least one screw (12) having a head (wider top of screw) and an external thread (12a) at its distal end; wherein the external pillar of the device has an internal cavity (cavity of 4) allowing the passage of said screw but not of its head (see Fig. 1); and wherein the anchor foot has a cavity (central hole in 3) in which is provided a tapping (3c), which can cooperate with the thread (12a) of said screw (12) to allow the assembly of the at least one anchor foot (3) and of the at least one device (see Fig. 1; per claim 31).
Badih, however, does not teach wherein the lateral extensions do not comprise any orifice intended for positioning of a fixing screw, or the kit comprising the bone regeneration substitute and cover membrane (per claim 29) as required.
Reggie, however, teaches a similar device (150) attached to an implant (100) comprising a central section (152) and lateral extensions (154/156/158) which can alternatively comprise barbs instead of holes for screws (see [0057]) and as such would not comprise any orifice intended for positioning of a fixing screw as required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Badih to include barbs instead of holes and screws as taught by Reggie, as such modification would provide for easier and faster installation, reduce the risk of loss of small separate screws, and would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2143). The Examiner notes that should the device of Badih be modified with the teachings of Reggie, as combined above, the resultant extensions would comprise barbs, not holes for screws, meeting the limitations of the claims.
Kim et al, however, teaches an implant kit with an implant (110), a maintenance device (340) with 2 elongated lateral extensions (340) and a cover membrane (121; implicitly either resorbable or non-resorbable), whose surface covers an entire bone defect and bone graft substitute (60; see Figs. 3-5), and the bone graft substitute (60) filling a bone defect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the kit of Badih/Reggie, as combined above, to include Kim’s bone graft substitute and cover membrane, as such modification would improve recovery time and new bone quality and aid in maintaining the bone graft material in place and aid in shaping the newly developing bone (respectively). The Examiner notes that should the kit of Badih/Reggie be modified with the teachings of Kim, as combined above, the bone graft substitute can be used to fill a bone defect, with the device ensuring maintenance of the bone regeneration substitute, with the cover piece and cover membrane capable of being placed over the bone regeneration substitute so as to delimit the volume of bone regeneration at the defect site in combination with the regeneration substitute as required.
Claim(s) 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badih in view of Reggie in view of Kim, as combined above, further in view of Rostami (US 2014/0248583 A1).
Regarding claims 26-27, Badih/Reggie/Kim, as combined above, does not teach wherein the lateral extensions have one or more predetermined breaking points or one or more primers, facilitating folding, positioned along its length as required.
Rostami, however, teaches an implant extension plate (100) with lateral extensions (216a/b) which have comprise punch grooves for bending (see [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Badih/Reggie/Kim, to include Rostami’s punch grooves, as such modification would provide easier and more consistent shaping of the extensions (see Rostami, citations above). The Examiner notes that should the device of Badih/Reggie/Kim be modified with the teachings of Rostami, as combined above, the lateral extensions would comprise the punch grooves along their length, which the Examiner interprets as breaking points (per claim 26) as repeated folding at the groove can cause breakage, or alternatively as primers facilitating folding (per claim 27) as they are disclosed to aid in folding.
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badih in view of Reggie in view of Kim, as combined above, further in view of Chenaux (WO 2021/064491 A1).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood by the Examiner, Badih/Reggie/Kim, as combined above, does not teach at least one piece facilitating the gripping of the device by the practitioner, taking the form of a sleeve, and which clips to the central part of the device in a complementary housing located within this central part as required.
Chenaux, however, discloses an implant tool (230/240) which engages and grips a head/extension component (70) connected to the implant, via a sleeve (e.g. cavity of 230) that clips to the central part (head of 70) in a complementary housing (see Fig. 3b and [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Badih/Reggie/Kim, as combined above, to include Chenaux’s tool, as such modification would provide a means for easily placing, removing and/or carrying the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM 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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772