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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed March 11, 2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-3 have been amended and claim 11 has been cancelled. As such, claims 1-10, 12-15 remain under consideration in the instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (US 2025/0160910), hereinafter “Gray”, in view of Healey et al. (US 2018/0206933), hereinafter “Healey”.
Regarding claim 1, Gray discloses a bone plate system (10) comprising: a plurality of humerus plates; a plurality of femur plates; a plurality of tibia plates; and a plurality of fibula plates (¶60). However, Gray is silent regarding a screw rack including the plurality of differently sized screws, the screws being capable of being directly engaged by a driver and removed from the rack. Healey teaches a screw rack (130|630) including the plurality of differently sized screws (¶58), the screws being capable of being directly engaged by a driver and removed from the rack (¶59). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine a screw rack for holding the plurality of screws of Gray, for the purpose of organizing the various fasteners. In this case, one would include a screw rack with the invention of Rush in order to arrange the screws and achieve a more efficient surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Gray as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 1, and Gray further teaches wherein the humerus plates (FIGS. 4-17, 25-27) include a proximal humerus plate, a proximal humerus posterior plate and an extra articular distal humerus plate (this statement is being interpreted as an intended use statement, i.e. the plates disclosed herein are capable of being used on the proximal humerus, the proximal humerus posterior, and the extra articular distal humerus).
Regarding claim 3, Gray as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 1, and Gray further teaches wherein the femur plates (FIGS. 18-24) include a distal lateral femur plate, a distal medial femur plate and a distal medial femur plate (this statement is being interpreted as an intended use statement, i.e. the plates disclosed herein are capable of being used on the distal lateral femur and the distal medial femur).
Regarding claim 4, Gray as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 1, and Gray further teaches wherein the tibia plates (FIGS. 4-17, 25-27) include a proximal lateral tibial plate, a partial articular proximal tibia plate, an extra articular proximal tibial plate, a proximal medial tibial plate and a proximal posteromedial tibial plate (this statement is being interpreted as an intended use statement, i.e. the plates disclosed herein are capable of being used on the proximal lateral tibia, the partial articular proximal tibia, the extra articular proximal tibia, the proximal medial tibia, and the proximal posteromedial tibia).
Regarding claim 5, Gray as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 4, and Gray further teaches wherein the tibia plates (FIGS. 4-17, 25-27) further include a distal anterolateral tibial plate, a distal medial tibia plate and a distal posterior tibia plate (this statement is being interpreted as an intended use statement, i.e. the plates disclosed herein are capable of being used on the distal anterolateral tibia, the distal medial tibia, and the distal posterior tibia).
Regarding claim 6, Gray as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 1, and Gray further teaches wherein the fibula plates (¶60) include a distal lateral fibula plate, a distal posterolateral fibula plate and a distal posterior fibula plate (this statement is being interpreted as an intended use statement, i.e. the plates disclosed herein are capable of being used on the distal lateral fibula, the distal posterolateral fibula, and the distal posterior fibula).
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 12, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rush et al. (US 2025/0143758), hereinafter “Rush”, in view of Healey et al. (US 2018/0206933), hereinafter “Healey”.
Regarding claim 1, Rush discloses a bone plate system (10) comprising: a plurality of humerus plates; a plurality of femur plates; a plurality of tibia plates; and a plurality of fibula plates (¶66). However, Rush is silent regarding a screw rack including the plurality of differently sized screws, the screws being capable of being directly engaged by a driver and removed from the rack. Healey teaches a screw rack (130|630) including the plurality of differently sized screws (¶58), the screws being capable of being directly engaged by a driver and removed from the rack (¶59). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine a screw rack for holding the plurality of screws of Rush, for the purpose of organizing the various fasteners. In this case, one would include a screw rack with the invention of Rush in order to arrange the screws and achieve a more efficient surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 7, Rush as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 1, and Rush further teaches a plurality of utility plates (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Rush as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 7, and Rush further teaches wherein the utility plates include straight plates, t-shaped plates and hook plates (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Rush as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 11, and Healey further teaches wherein the screw rack includes a screw measuring scale (631).
Regarding claim 14, Rush as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 13, and Healey further teaches wherein the screws are arranged in discrete locations based upon size (¶58).
Regarding claim 15, Rush as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 14, and Healey further teaches wherein the screw rack includes a removable cover (113, ¶45).
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duman et al. (US 2025/0114131), hereinafter “Duman”, in view of Healey et al. (US 2018/0206933), hereinafter “Healey”.
Regarding claim 1, Duman discloses a bone plate system (10) comprising: a plurality of humerus plates; a plurality of femur plates; a plurality of tibia plates; and a plurality of fibula plates (¶71). However, Duman is silent regarding a screw rack including the plurality of differently sized screws, the screws being capable of being directly engaged by a driver and removed from the rack. Healey teaches a screw rack (130|630) including the plurality of differently sized screws (¶58), the screws being capable of being directly engaged by a driver and removed from the rack (¶59). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine a screw rack for holding the plurality of screws of Duman, for the purpose of organizing the various fasteners. In this case, one would include a screw rack with the invention of Rush in order to arrange the screws and achieve a more efficient surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 9, Duman as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 1, and Duman further teaches a tray of tooling for use with small fragment plates and screws (¶139).
Regarding claim 10, Duman as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 1, and Duman further teaches a tray of tooling for use with large fragment plates and screws (¶139).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rush in view of Healey and further in view of Ringle (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 13, Rush as modified by Healey teach the bone plate system of claim 12, except including a plurality of washer slots. Ringle teaches wherein the screw rack includes a plurality of washer slots (see Figure A below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to include washer slots on the screw rack of Healey, in order to readily locate washers for use in surgery. In this case, the screw rack of Healey would comprise a slot for washers adjacent the fasteners (FIG. 6A).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Screw rack of Ringle NPL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combinations of references being used in the current rejection. The newly presented rejection was necessitated by the amendments to the claims of March 11, 2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 OLIVIA C CHANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5017. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/OLIVIA C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775