DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed August 14, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cremer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0074082).
Cremer et al. discloses a compliant bone plate (10) configured to be attached to at least two bone fragments, the compliant bone plate comprising: a frame forming therethrough one or more frame apertures (11); one or more suspended fixation bodies (“SFBs”) (14) within one or more of the one or more frame apertures; and one or more flexures (16), each of the one or more flexures connecting a respective one of the one or more SFBs to the frame (Figure 1A). Cremer et al. fails to disclose that the one or more flexures comprise at least one of a switchback turn, an LET joint, a curved portion, and a plurality of linear flexures in parallel. Cremer et al. however does state the flexure joints 16 can be any shape (paragraph 31). Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to construct flexures in at least one of switchback turn, an LET joint, a curved portion extending along a surface of the compliant bone plate, and a plurality of linear flexures in parallel, since applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a dynamic element for a bone plate. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Regarding claim 18, wherein each of the one or more SFBs is within a respective frame aperture, and wherein a respective axial movement of a respective SFB of the one or more SFBs within a respective frame aperture of the one or more frame apertures is limited by a distance between a respective outer face of the respective SFB and a respective wall of the respective frame aperture. (The distance of travel limited by a distance between the framer aperture and the SFB since it has a direct correlation of how much the flexures can flex).
Regarding claim 19, each of the one or more SFBs configured to attach to a respective bone fragment such that no more than one of the one or more SFBs is attached to a respective bone fragment of the at least two bone fragments, and wherein each of the one or more SFBs forms therethrough a plurality of attachment apertures and the compliant bone plate is configured to attach to the at least two bone fragments only at the plurality of attachments apertures in the one or more SFBs (The limitations are functional and it is considered that the device of Cremer et al. is capable of being used in the manner claimed).
Regarding claim 20, an inner wall of the frame formed by a first of the one of the one or more frame apertures and comprises an upper wall, a lower wall, a right side wall, and a left side wall, wherein a first SFB of the one or more SFBs within a first frame aperture of the one or more frame apertures, wherein an outer face of the first SFB comprises a top face, a bottom face, a right face, and a left face, and wherein the one or more flexures comprises: a first flexure connecting the right side wall of the frame to the right face of the first SFB, and a second flexure connecting the left side wall of the frame to the left face of the first SFB (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
213
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that it would not have been obvious to substitute the flexures of Cremer with one of the claimed flexures, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim reads, “wherein the one or more flexures comprise at least one of a…”, meaning that only one of those styles of flexures is required. The claim itself provides evidence that those flexures are interchangeable. Furthermore, no flexure is disclosed as solving a known problem of another flexure. The cited sections merely provide the benefits of the different types of flexures and is silent regarding solving any problem with a different type of flexure, i.e an X flexure. The amendment does not overcome the rejection since the claim allows for any of the other flexures to be used instead. The flexures are not novel shapes and merely one of may flexures (as shown in prior art listed on Applicant’s IDS) one of skill in the art would have found obvious to use in place of Cremer’s X.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim1-4, 6-13, 15, 16 are allowed.
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 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 ANDREW YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 9:00 M-F.
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.
/ANDREW YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
