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 § 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sixto (U.S. Publication 2014/0371799).
Sixto discloses a device (for example see Figures 48-56) comprising:
(claim 13) a plate body (102)
(claim 13) wherein the plate body extends along a longitudinal plate axis
(claim 13) the plate body including
(claim 13) a plate head region (106)
(claim 13) a mid-shaft region (108)
(claim 13) wherein the mid-shaft region has a respective width (see Figure 49)
(claim 13) wherein the mid-shaft region has a respective thickness (see Figures 50 and 56)
(claim 16) wherein the mid-shaft region has a respective bending strength (the bending strength of a substantially rectangular shape is
PNG
media_image1.png
83
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein F=axial force, L=length, b=width, and d=thickness/depth)
(claim 13) a proximal shaft region (110)
(claim 13) wherein the proximal shaft region has a respective width (see Figure 49)
(claim 13) wherein the proximal shaft region has a respective thickness (see Figure 50 and 56)
(claim 13) wherein the width of the mid-shaft region and the width of the proximal shaft region are different (see Figure 49; the width of the mid-shaft region is shown as being smaller than the thickness of the proximal shaft region)
(claim 13) wherein the thickness of the mid-shaft region and the thickness of the proximal shaft region are different (see Figures 50 and 56; the thickness/depth/height of the mid-shaft region is shown as being smaller than the thickness/depth/height of the proximal shaft region)
(claim 16) wherein the proximal shaft region has a respective bending strength (the bending strength of a substantially rectangular shape under 3 point loading is
PNG
media_image1.png
83
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein F=axial force, L=length, b=width, and d=thickness/depth; the mid-shaft region is shown as having a smaller thickness and smaller width and will therefore have a smaller bending strength relative to the proximal shaft region, i.e. the rectangular shape with a smaller thickness and depth will have a smaller bending strength than the rectangular shape with a larger thickness and depth which is a well-known engineering concept for shapes made from the same material)
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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sixto (U.S. Publication 2014/0371799).
Sixto discloses the invention as claimed, see above, except for the ratio of the width between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .7 to .9, the ration of the thickness between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .7 to .9, and the ratio of the bending strength between the mid-shaft region and the proximal region being within a range of .7 to .9.
Regarding the ratio of the width between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .7 to .9, Sixto discloses a device wherein the ratio of the width between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is less than 1 meeting the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the mid-shaft region has a width less than the proximal shaft region, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto wherein the ratio of the width between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is between .7 and .9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding the ratio of the thickness between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .7 to .9, Sixto discloses a device wherein the ratio of the thickness between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is less than 1 meeting the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the mid-shaft region has a thickness less than the proximal shaft region, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto wherein the ratio of the thickness between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is between .7 and .9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding the ratio of the bending strength between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .7 to .9, Sixto discloses a device wherein the ratio of the bending strength between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is less than 1 meeting the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the mid-shaft region has a bending strength less than the proximal shaft region, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto wherein the ratio of the bending strength between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is between .7 and .9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sixto (U.S. Publication 2014/0371799) in view of Tanahashi (U.S. Publication 2023/0248404).
Sixto discloses a device (for example see Figures 48-56) comprising:
(claim 1) a plate body
(claim 1) wherein the plate body extends along a longitudinal plate axis
(claim 1) the plate body including
(claim 1) a plate head region (106)
(claim 1) wherein the plate head region has a main body
(claim 9) wherein the main body includes one or more respective plate holes (250; see Figures 31-32) configured to receive respective locking members for insertion for interconnecting the device to one or more of a bone or an intramedullary nail
(claim 1) a mid-shaft region (108)
(claim 1) wherein the mid-shaft region has a respective width (see Figure 49)
(claim 1) wherein the mid-shaft region has a respective thickness (see Figure 50 and 56)
(claim 8) wherein the mid-shaft region is a solid body
(claim 1) a proximal shaft region (110)
(claim 1) wherein the proximal shaft region has a respective width (see Figure 49)
(claim 1) wherein the proximal shaft region has a respective thickness (see Figure 50 and 56)
(claim 1) wherein the width of the mid-shaft region and the width of the proximal shaft region are different (see Figure 49; the width of the mid-shaft region is shown as being smaller than the thickness of the proximal shaft region)
(claim 1) wherein the thickness of the mid-shaft region and the thickness of the proximal shaft region are different (see Figures 50 and 56; the thickness/depth/height of the mid-shaft region is shown as being smaller than the thickness/depth/height of the proximal shaft region)
(claim 6) wherein the proximal shaft region includes one or more respective plate holes (270; paragraph 131) configured to receive respective locking members (401; see Figure 30) for insertion for interconnecting the device to one or more of a bone or an intramedullary nail
(claim 7) wherein the one or more plate holes are variable angle locking holes configured to receive a variable angle locking screw for variable angle locking (see Figure 30)
Sixto discloses the invention as claimed except for the plate head region including one or more protruding tabs extending from the main body. Tanahashi teaches a device comprising a plate body including a plate head region (20) including a main body, wherein the plate head region further includes one or more protruding tabs (30, 40, and 50; for example see paragraph 88, for example see Figure 1) extending from the main body having respective plate holes configured to receive respective locking members for insertion for interconnecting the device to a bone in order to adequately support fractured bone portions (paragraph 99). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto wherein the plate head region further includes one or more protruding tabs extending from the main body in view of Tanahashi in order to adequately support fractured bone portions.
