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 August 5, 2026. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2 and 12-18 have been cancelled. Claims 21-28 are newly added. Claims 1, 3-11, and 19-28 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 § 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, 3-11, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douget et al. (US 2012/0303121), herein referred to as Douget, and in view of Corsi et al. (US 5,190,545), herein referred to as Corsi.
Regarding claim 1, Douget discloses a band (10) (figures 1-7) for use (considered as intended use) in conjunction with a fixation plate (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed) for stabilizing a bone, the fixation plate having rails forming a window (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed), the band (10) comprising a tail (18a or 18b), and a head (11+12) comprising a top portion (11) and a bottom lock (12) and defining an internal cavity (19) configured to (i.e. capable of) receive at least a portion of the tail (18a or 18b), wherein the head (11+12) is configured to (i.e. capable of) be attached to the fixation plate (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed), with a portion of the head (11+12) configured to (i.e. capable of) be received between the rails within the window (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed), the tail (18a or 18b) is configured to (i.e. capable of) be wrapped around the fixation plate and the bone (considered functional), the internal cavity (19) of the head (11+12) is configured to (i.e. capable of) receive an end of the tail (18a or 18b) to form a loop around the fixation plate and the bone (considered functional), the tail (18a or 18b) is configured to (i.e. capable of) receive a tension force to tighten the loop formed by the band (figures 1-7), a middle portion (14) connects the bottom lock (12) to the top portion (11) (figure 1-7), the bottom lock (12) has an increased width relative to the middle portion (14) (figures 1-7), a gap (element “G”) is formed between the top portion (11) and the bottom lock (12) in locations where the middle portion is not present (figures 4 and 7).
Yet, Douget lacks a detailed description on the bottom lock comprises an elastic material configured to (i.e. capable of) enable the bottom lock to deform a sufficient amount to be inserted through the window formed by the rails.
However, Corsi teaches a bottom lock (18) comprises an elastic material (col. 4, ll. 11-20).
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 Douget’s bottom lock with an elastic material as taught by Corsi, since such a material is considered a suitable material for making the part and wherein such material is considered old and well known.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Douget’s band has wherein the bottom lock (12 of Douget) is configured to (i.e. capable of) be extended through the window formed by the rails so that rails are received in the gap formed between the top portion and the bottom lock to at least partially restrict movement of the head relative to the fixation plate (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Douget’s band is capable of having wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) is prevented from separating from the fixation plate while the head is received in the window (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Douget’s band has wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) is capable of rotating while the head is received in the window (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Douget’s band has wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) is at least partially restricted from rotating after tension has been applied to the band (considered functional).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Douget’s band has wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) is configured to (i.e. capable of) be rotated to a first orientation so that the head is capable of being received in the window (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed), and wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) is configured to (i.e. capable of) be rotated to a second orientation after the head is received in the window to at least partially restrict movement of the head relative to the fixation plate (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Douget’s band discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the bottom lock defines an oval shape or a rectangular shape.
However, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
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 the modified Douget’s band having the bottom lock with the bottom lock defines an oval shape or a rectangular shape, since a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and Douget clearly contemplates other shapes may be considered (¶40).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Douget’s band has wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) is capable of shifting along the window while the head is received in the window (the Examiner notes that the fixation plate has not been positively claimed).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Douget’s band has wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) is restricted from shifting along the window after tension has been applied to the band (considered functional)..
Regarding claim 11, the modified Douget’s band is capable of having wherein the bone being stabilized is a sternum of a human as this is considered functional.
Regarding claims 21, 22, the modified Douget’s band discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the bottom lock is tapered in shape and wherein the bottom lock has a first width at an extreme end of the bottom lock, the bottom lock has a second width at a location where the bottom lock connects to the middle portion, and the second width is greater than the first width.
However, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Douget discloses other shapes may be considered (¶40).
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 the modified Douget’s band having the bottom lock with wherein the bottom lock is tapered in shape and wherein the bottom lock has a first width at an extreme end of the bottom lock, the bottom lock has a second width at a location where the bottom lock connects to the middle portion, and the second width is greater than the first width, since a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and Douget clearly contemplates other shapes may be considered (¶40).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Douget’s band has wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) comprises one or more pockets (elements 19 of Douget) configured to (i.e. capable of) assist in generating tension between the tail and the head (figures 1-7 of Douget).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Douget’s band has wherein the head (11+12 of Douget) comprises a locking bar (13 of Douget), the head (11+12 of Douget) defines a front side (figure 4 of Douget) and a top side (figure 4 of Douget), the internal cavity (19 of Douget) includes a first opening (figure 4 of Douget) under the locking bar (13 of Douget) at the front side (figure 4 of Douget), the internal cavity (19 of Douget) extends under the locking bar (13 of Douget), and the internal cavity (19 of Douget) includes a second opening (figure 4 of Douget) at the top side of the head (11+12 of Douget) (figure 4 of Douget).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, and 26-28 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: After further search and consideration it is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipated nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, the prior art of record does not teach, the following limitation(s) in combination with the remaining claimed limitation such as but not limited to “A plate assembly for stabilizing a bone, comprising a fixation plate having two rails that form a window; and a band having: a tail; and a head comprising a top portion, a middle portion, and a bottom lock and defining an internal cavity configured to receive at least a portion of the tail, wherein the middle portion connects the bottom lock to the top portion, the bottom lock has an increased width relative to the middle portion, a gap is formed between the top portion and the bottom lock in locations where the middle portion is not present, and the bottom lock comprises an elastic material configured to enable the bottom lock to deform a sufficient amount to extend past the rails forming the window”.
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 5, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USP 12,290,295 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), are directed to the amended claims and the refences Houff and Corsi. Thus, the Examiner has relied upon the reference Douget to teach applicant’s amended claim 1, see Office Action above.
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
Prosecution Insights