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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the length of the buttress portions being less than the length of the slot. The Office respectfully disagrees. The buttress protrusions only comprise a small portions or length of the base section of the spring plate, thus being less than the slot.
The previous Drawings objections are overcome by the most recent amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is amended to recite “wherein the buttress portions have a length less than the slot floor length”. The term “buttress portions” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if the buttress portions is the same as the buttress protrusions of the base portion of the spring plate. For purposes of examination, they are assumed to be the same.
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 and 11 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretzer et al. (US 2011/0319939 A1) in view of Lange et al. (US 2017/0112547 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kretzer discloses a bone fixation system (Abstract), comprising:
an alignment rod (paragraph [0098], ref. 1202, Figs. 38 – 39) having a top surface (Fig. 39), wherein at least part of said alignment rod has buttress threading disposed along said top surface (paragraph [0098], ref. 1204);
a pedicle screw (ref. 1206) having a threaded shaft (ref. 1208) that supports a slotted receptacle (ref. 1234), wherein said slotted receptacle defines a slot sized to receive said alignment rod therethrough (Figs. 38 – 39), said slot having opposing walls and a slot floor connecting the walls, the slot floor having a length (see remarked Fig. 39 below), wherein said opposing walls are internally threaded (Fig. 38);
a set screw (ref. 1212) that threads into said opposing walls (Fig. 39), wherein said set screw can be selectively advanced into said slot to an adjustment position and to a locked position (a locked position would be fully threaded while an adjustment position may be any position until the locked position is met);
a spring plate (ref. 1214) interposed between said set screw and said top surface of said alignment rod (Fig. 39), said spring plate having a base section (section between the set screw and the rod as shown in Fig. 39) with a top and a bottom, a curved bend extends from the base section (see remarked Fig. 38 below) and leads into a cantilevered section (the top portion that engaged with the set screw), therein suspending said cantilevered section over at least part of said top of said base section (Fig. 39),
a buttress protrusion extends from said bottom of said base section (ref. 1222), wherein said cantilevered section is contacted by said set screw as said set screw is advanced toward said locked position creating a spring force in said curved ben that acts upon said base section (as shown in Fig. 39, the height of the set screw is positioned in the spring plate biasing or pushing the bottom against the top surface of the rod), therein causing said buttress protrusion on said base section to be biased against said buttress threading on said alignment rod (paragraph [0098], Figs. 38 – 39), wherein the buttress portions have a length less than the slot floor length (as best understood, the buttress protrusions have a length such as a length as viewed in Fig. 39, which is significantly less than a slot length. See remarked Fig. 39 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
527
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
509
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kretzer is silent that the buttress protrusions are a plurality of parallel buttress protrusions.
Lange teaches a spinal implant having a threaded shaft (paragraph [0044], ref. 34, Fig. 2) and a locking plate having a plurality of parallel buttress protrusions (see remarked Fig. 8 below) configured to engage the shaft (paragraph [0054]) to control movement in only one direction (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking plate, such that the bottom surface has a plurality of parallel buttress protrusions, as taught by Lange, to engage the threads on the shaft for a better controlled uni-directional movement of the shaft relative to the remainder of the device.
PNG
media_image3.png
394
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kretzer in view of Lange discloses the system according to Claim 1, wherein said spring force causes said plurality of parallel buttress protrusions on said base section to engage said buttress threading on said alignment rod and limit said alignment rod to linear movement in only one direction when said set screw is advanced to said adjustment position (the angled protrusion will result in a single direction for movement of the shaft).
Regarding claim 3, Kretzer in view of Lange discloses the system according to Claim 1, wherein said spring force causes said plurality of parallel buttress protrusions on said base section to engage said buttress threading on said alignment rod and prevent any linear movement of said alignment rod when said set screw is advanced to said locked position (when the screw is tightened all the way the compressive force onto the plate and onto the shaft will prevent movement).
Regarding claim 11, Kretzer in view of Lange discloses the system according to Claim 1, wherein said alignment rod has a smooth bottom surface that rests in said slotted receptacle (Fig. 38).
Regarding claim 12, Kretzer in view of Lange discloses the system according to Claim 1, wherein said alignment rod has a midline and each said buttress threading has have vertical surfaces that are perpendicular to said midline and a sloped surfaces that slope way from said vertical surfaces in a common first direction (Fig. 38).
Regarding claim 13, Kretzer in view of Lange discloses the system according to Claim 1, wherein the set screw presses against the cantilevered section and begins to compress the curved bend (Kretzer, Fig. 39).
Regarding claim 14, Kretzer discloses a bone fixation system (Abstract), comprising:
an alignment rod (paragraph [0098], ref. 1202, Figs. 38 – 39) having a cylindrical lateral face (Fig. 39), wherein at least part of said alignment rod has buttress threading disposed continuously round said lateral face (paragraph [0098], ref. 1204);
a pedicle screw (ref. 1206) having a threaded shaft (ref. 1208) that supports a slotted receptacle (ref. 1234), wherein said slotted receptacle defines a slot sized to receive said alignment rod therethrough, said slot having opposing walls defining a slot length (see remarked Fig. 39 above), wherein said opposing walls are internally threaded (Fig. 38);
a set screw (ref. 1212) that threads into said opposing walls, wherein said set screw can be selectively rotated to be advanced into said slot from an adjustment position to a locked position (a locked position would be fully threaded while an adjustment position may be any position until the locked position is met);
a spring plate (ref. 1214) disposed entirely interposed between said set screw and said lateral face of said alignment rod (Fig. 39), said spring plate having a base and a cantilevered upper section disposed against the set screw that are joined by a spring (see remarked Fig. 38 above), wherein the cantilevered segment is placed over at least part of said base section, (Fig. 39) wherein a buttress protrusion extend from said base section (ref. 1222) and do not extend beyond the slot length (Fig. 39), and wherein said cantilevered section is contacted by said set screw as said set screw is advanced toward said locked position therein causing said buttress protrusion on said base section to engage a corresponding plurality of said buttress threading on said alignment rod (paragraph [0098], Figs. 38 – 39).
Kretzer is silent that the buttress protrusions are a plurality of parallel buttress protrusions.
Lange teaches a spinal implant having a threaded shaft (paragraph [0044], ref. 34, Fig. 2) and a locking plate having a plurality of parallel buttress protrusions (see remarked Fig. 8 below) configured to engage the shaft (paragraph [0054]) to control movement in only one direction (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking plate, such that the bottom surface has a plurality of parallel buttress protrusions, as taught by Lange, to engage the threads on the shaft for a better controlled uni-directional movement of the shaft relative to the remainder of the device.
Claim(s) 4 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretzer et al. (US 2011/0319939 A1) in view of Lange et al. (US 2017/0112547 A1) and in view of Kiefer et al. (US 2019/0374269 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kretzer in view of Lange discloses the system according to Claim 1, except wherein said threaded shaft of said pedicle screw has a length that is selectively adjustable.
Kiefer teaches variable length screw for use in spinal surgery, specifically for pedicle screws (paragraph [0005]). Kiefer teaches a screw shaft (Figs. 7B,D, ref. 10) having an upper section (paragraph [0083], ref. 12a), a lower section (paragraph [0083], ref. 12b, Fig. 7D) and a threaded connecting rod that interconnects said upper section and said lower section (ref. 12ap), wherein said threaded shaft is selectively adjustable in length by rotating said lower section relative to said upper section (paragraph [0083}). Kiefer teaches that by having a variable length screw shaft, it will aid with the insertion and/or removal of other attachment devices, and to increase the amount of bone that current attachment devices can attach to (paragraph [0007]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threaded shaft of Kretzer in view of Lange such that said threaded shaft has an upper section, a lower section and a threaded connecting rod that interconnects said upper section and said lower section such that the threaded shaft has a length that is selectively adjustable, as taught by Kiefer, for the purpose of aiding with the insertion and/or removal of other attachment devices, and to increase the amount of bone that current attachment devices can attach to.
Regarding claim 5, Kretzer in view of Lange and in view of Kiefer discloses the system according to Claim 4, wherein said threaded shaft has a hollow upper section (Kiefer, Fig. 7D, ref. 12a) and a solid lower section (ref. 12B) that thread together, wherein said length is adjusted by turning said upper section and said low section relative to each other (paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 6, Kretzer in view of Lange and in view of Kiefer discloses the system according to Claim 5, wherein said lower section includes a threaded connecting rod that engages said upper section (Kiefer, Fig. 7D, ref. 12aD), and wherein said threaded connecting rod is exposed in different amounts when said lower section is turned relative to said upper section (paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Kretzer in view of Lange and in view of Kiefer discloses the system according to Claim 6, wherein said upper section, said lower section and said threaded connecting rod all have external threads of the same thread pitch (Kiefer, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 8, Kretzer in view of Lange and in view of Kiefer discloses the system according to Claim 6, except wherein said threaded connecting rod is rigidly affixed to said lower section of said threaded shaft. However, Kiefer does disclose the reversal of said parts. More particularly where the lower second is hollow and the threaded connecting rod is rigidly affixed to said upper section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threaded shaft of Kiefer such that said threaded connecting rod is rigidly affixed to said lower section of said threaded shaft since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 9, Kretzer in view of Lange and in view of Kiefer discloses the system according to Claim 8, wherein said slotted receptacle is rigidly affixed to said upper section of said threaded shaft (Kreztzer, Fig. 39).
Regarding claim 10, Kretzer in view of Lange and in view of Kiefer discloses the system according to Claim 9, wherein said upper section of said threaded shaft is hollow and said threaded connecting rod is accessible through said upper section (as modified above, the upper section is hollow and configured to receive the connection rod).
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 TESSA M MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8817. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am - 1pm.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571) 272-4719. 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.
/TESSA M MATTHEWS/Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights