DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits in this application. The amendment of May 14, 2025, is under consideration. By that amendment, claim 1 was amended, and claims 2-20 were newly presented. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Priority
The earliest disclosure of the elements of the instant claims (appearing to be subject matter of figs. 37A-D) is in the parent application 15/405368, dated January 13, 2017. That is the earliest effective filing date of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 12 should end with the word “and” after the semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 8-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2013/0096630 A1) in view of Hashmi et al. (US 2015/0374424 A1) and Dahners et al. (2008/0234677 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 11 and 14, Lee teaches a bone stabilization plate 12 as at fig. 1 comprising:
an elongate body 18 extending along a longitudinal axis (up/down in fig. 1) between a first end (down) and a second end (up, designated as the semicircle where 18 joins 20), and having:
an extension body 20 extending from the second end (at the semi-circle between 18 and 20)), the extension body having:
a first extension (middle lug 201) including a screw hole 121 lying on the longitudinal axis;
a second extension (left lug 201) including a screw hole 121 lying on a first axis relative to the longitudinal axis;
a third extension (right lug 201) including a screw hole 121 and lying on a second axis mirroring the first axis relative to the longitudinal axis.
Lee fails to teach the claimed k-wire hole; the holes being formed as stacked holes; and the first extension including a DCP on the longitudinal axis.
Hashmi teaches a plate 100 at fig. 1 including an elongate body 104 with a longitudinal axis 110 from a first end 102 to a second end 150,the elongate body including holes 112/118/148 considered analogous to stacked holes on the longitudinal axis and a k-wire hole 128 between two of the holes 112/118; an extension body 108 including a first extension including a DCP 152. Hashmi does not teach the second and third extensions.
It would have been obvious to modify Lee to include 1) the k-wire hole between two of the holes 121 in region 18; and 2) add a DCP to the extension 20 of Lee based on the teachings of Hashmi. One would have done so in order to permit improved minimally invasive insertion of the Lee device, as by permitting sliding of the plate due to the slot (Hashmi, [0013]) and temporary fixation of the plate through use of a wire to retain the plate during insertion of screws [0018]. Such modification would have caused both the first axis and the second axis intersect the longitudinal axis at the DCP slot.
The combination continues to fail to teach the claimed configuration of the stacked holes to include an upper conical chamfer and a lower conical chamfer. Rather, Hashmi demonstrates a spherical upper portion and a conical lower portion.
Dahners teaches a variety of functionally equivalent screw holes. These include a spherical embodiment at fig. 3 and an embodiment with two conical portions as at figs. 5 and 7.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Lee holes 121 to be in the form of the Dahners fig. 5 embodiment. One would have done so in order to permit installation of screws through the Lee plate in variable insertion angles (Dahners, abstract).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 12, as seen at fig. 5 of Dahners, the stacked holes include a textured portion (threads) between the upper and lower conical chamfers. This portion is shown being threaded.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lee teaches that the plate is configured to conform to the underlying bone. The bent region (as seen at fig. 3) is considered to cause the elongate body portion of the plate to have higher thickness than the extension body.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 18 and 19, first and second holes in the three extensions are seen at fig. 1 of Lee, lying on the three longitudinal axes. It would have been obvious to form these holes as stacked holes of the claimed configuration in order to permit variable axial insertion of screws, therethrough. Since the term ‘non-locking hole’ has been given no structure, there is no reason these cannot be referred to as non-locking holes.
Regarding claim 20, examiner has reconsidered the term “k-wire hole” for purposes of this claim. The k-wire hole is presently given no structure. There is no reason that at least two of the holes 121 in Lee on portion 18 cannot be mentally designated as k-wire holes, which two holes are between two adjacent screw holes (modified to be stacked holes by the combination, above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 15, and 16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-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, 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.
/DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights