DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed April 3, 2026. By that amendment, claims 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 13 and 14 were amended; and claims 3 and 12 were canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-20 are pending, though claims 16-20 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
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
The outstanding objections to claims 6 and 7 were overcome by the amendment to the claims of April 3, 2026.
The outstanding rejection of claims 9-15 under 35 USC 101 was overcome by the amendment to the claims of April 3, 2026.
The outstanding rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 USC 112(b) was overcome by the amendment to the claims of April 3, 2026.
The outstanding rejections of claims 1 and 3-15 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Gonzalez-Hernandez ‘008 (US 9,283,008 B2); and claim 2 under 35 USC 103 in view of Gonzalez-Hernandez ‘008 and Gonzalez-Hernandez ‘323 (US 2012/0226323 A1); were overcome by the amendment to the claims of April 3, 2026. Arguments related to those claims rejections are considered moot since none of the previously cited rejections is maintained in rejecting the claims at this time.
The newly presented rejections are necessitated by the amendment to the claims of April 3, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is considered duplicative of a limitation added to claim 9 by the amendment of April 3, 2026. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sammarco (US 5,718,705).
Regarding claim 1, Sammarco teaches a bone plate 1 as at fig. 1. The teaching at col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 15 will be relied upon in making this rejection. This section refers to structures not necessarily shown in the figures, as follows:
All of the fingers may be provided with a plurality of holes along their length for receipt of surgical screws. In FIG. 1, the finger holes are shown to be simple circular holes 13. While not so shown, it is often preferred that the holes 13 be countersunk so that the heads of the surgical screws do not extend much beyond the surfaces of the plate fingers. It is also within the scope of the invention to provide the plate fingers 3-10 with slots such as the slots 14 shown in Finger 10. Such slots enable adjustment of the bone with respect to the plate. In some instances, holes 13, or the slots 14, together with the underside of the heads of the surgical screws, may be so configured that, as each screw is tightened, it tends to push or pull the bone fragments into more intimate abutment. As indicated above, this is known in the art. It is also within the scope of the invention to provide the hub portion 2 of plate 1 with one or more screw holes. In FIG. 1, the hub is shown having one hole at 15. (examiner’s emphasis)
The plate includes a unitary plate 1 including a first portion 10, a second portion 3, and a third portion 4, each of the second and third portions 3/4 being attached to the first portion 10 (at hub 2) and branching away from each other.
at least one locking compression hole 14 on each portion 3/4/10 of the unitary plate 1, each locking compression hole 14 including a respective longitudinal axis (long dimension of 14 as seen in fig. 1) configured to extend along a bone surface (on which the bone plate 1 is attached),
wherein each locking compression hole 14 is configured to allow multi-directional compression on the bone surface along each respective longitudinal axis of the holes 14 towards a single point on a bone (at the center of the hub 2), and
wherein the multi-directional compression is configured to reduce bone fragments (“intimate abutment” referred to in the cited section).
Examiner notes that the claimed limitation “locking” is considered to require no structure, and only the function of causing a screw to become locked to the plate and/or bone. Examiner considers the holes 14 to be locking holes in that they are capable of being used during retention of a fastener passing through the holes 14 into an underlying bone.
Regarding claim 2, the unitary plate 1 is Y-shaped – various numbers and positions of the fingers 3-10 can be included on the plate 1. Various embodiments and arrangements are shown at figs. 1-9, 13, 15, 17. Fig. 3 is specifically Y shaped.
Regarding claim 4, a non-locking hole is present at e.g. 15. Examiner notes that the limitation “non-locking” is considered to require no structure.
Regarding claim 5, examiner alternately considers hole 15 to be a locking hole, depending on use, thereof. (E.g. what fastener passes through it). Examiner notes that the limitation “locking” is considered to require no structure.
Regarding claim 6, each locking compression hole 14 is configured to allow independent compression along the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion, depending on placement of screws into each hole 14.
Regarding claim 7, the at least one locking compression hole 14 is configured to accept a properly configured locking screw and a properly configured non-locking screw at varying angles with respect to a central axis of the hole. The locking and non-locking screws are considered inferentially claimed.
Regarding claim 8, the second portion 3 and the third portion 4 branch away from each other at an angle of 90 or 180 degrees. Various embodiments and arrangements are shown at figs. 1-9, 13, 15, 17. Figs. 4 and 5 shows 180 degree and fig. 5 shows 90 degree angles between fingers.
Regarding claim 9, Sammarco teaches a bone plating system including the plate 1 of fig. 1 used with multiple screws 46 as at fig. 13. The citation made in rejecting claim 1 is relied upon again, but not repeated for sake of brevity. The system includes
a single plate 1 including a first portion (10 and 2, taken together), a second portion 3, and a third portion 4;
at least one locking compression hole 14 on each portion 10/3/4 of the single plate 1;
a non-locking bone screw 46 capable of being received through one of the locking compression holes 14 and into a bone; and
a locking bone screw (another of screws 46) capable of being received through one of the locking compression holes 14 and into the bone,
wherein the first portion 10/2 splits into the second and third portions 3/4,
wherein the locking compression holes 14 include longitudinal axes configured to extend along a bone surface (long dimension of holes 14; when installed on the bone), and
wherein the locking-compression holes 14 are configured to allow multi-directional compression on the bone surface along the longitudinal axes towards a single point on the bone (at a center of 2; as discussed in the cited section), and
wherein the multi-directional compression is configured to reduce bone fragments (as discussed in the cited section).
Examiner notes that the claimed limitation “locking” (in relation to the hole) is considered to require no structure, and only the function of causing a screw to become locked to the plate and/or bone. Examiner considers the holes 14 to be locking holes in that they are capable of being used during retention of a fastener passing through the holes 14 into an underlying bone.
Examiner notes that there is no structural distinction to the claimed ‘non-locking’ and ‘locking’ screws. Locking or non-locking can both be achieved by screws 46 depending, for example, on how far the screw 46 is driven into the plate and bone.
Regarding claim 10, the single plate 1 is capable of allowing multi-directional compression along the longitudinal axes (as discussed in the cited section).
Regarding claim 11, the single plate 1 is configured to allow multi-directional compression along the longitudinal axes at an angle of 50 to 160 degrees relative to a projection plane along a posterior side of the bone. (Note the various arrangements of fingers in the embodiments of figs. 1-9, 13, 15, 17, providing for various angulations).
Regarding claim 13, the single plate 1 is capable of allowing multi-directional selective compression and decompression along the longitudinal axes, depending on placement of screws in the different holes 14.
Regarding claim 14, the single plate 1 is capable of allowing varying compression length along the longitudinal axes, depending on placement of screws in the different holes 14.
Regarding claim 15, the single plate 1 is capable of allowing lagging of bone fragments in a crisscross function. See, e.g. arrangement of fig. 15.
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 David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-6PM
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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, 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 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.
/DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights