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 without traverse of Invention I and Species A (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/26.
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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Laird, Jr et al (US Patent Pub. 20190269443A1).
Laird recites an implant. Specifically in regards to claim 1-2, Laird recites a salvation plate (502) that is configured to extend over one or more bones, wherein the salvation plate (502) has a first end (504, fig. 38) and a second end (511) and defines :an anchor fastener opening (521/520) that is configured to allow a first fastener to extend through the anchor fastener opening (521/520) such that the first fastener enters bone covered by the salvation plate (502) at a first angle that falls within a first maximum range of angular motion (cone of angulation); and a first civility fastener opening (540) that is configured to allow a second fastener to extend through the first civility fastener opening (540) such that the second fastener enters the bone covered by the salvation plate (502) at a second angle that falls within a second maximum range of angular motion (cone of angulation) (Fig. 37-38; and Para. [0123]-[0129]). However, the reference is silent as to the second maximum range of angular motion is smaller than the first maximum range of angular motion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second maximum range of angular motion is smaller than the first maximum range of angular motion by at least twenty degrees since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 3, Laird recites wherein the anchor fastener opening (521/520) is disposed adjacent to the first end (504) of the salvation plate (502), and wherein the first end (504) of the salvation plate (502) comprises a proximal end of the salvation plate (502) (Fig. 37-38).
In regards to claim 4, Laird recites wherein the anchor fastener opening (520/521) is disposed at least one of: (i) at and (ii) adjacent to a center of the salvation plate (502) (Fig. 37-38).
In regards to claim 6, Laird recites wherein the salvation plate (502) further defines a second civility fastener opening (540) that is configured to allow a third fastener to extend through the second civility fastener opening (540) such that the third fastener enters the bone covered by the salvation plate (502) at a third angle (cone of angulation, Para. [0128]) that falls within the second maximum range of angular motion (cone of angulation, Para. [0128]), and wherein the first civility fastener opening and the second civility fastener opening are configured to respectively direct the second fastener and the third faster at intersecting angles towards each other (The fasteners inserted into holes 540 extend along the length of the shaft portion 510 and accept locking and non-locking screws, both inserted within a cone of angulation, and would be capable of being inserted at intersecting angles as needed.) (Fig. 37; and Para. [0128]).
In regards to claim 7, Laird recites wherein the anchor fastener opening (520/521) is disposed adjacent to the first end (504) of the salvation plate (502), and wherein a portion of the salvation plate (502) that defines the anchor fastener opening (520/521) is at least of: (i) curved, (ii) bent, and (ii) angled past an external surface of a portion of the salvation plate (502) that defines the first civility fastener opening (540) (Fig. 37; and Para. [0122]-[0123]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Laird, Jr et al (US Patent Pub. 20190269443A1) in view of Raven, III et al (US Patent Pub. 20120203228A1).
Laird recites an implant comprising a salvation plate having anchor fastener and civility fastener openings wherein each openings allow the angulation of the fasteners to be at ranges of a first and second maximum range of angular motion. However, the reference was silent as to the plate having a recessed portion.
Raven recites an implant. Specifically in regards to claim 8, Raven recites a plate (900) wherein the plate (900) comprises a recessed portion (912) that is disposed adjacent to the anchor fastener opening (920) and proximal to the first civility fastener opening (940), and that is configured to extend into a corresponding recess formed in the bone covered by the plate (900) (The recitation that the recessed portion is configured to extend into a corresponding recess in a bone is being interpreted as intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.) (Fig. 18a-18b; and Para. [0157]-[0162]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the plate (502) of Laird to have a recessed portion as taught in Raven in order to allow fusion portion to more closely conform to the bone on which it is placed (Para. [0162]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Laird, Jr et al (US Patent Pub. 20190269443A1) in view of Singh et al (US Patent Pub. 20190269445A1).
Laird recites an implant comprising a salvation plate having anchor fastener and civility fastener openings wherein each openings allow the angulation of the fasteners to be at ranges of a first and second maximum range of angular motion. However, the reference was silent as to the plate opening having a non-threaded retainer, or a flared opening.
Singh recites an implant. Specifically in regards to claim 9, Singh recites a plate (530) comprising a non-threaded retainer (571/580) that is configured to capture the second fastener (560) once the second fastener (560) is fully inserted into the first civility fastener opening (540) (Fig. 22-236; and Para. [0117]-[0119]). In regards to claim 10, Singh recites wherein the plate (530) comprises a concave internal surface and a convex external surface (Fig. 22) that is disposed substantially opposite to the concave internal surface, and wherein at least a portion of the anchor fastener opening (540) flares as it extends from the concave internal surface towards the convex external surface (Fig. 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the anchor fastener opening (520/521) in the plate (502) of Laird to a non-threaded retainer, or a flared opening as taught in Singh in order to allow for polyaxial orientations of screw in hole, and the threads on screw head engage the threads on nut to lock the screw to the nut (Para. [0124]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Laird, Jr et al (US Patent Pub. 20190269443A1) in view of Gahman et al (US Patent Pub. 20180049782A1).
Laird recites an implant comprising a salvation plate having anchor fastener and civility fastener openings wherein each openings allow the angulation of the fasteners to be at ranges of a first and second maximum range of angular motion. In regards to claim 11, Laird recites wherein the wherein the anchor fastener opening (520/521) is defined at a proximal end of the salvation plate (502) (Fig. 37). However, the reference was silent as to the anchor fastener opening having an elongated channel adjacent thereto.
Gahman recites an implant. Specifically in regards to claim 11, Gahman recites a plate (10) wherein the plate (10) defines an elongated channel (24c) that is disposed adjacent to the anchor fastener opening (22C) and that is configured to receive a portion of a head of the first fastener (Fig. 12a-12c; and Para. [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the anchor fastener opening (520/521) in the plate (502) of Laird to have an elongated channel adjacent thereto as taught in Gahman in order to allow for dynamic compression (Para. [0068]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELA I SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)270-5269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm MST.
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.
MARCELA . SHIRSAT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights