Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/962,599

Systems and Methods for Alignment Between Bone Plate and Intramedullary Nail

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 27, 2024
Examiner
LAWSON, MATTHEW JAMES
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Stryker Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
795 granted / 1081 resolved
+21.5% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1125
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1081 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claims 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2017/0333102). Regarding claim 1, Peterson et al. disclose a method of attaching a fixation construct to a long bone comprising attaching a guide block (7003, figure 71) to a bone plate (7001, figure 71, ¶1161); placing the bone plate against a surface of the long bone (¶1161-1162); connecting two k-wires to the guide block (7007, 7009, figures 70-71, ¶1162); locating the medial-lateral direction (this is done visually by the user during placement of the bone plate against a surface of the long bone); confirming a positioning of the bone plate with respect to the bone (this is done visually by the user during placement of the bone plate against a surface of the long bone and thereafter to make sure placement is proper); and securing the bone plate to the bone (¶1161-1162). However, the embodiment of figures 70-71 fails to expressly teach or disclose confirming an overlapping alignment of the two k-wires in the medial-lateral direction. The k-wires (7007, 7009), of figures 70-71 do not expressly show overlapping alignment of the wires. Peterson et al. disclose within a second embodiment (figures 72-75) the use of k-wires (7211, 7215, figures 72-74) in an overlapping alignment (figures 72-75) as it is a known configuration for fastening a bone plate (7203) and guide block (7201) to the long bone (figures 72-75). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the method of Peterson et al. to have the k-wires in overlapping alignment in the medial-lateral direction (figures 72-75) as it is a known configuration for fastening a bone plate and guide block to the long bone. Regarding claim 2, Peterson et al. disclose the step of attaching includes aligning holes in the guide block with holes in the bone plate (¶1161). Regarding claim 3, Peterson et al disclose the step of attaching further includes securing the guide block to the bone plate by inserting a fixation screw (7023, figure 71) through one of the holes in the guide block and into one of the holes in the bone plate (¶1161). Regarding claim 4, Peterson et al. disclose the step of attaching includes removably securing a handle (7009, figure 70) to the guide block (¶1162). Regarding claim 5, Peterson et al. disclose the step of placing the bone plate includes manipulating the handle to place the bone plate on a lateral surface of the long bone (figures 70-71). Regarding claim 6, Peterson et al. disclose the step of placing the bone plate is initially influenced by contours of the surface of the long bone (¶1161-1162 as it resides on the long bone). Regarding claim 7, Peterson et al. disclose the step of connecting the two k-wires includes inserting an end of each of the k-wires into the guide plate such that the k-wires extend anteriorly from the guide plate (figure 70-71). Regarding claim 8, Peterson et al. disclose the step of connecting the two k-wires further includes the k-wires being non-parallel (figure 70-71). Regarding claim 9, Peterson et al. disclose the step of connecting the two k-wires includes the k-wires extending along diverging axes (figure 70-71). Regarding claim 10, Peterson et al. disclose the step of connecting the two k-wires includes the k-wires being disposed within a plane that is substantially parallel to the transverse plane (figure 70-75). Regarding claim 11, Peterson et al. disclose the step of connecting the two k-wires includes inserting the ends of each of the k-wires at a location on the guide block at a distal end of the bone plate placed against the surface of the long bone (figure 70-75). Regarding claim 15, Peterson et al. disclose the step of securing the bone plate includes inserting a fastener (7005, figure 70) through a hole of the bone plate and into the long bone (¶1161-1162). Claims 12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2017/0333102) in view of Zander et al. (US 2024/0156499). Regarding claim 12, Peterson et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the teach of the step of locating includes aligning condyles of the long bone under fluoroscopy. Zander et al. disclose the use of fluoroscopy in order to properly place and align the components of system within the bone (¶62). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the step of locating aligning condyles of the long bone under fluoroscopy as taught by Zander as it allows for proper placement and alignment of the components of the system. Regarding claim 16, Peterson et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the step of inserting an intramedullary nail into the medullary canal of the long bone. Zander discloses a system (100) including a guide block (200), bone plate (10) and k-wires (¶49-50) to stabilize a long bone (figure 11) including an intramedullary nail (70) placed into the medullary canal of the long bone (figures 1, 5, 9-19). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the system to include an intramedullary nail placed into the medullary canal of the long bone. Regarding claim 17, Peterson et al. in view of Zander et al. disclose the step of inserting the intramedullary nail includes aligning a targeting arm (figure 17 of Zander, see figure below) attached to a proximal end of the nail with a portion of the secured bone plate (figure 19). PNG media_image1.png 350 532 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 18, Peterson et al. in view of Zander et al. disclose inserting a fastener (52, figure 5 of Zander) through both a hole (14) of the bone plate (10) and a hole (73) in the intramedullary nail (70, ¶50). Regarding claim 19, Peterson et al. in view of Zander et al. disclose the step of inserting the intramedullary nail includes inserting the intramedullary nail such that a hole axis of the bone plate aligns with a hole axis of the intramedullary nail (axes of plate hole 14 and axis of hole 73 of IM nail, figures 5, 19 of Zander). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2017/0333102) in view of Zander et al. (US 2024/0156499) in further view of Thakkar (US 2007/0219636). Regarding claim 14, Peterson et al. disclose the claimed invention except for inserting a guide wire at an entry point of the distal end of the long bone and into the long bone parallel to a medullary canal thereof, wherein the step of confirming the positioning of the bone plate with respect to the bone includes aligning the bone plate with the guide wire to confirm the positioning of the bone plate along an anterior-posterior axis of the femur. Thakkar discloses inserting a guide wire (63, figure 22) at an entry point of the distal end of the long bone and into the long bone parallel to a medullary canal thereof (¶90, ¶101), wherein the step of confirming the positioning of the bone plate with respect to the bone includes aligning the bone plate with the guide wire to confirm the positioning of the bone plate along an anterior-posterior axis of the femur (¶90, ¶101) as the guide wire allows for accurate guidance of the IM nail into the target location and allows for passage of reamer(s) to guide the reamer(s) through the IM canal (¶90, ¶101). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the method of Peterson et al. in view Zander et al. to include inserting a guide wire at an entry point of the distal end of the long bone and into the long bone parallel to a medullary canal thereof, wherein the step of confirming the positioning of the bone plate with respect to the bone includes aligning the bone plate with the guide wire to confirm the positioning of the bone plate along an anterior-posterior axis of the femur. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00. 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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. /MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 27, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599487
TOOLS AND IMPLANTS FOR LATERAL DISC REPLACEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588953
DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NATURAL FEATURE TRACKING OF SURGICAL TOOLS AND OTHER OBJECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588914
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation System and Methods for Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582753
Systems and Methods for Forming An Antimicrobial Orthopedic Implant
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569314
MEDICAL DEVICES FOR AIRWAY MANAGEMENT AND METHODS OF PLACEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.2%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1081 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month