DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to the set of claims received on 16 September 2024. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings received on 16 September 2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 18, it appears that the phrase “provide a secure attachment” should read “provides a secure attachment.”
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality:
In lines 3-4, it appears that the phrase “form press-fit” should read “forms a press-fit.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 6, it appears that the phrase “along periphery” should read “along the periphery.”
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 5, it appears that the phrase “the threaded screw head” should read “the threaded head” for consistency.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 3, it appears that the phrase “the three portions” should read “the first, second, and third portions” for clarity.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 6, it appears that the phrase “along periphery” should read “along the periphery.”
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 5, it appears that the phrase “the threaded screw head” should read “the threaded head” for consistency.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 3, it appears that the phrase “the three portions” should read “the first, second, and third portions” for clarity.
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.
Claims 3 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the annular interior surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: It appears that amending line 3 of claim 3 to read “an annular interior surface” would overcome this rejection. For examination purposes, claim 3 will be treated as such.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the male-type tapered surface" and “the baseplate” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Since claims 14-21 are dependent upon claim 13, they contain the same issue.
Note: It appears that amending claim 13 to include the phrase “a baseplate defining a male-type tapered surface” between lines 1 and 2 would overcome this rejection. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be treated as such.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardon et al. (U.S. Patent 10,925,745) in view of Orbay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0249241).
Regarding claims 1-5, Cardon et al. disclose (as to part of claim 1) a glenoid implant assembly (1) comprising a baseplate (10) comprising a proximal end (i.e. end defining 12), a distal end (i.e. end defining 13), an outer periphery (i.e. periphery defined by 11), and a frustoconical side surface (12) extending from the proximal end to the distal end and defining a male-type tapered surface (see column 5, line 60 – column 6, line 2) and capable of being secured to (i.e. via 13 and screws inserted into 14) a glenoid; a polymer glenosphere (30, see column 7, lines 42-45 referring to 30 being made of polyethylene) having a proximal end (i.e. end defining 31) and a distal end (i.e. end defining 33), including a convex articular surface (31) extending distally from the proximal end and a distal surface (33) provided on the distal end, and a circular recessed portion (35) recessed from the distal surface and forming an interior contour (i.e. contour as best seen in Figures 1 and 3) of the circular recessed portion; and an interfacing component (20), having a bowl-shaped configuration (i.e. configuration as best seen in Figures 1 and 3) with a convex side (i.e. side as best seen in Figure 2) and a recessed side (i.e. side defining 24 as best seen in Figure 3), wherein the convex side is capable of being secured to the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere (securement as best seen in Figure 4), wherein the recessed side of the interfacing component is configured with an annular interior surface (24) defining a female-type tapered surface to receive and form a friction lock engagement with the male-type tapered surface of the baseplate (see column 5, line 60 – column 6, line 2 referring to a Morse taper), and wherein when the polymer glenosphere, the interfacing component, and the baseplate are assembled into the glenoid implant assembly, the interfacing component is interposed between the polymer glenosphere and the baseplate (interposition as best seen in Figure 4) and provides a secure attachment between the polymer glenosphere and the baseplate (i.e. due to the coupling of 26 and 35, and the Morse taper defined by 12 and 24), wherein (as to claim 2) the convex side of the interfacing component has a contour that generally follows the interior contour of the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere (see Figure 4), wherein (as to claim 3) the convex side of the interfacing component is configured with a side surface (i.e. surface defining 22) along its periphery that forms an intimate contact along an annular interior surface (i.e. surface defined by portion of 30 located below 35 as best seen in Figure 3) of the recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere and forms a press-fit between the interfacing component and the polymer glenosphere (i.e. resulting in the configuration as best seen in Figure 4), and wherein (as to claim 5) the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere comprises an annular interior surface (i.e. surface defining 36) along its periphery and the convex side of the interfacing component comprises a matching surface (i.e. surface defining 27) comprising a plurality of anti-rotation blades (27) capable of engaging the annular interior surface of the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere to prevent rotational movement between the polymer glenosphere and the interfacing component (see column 9, lines 4-12) (see Figures 1-5, and column 50, line 48 – column 10, line 64).
Cardon et al. disclose the claimed invention except for wherein (as to the remainder of claim 1) the interfacing component is made of a material that is more rigid than the polymer glenosphere, and wherein (as to claim 4) the polymer glenosphere is made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE).