Claims 2-5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sixto (U.S. Publication 2014/0371799) in view of Tanahashi (U.S. Publication 2023/0248404).
The device of Sixto as modified by Tanahashi discloses the invention as claimed except for except for the ratio of the width between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .55 to 1 or .7 to .9, the ration of the thickness between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .33 to 1 or .7 to .9, and the ratio of the bending strength between the mid-shaft region and the proximal region being within a range of .2 to 1 or .7 to .9.
Regarding the ratio of the width between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .55 to 1 or .7 to .9, Sixto discloses a device wherein the ratio of the width between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is less than 1 meeting the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the mid-shaft region has a width less than the proximal shaft region, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto wherein the ratio of the width between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is between .55 to 1 or .7 and .9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding the ratio of the thickness between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .33 to 1 or .7 to .9, Sixto discloses a device wherein the ratio of the thickness between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is less than 1 meeting the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the mid-shaft region has a thickness less than the proximal shaft region, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto wherein the ratio of the thickness between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is between .33 to 1 or .7 and .9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding the ratio of the bending strength between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region being within a range of .2 to 1 or .7 to .9, Sixto discloses a device wherein the ratio of the bending strength between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is less than 1 meeting the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the mid-shaft region has a bending strength less than the proximal shaft region, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto wherein the ratio of the bending strength between the mid-shaft region and the proximal shaft region is between .2 to 1 or .7 and .9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sixto (U.S. Publication 2014/0371799) in view of Tanahashi (U.S. Publication 2023/0248404).
Sixto discloses a device (for example see Figures 46-58) comprising:
(claim 17) a plate body
(claim 17) wherein the plate body extends along a longitudinal plate axis
(claim 17) wherein the plate body includes
(claim 17) a plate head region (106)
(claim 17) wherein the plate head region includes
(claim 17) a main body
(claim 17) a mid-shaft region (108)
(claim 17) a proximal shaft region (110)
Sixto discloses the invention as claimed except for the plate head region including one or more protruding tabs extending from the main body. Tanahashi teaches a device comprising a plate body including a plate head region (20) including a main body, wherein the plate head region further includes one or more protruding tabs (30, 40, and 50; for example see paragraph 88, for example see Figure 1) extending from the main body by respective screw hole tabs (32, 42, and 52) and having respective plate holes configured to receive respective locking members for insertion for interconnecting the device to a bone in order to adequately support fractured bone portions (paragraph 99). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto wherein the plate head region further includes one or more protruding tabs extending from the main body in view of Tanahashi in order to adequately support fractured bone portions.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sixto (U.S. Publication 2014/0371799) in view of Tanahashi (U.S. Publication 2023/0248404) further in view of Early (U.S. Design Patent D765,851).
The device of Sixto as modified by Tanahashi discloses the invention as claimed except for the protruding tabs being connected to a lower end of the plate head region, i.e. adjacent a mid-shaft region of the device. Early discloses a device comprising a plate body extending along a longitudinal plate axis including a plate head region having a main body and one or more protruding tabs extending from the main body, a mid-shaft region, and a proximal shaft region, wherein the one or more protruding tabs are connected to a lower end of the plate head region, i.e. adjacent to the mid-shaft region (see figure below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Sixto as modified by Tanahashi wherein the one or more protruding tabs are connected to a lower end of the plate head region in view of Early, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image2.png
489
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references the examiner felt were relevant to the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Woodall whose telephone number is (571) 272-5204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571. 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.
/NICHOLAS W WOODALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights