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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed March 17, 2026. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 5, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 16 and 17 are newly added. Claims 1-17 are presently pending in this application.
Examiner’s Note
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.
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) 1-5 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Govey et al. (US 10,881,438), herein referred to as Govey.
Regarding claim 1, Govey discloses a medical implant (200iv) (figures 29-32) for treatment of one or more fractures of a scapula of a subject (considered functional), comprising a longitudinal body (see figure 30 below) having a medial end (see figure 30 below) and a lateral end (see figure 30 below), a cranial side (see figure 30 below), and a caudal side (see figure 30 below), a scapular spine portion (SSP) (202) of the longitudinal body (figures 31 and 32), located at the medial end of the longitudinal body (figures 29-32), having an SSP co-operating surface (see figure 30 below) configured for (i.e. capable of) co-operation (defined as “to work or act together or jointly for a common purpose or benefit” by Dictionary.com) with a scapular spine of the subject (considered functional), an acromion portion (AP) (256) of the longitudinal body (figures 29-32), located at the lateral end of the longitudinal body (figures 29-32), having an AP co-operating surface (see figure 30 below) configured for (i.e. capable of) co-operation (defined as “to work or act together or jointly for a common purpose or benefit” by Dictionary.com) with a caudal surface of the acromion of the subject (considered functional), and a bridging portion (252) of the longitudinal body (figures 29-32) connecting the scapular spine portion (SSP) (202) to the acromion portion (AP) (256) (see figure 30 below) and configured to (i.e. capable of) maintain the scapular spine portion (SSP) (202) in fixed positional relation with the acromion portion (AP) (256), wherein the SSP co-operating surface (see figure 30 below) is disposed on the caudal side of the longitudinal body (see figure 30 below) and the AP co-operating surface (see figure 30 below) is disposed on the cranial side of the longitudinal body (see figure 30 below), and the bridging portion (252) joins a medial end of the AP co-operating surface (see figure 30 below) to a lateral end of the SSP co-operating surface (see figure 30 below), and wherein the bridging portion (252) is configured to (i.e. capable of) separate the scapular spine portion (SSP) from the acromion portion (AP) (256) so that the scapular spine portion (SSP), is oriented to (i.e. capable of) co-operate (defined as “to work or act together or jointly for a common purpose or benefit” by Dictionary.com) with the scapular spine (considered functional), and the acromion portion (AP) (256) is oriented to (i.e. capable of) co-operate (defined as “to work or act together or jointly for a common purpose or benefit” by Dictionary.com) with the acromion caudal surface of the subject (considered functional).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Govey discloses wherein the bridging portion (252) extends in a cranial – caudal direction of the longitudinal body (see figure 30 above), and separates the scapular spine portion (202) from the acromion portion (256) in a cranial – caudal direction of the longitudinal body (see figure 30 above).
Regarding claim 3, Govey discloses wherein the longitudinal body in a sub-portion of the bridging portion (252) contains a C- or U-shaped bend (see figure 30 above) configured to (i.e. capable of) separate the scapular spine portion (202) from the acromion portion (256) in a cranial – caudal direction (see figure 30 above).
Regarding claim 4, Govey discloses wherein the bridging portion (252) further extends in a lateral - medial direction of the longitudinal body (see figure 30 above), and separates the scapular spine portion (202) from the acromion portion (AP) (256) in a lateral - medial direction of the longitudinal body (see figure 30 above).
Regarding claim 5, Govey discloses wherein the scapular spine portion (202) is disposed with a plurality of holes (figures 29-32) wherein each hole passes between the cranial side (figures 29-32) and caudal side (figures 29-32) of the scapular spine portion (figures 29-32).
Regarding claim 9, Govey discloses wherein the SSP co-operating surface (see figure 30 above) is concave around a longitudinal direction (figures 10 and 29-32) so as to cooperate with a curvature around a longitudinal direction of the scapular spine of the subject (considered functional).
Regarding claim 10, Govey discloses wherein a longitudinal length of the scapular spine portion (202) is greater than a longitudinal length of the acromion portion (256) (figures 30 and 32).
Regarding claim 11, Govey discloses wherein the longitudinal body that is rigid (figures 29-32) or is configured to be adjustable and fixable in a rigid state.
Regarding claim 12, Govey discloses formed from a monoblock (figures 30 and 32) or multiple sections that co-operate to form the longitudinal body.
Regarding claim 13, Govey discloses wherein the SSP co-operating surface (see figure 30 above) is at least partially planar, at least partially curved (figures 10 and 29-32), or is complementary to at least a part of the scapular spine of the subject.
Regarding claim 14, Govey discloses wherein the AP co-operating surface (see figure 30 above) is at least partially planar, at least partially curved (figures 33 and 34), or is complementary to at least a part of the caudal surface of the acromion of the subject.
Regarding claim 15, Govey discloses a kit comprising the implant (200iv) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), and one or more of: one or more drill guides, and one or more bone fasteners (col. 8, ll. 37-41 and figures 25 and 26).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govey (US 10,881,438) in view of Langdale et al. (US 2018/0000496), herein referred to as Langdale.
Regarding claim 6, Govey’s medical implant discloses all the features/elements as claimed including the plurality of holes (see figure 30 above) but lacks a detailed description on wherein each hole of the plurality is configured to (i.e. capable of) fittingly engage with a dismountable drill guide, wherein a drill guide directs a drill bit for drilling a hole in the scapular spine of the subject.
However, Langdale teaches wherein each hole of a plurality of holes (elements 120) is configured to (i.e. capable of) fittingly engage with a dismountable drill guide (160) (figures 2A and 2B), wherein a drill guide (160) directs a drill bit (170) for drilling a hole into the subject.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Govey’s medical implant having a plurality of holes with wherein each hole of the plurality is configured to fittingly engage with a dismountable drill guide, wherein a drill guide directs a drill bit for drilling a hole into the subject as taught by Langdale, since drill guides allow a drill to create a hole at the trajectory that the fastener is intended to be inserted, guaranteeing that the pilot hole will be aligned with how the fastener is designed to be inserted into the plate (¶54).
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govey (US 10,881,438) in view of Roche et al. (US 2022/0338908), herein referred to as Roche.
Regarding claim 7, Govey’s medical implant discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the acromion portion is disposed with a plurality of holes wherein each hole passes between the cranial side and caudal side of the acromion portion.
However, Roche teaches an acromion portion (820) (figures 8A and 8B) is disposed with a plurality of holes (figures 8A and 8B) wherein each hole passes between the cranial side and caudal side of the acromion portion (820) (figures 8A and 8B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Govey’s acromion portion with a plurality of holes wherein each hole passes between the cranial side and caudal side of the acromion portion as taught by Roche, since such a modification would facilitate securing the plate to a bone (¶81), thus providing additional points for securement.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Govey’s medical implant has wherein the plurality of holes (figures 8A and 8B of Roche) are spatially separated in two dimensions thereby forming an array (figures 8A and 8B of Roche).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Govey’s medical implant has wherein the holes (figures 8A and 8B of Roche) are uniformly spaced apart at least in one dimension (figures 8A and 8B of Roche).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govey (US 10,881,438) in view of Saw et al. (US 2021/0322073), herein referred to as Saw.
Regarding claim 16, Govey’s medical implant discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks a detailed description on wherein at least some of the holes are countersunk on the cranial side of the scapular spine portion.
However, Saw teaches holes can be countersunk (¶59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Govey’s medical implant having holes on the cranial side of the scapular spine portion with countersunk holes as taught by Saw, since such a modification would provide for alternative type of holes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-13, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103, of the Remarks are directed to amended claim 1 and the reference Govey. Applicant argues that “Govey does not teach or suggest a medical implant (100) for treatment of one or more fractures of a scapula (200) of a subject, comprising "(ii.) a scapular spine portion (SSP) (20) of the longitudinal body (18), located at the medial end (10) of the longitudinal body (18), having an SSP co-operating surface (22) configured for co-operation with a scapular spine (220) of the subject," and "wherein the bridging portion (40) is configured to separate the scapular spine portion (SSP) from the acromion portion (AP) (60) so that the scapular spine portion (SSP). is oriented to co-operate with the scapular spine (220), and the acromion portion (AP) (60) is oriented to co-operate with the acromion caudal surface (210) of the subject," as recited in amended independent claim 1” and “In addition, Govey is directed to an entirely different anatomical target than the presently claimed invention. Govey discloses a clavicle fixation device for treating acromioclavicular (AC) joint pathologies and clavicle fractures, not scapula fractures”. In response to applicant's argument that “Govey is directed to an entirely different anatomical target than the presently claimed invention”, 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. The Examiner notes that applicant’s claims are directed to the device rather than the method.
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 SI MING KU whose telephone number is (571)270-5450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-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, 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.
/SI MING KU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775