DETAILED ACTION
The following is a non-final office action is response to communications received on 01/28/2026. Claims 4-23 are currently pending and addressed below. Claims 1-3 are cancelled.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 4-14 & 18-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 6-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,042,390. The elements of the instant application are to be found in the Patent and therefore are anticipated. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent and the instant application all recite the same basic structure with a permutation of similar elements throughout.
Regarding Claims 4-6 & 21, patent claim 1recites the same limitations.
Regarding Claims 17 & 20, patent claim 2 recites the same limitations.
Regarding Claim 23, patent claim 5 recites the same limitations.
Regarding Claims 9 & 12-14, patent claim 6 recites the same limitations.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 18 & 19, patent claim 7 recites the same limitations.
Regarding Claim 9, patent claim 8 recites the same limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, patent claim 9 recites the same limitations.
Regarding Claim 11, patent claim 10 recites the same limitations.
Regarding Claim 22, patent claim 11 recites the same limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14 & 17-23 would be allowable if a timely filed terminal disclaimer(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is filed to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 15-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most pertinent art found, fails to teach and/or fairly suggest the instant invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
1280
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shields et al. (US 7,682,399) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Shields teaches an acetabular prosthesis (Fig 3) for use in a hip arthroplasty surgical procedure, the acetabular prosthesis comprising: an outer cup cage (12) having a first hemispherical cup and a first mounting flange (shown) extending from the first hemispherical cup; and an inner cup cage (14) having a second hemispherical cup and a second mounting flange (shown) extending from the second hemispherical cup, wherein the second hemispherical cup is sized to be received within the first hemispherical cup (Fig 1), wherein, when the second hemispherical cup is received within the first hemispherical cup, each of the inner cup cage and the outer cup cage is rotatable relative to one another about an axis extending through an apex of each of the first and second hemispherical cups to selectively position the first mounting flange and the second mounting flange (Col 7: lines 23-28).
However, the prior art either individually or in combination, does not teach or render obvious wherein the first hemispherical cup is semi-hemispherical or has a shape between semi-hemispherical and full hemispherical.
Examination of similar structures was established and discussed in parent application 17/740,813.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN AINSLEY DUKERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-4pm.
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.
/BRIAN A DUKERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights