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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (APA; see background of the invention is specification) in view of Hufferd et al (US 2,141,753).
In reference to claim 1, APA discloses a manufacturing method of an epiphysis plate, the method including
a step of heating a metal material of a round bar,
a step of forming a die forged product close to a shape of the epiphysis plate as a final product by die forging using a die device, and a step of annealing the die forged product.
The admitted prior art further discloses the need to perform cutting work on the round base in order to change the diameters of the round bar corresponding to a wide portion and a narrow portion to reduce burr generation, however performing cutting makes it difficult to improve the yield.
However, Hufferd et al teaches of using an extrusion process in lieu of a cutting (i.e. machining) process to eliminate waste and improve overall strength of the material when changing the shape of a round bar to comprise a wide portion and a narrow portion with improve strength [see col. 1 lines 12-26; figures 1-2].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cutting step of the admitted prior art to be an extrusion step to form a head portion (wide portion) and a shaft portion (narrow portion) within the round bar. since Hufferd et al teaches such a substitution eliminates the waste associated with cutting and improves the overall strength of the formed material. It is further noted that Applicant admits in paragraph 0006 that “forward extrusion forming is known as a method for changing the diameter of a round bar in the wide and narrow portion of an epiphysis plate without cutting work of the round bar”.
In reference to claim 2, APA further discloses the billet is die forged using the die device one time or two or more times.
In reference claim 3, the combination further discloses the head portion (wide portion) of the billet corresponds to a wide portion of the epiphysis plate as the final product and the shaft portion of the billet corresponds to a narrow portion of the epiphysis plate.
In reference to claims 4-6, the admitted prior art discloses the material is used for forming an epiphysis plate but fails to disclose the specific material.
However, it is well known in the medical implant art to use titanium, cobalt-chromium molybdenum or stainless steel material for medical implants.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the material be composed of either titanium, cobalt-chromium molybdenum or stainless steel material since any of these materials are well known material used for medical implants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