Orbay et al. teach the use of a glenoid implant assembly (100) comprising a baseplate (102); a polymer glenosphere (132); and an interfacing component (130), wherein the polymer glenosphere is made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (see paragraph 0038), and wherein the interfacing component is made of a material (i.e. a metal) that is more rigid than the polymer glenosphere (see paragraph 0038) (see Figure 5, and paragraphs 0034-0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the invention of Cardon et al. with wherein the interfacing component is made of a material that is more rigid than the polymer glenosphere, and wherein the polymer glenosphere is made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene in view of Orbay et al. in order to provide well-known, obvious biocompatible materials for replacing a human shoulder joint to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Regarding claims 13-16, Cardon et al. disclose (as to part of claim 13) a glenoid implant assembly (1) comprising a baseplate (10) defining a male-type tapered surface (see column 5, line 60 – column 6, line 2); a polymer glenosphere (30, see column 7, lines 42-45 referring to 30 being made of polyethylene) having a proximal end (i.e. end defining 31) and a distal end (i.e. end defining 33), including a convex articular surface (31) extending distally from the proximal end and a distal surface (33) provided on the distal end, and a circular recessed portion (35) recessed from the distal surface and forming an interior contour (i.e. contour as best seen in Figures 1 and 3) of the circular recessed portion; and an interfacing component (20), having a bowl-shaped configuration (i.e. configuration as best seen in Figures 1 and 3) with a convex side (i.e. side as best seen in Figure 2) and a recessed side (i.e. side defining 24 as best seen in Figure 3), wherein the convex side is capable of being secured to the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere (securement as best seen in Figure 4), wherein the recessed side of the interfacing component is configured with an annular interior surface (24) defining a female-type tapered surface to receive and form a friction lock engagement with the male-type tapered surface of the baseplate (see column 5, line 60 – column 6, line 2 referring to a Morse taper), and wherein when the polymer glenosphere and the interfacing component are assembled, the interfacing component provides a rigid frame for the polymer glenosphere (i.e. due to the coupling of 26 and 35, and the Morse taper defined by 12 and 24), wherein (as to claim 14) the convex side of the interfacing component has a contour that generally follows the interior contour of the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere (see Figure 4), and wherein (as to claim 16) the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere comprises an annular interior surface (i.e. surface defining 36) along its periphery and the convex side of the interfacing component comprises a matching surface (i.e. surface defining 27) comprising a plurality of anti-rotation blades (27) capable of engaging the annular interior surface of the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere to prevent rotational movement between the polymer glenosphere and the interfacing component (see column 9, lines 4-12) (see Figures 1-5, and column 50, line 48 – column 10, line 64).
Cardon et al. disclose the claimed invention except for wherein (as to the remainder of claim 13) the interfacing component is made of a material that is more rigid than the polymer glenosphere, and wherein (as to claim 15) the polymer glenosphere is made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE).
Orbay et al. teach the use of a glenoid implant assembly (100) comprising a baseplate (102); a polymer glenosphere (132); and an interfacing component (130), wherein the polymer glenosphere is made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (see paragraph 0038), and wherein the interfacing component is made of a material (i.e. a metal) that is more rigid than the polymer glenosphere (see paragraph 0038) (see Figure 5, and paragraphs 0034-0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the invention of Cardon et al. with wherein the interfacing component is made of a material that is more rigid than the polymer glenosphere, and wherein the polymer glenosphere is made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene in view of Orbay et al. in order to provide well-known, obvious biocompatible materials for replacing a human shoulder joint to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 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.
Claims 17-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-12 and 17-21 in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the following:
Regarding at least claim 6, in combination with the limitations required by claim 1, no prior art reference could be found disclosing or making obvious wherein the polymer glenosphere and the interfacing component each comprises an aperture extending through along the glenoid implant assembly's longitudinal axis, and the interfacing component and the polymer glenosphere are configured to secure to each other by a tightening nut that is inserted through the aperture in the interfacing component from the recessed side and threading into the aperture in the polymer glenosphere, and also by press-fitting along the periphery of the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere, wherein the tightening nut is configured to capture the interfacing component between the tightening nut and the polymer glenosphere.
Regarding claim 17, in combination with the limitations required by claim 13, no prior art reference could be found disclosing or making obvious wherein the polymer glenosphere and the interfacing component each comprises an aperture extending through along the glenoid implant assembly's longitudinal axis, and the interfacing component and the polymer glenosphere are configured to secure to each other by a tightening nut that is inserted through the aperture in the interfacing component from the recessed side and threading into the aperture in the polymer glenosphere, and also by press-fitting along the periphery of the circular recessed portion of the polymer glenosphere, wherein the tightening nut is configured to capture the interfacing component between the tightening nut and the polymer glenosphere.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY E WAGGLE, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7110. The examiner can normally be reached TEAP: Monday - Friday (7:45am - 3:45pm).
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/LARRY E WAGGLE, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights