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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 2, the limitation “peripheral layer” should be replaced with the word --implant-- as the specification does not disclose that the anterior wall is a part of the peripheral layer, rather the anterior wall it is a part of the implant itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 at Lines 2-3 recites “at least one of the plurality of interconnected tubes has a first end on a first surface of the upper plate and a second end on a second surface of the lower plate.” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1 previously recites that “each of the two linear intersecting tubes having a first end on a surface of the upper plate and a second end on a surface of the lower plate,” and thus it is unclear if the recited “at least one of the plurality of interconnected tubes” which “has a first end on a first surface of the upper plate and a second end on a second surface of the lower plate” is the same as or different from/in addition to the previously recited “two linear intersecting tubes” which have a first end on a surface of the upper plate and a second end on a surface of the lower plate. If the same tubes are being recited, then Claim 4 fails to further limit Claim 1 from which it depends. If different tubes are being recited, the claim should be amended to better clarify which tubes are being recited. For purposes of examination, the tubes of claim 4 are being interpreted as being the same “two linear intersecting tubes” from claim 1. 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, 6, 9-10 & 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregersen et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0183653) in view of Joshi et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0260324).
Regarding Claims 1 & 4 as best understood, Gregersen et al. discloses a spinal interbody implant (10, Figs. 1-9, Paragraphs [0119-0143]) comprising: a peripheral layer (outer row 104 of struts 106, Figs. 1- 3 & 6, Paragraphs [0119, 0131-0132, 0138]) including a plurality of struts (106, Figs. 6-9) extending vertically between an upper plate (12, Fig. 1) and a lower plate (14, Fig. 1); and an inner region (interior portion within 10 including inner row 108 and not including outer row 104 of struts 106) within the peripheral layer, the inner region defined by a plurality of interconnected tubes (struts 110 and support members 120, Figs. 7-8, Paragraphs [0133-0138]) made from a first material (“The interbody spinal fusion implants of the present invention are typically comprised of medical grade biocompatible metals such as titanium or titanium alloys. Other materials can also be used.”, Paragraph [0157]), wherein the plurality of interconnected tubes includes two or more linear intersecting tubes in a first layer (struts 110 and support members 120 extending in inner row 108 define a first layer, See examiner annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
1056
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gregersen et al. fails to disclose that each of the two or more linear intersecting tubes extend transverse to the plurality of struts, each of the two linear intersecting tubes having a first end on a surface of the upper plate and a second end on a surface of the lower plate. As seen in the examiner annotated Fig. 7 above, the support members 120 extend transverse to the struts 106, and the struts 110 have a first end (upper end) on an inner surface of the upper plate (12) and a second end (lower end) on an inner surface of the lower plate (14)(Paragraph [0141]. Gregersen et al. discloses in Paragraphs [0144-0145] that “It is also appreciated that the features of the present invention can be modified in a variety of different ways. By way of example and not by limitation, FIG. 10 shows that not only can outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 be angled relative to top outer perimeter rail 24 and bottom outer perimeter rail 84 over a wide range of angles but also that outer struts 106 need not be parallel to inner struts 110. That is, although all of outer struts 106 may be disposed in parallel alignment and all of inner struts 110 may be disposed in parallel alignment, outer struts 106 can be disposed at a different angle than inner struts 110 relative to top outer perimeter rail 24 and bottom outer perimeter rail 84. Furthermore, as depicted in FIG. 10, outer struts 106 can be sloped in an opposite direction to inner struts 110. [0145] In another alternative as depicted in FIG. 11, outer struts 106 need not be disposed in parallel alignment relative to each other and inner struts 110 need not be disposed in parallel alignment relative to each other. For example, alternating outer struts 106 can be sloped in opposite directions and alternating inner struts 110 can be sloped in opposite directions so that both outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 are disposed a zigzag pattern. In all of the above alternatives for outer struts 106 and inner struts 110, support members 120 can be placed at different angles and at different locations between outer struts 106 and inner struts 110. Alternatively, depending on the size and location of outer struts 106 and inner struts 110, support members 120 can be eliminated. It is appreciated that having outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 in the configurations as depicted in FIGS. 10 and 11 achieves many of the same benefits as previously discussed above with regard to fusion implant 10. For example, having the spaced apart rows of outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 still provides uniform and large openings for lateral bone growth in fusion implant 10 and still maximizes the size of cavity 22 without requiring other support structures extending between top wall 12 and bottom wall 14.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the struts 110 in the first layer of the implant of Gregersen et al. to be angled/sloped beween the upper and lower plates as taught by Gregersen et al. as an alternate and functionally equivalent strut arrangement which provides uniform and large openings for lateral bone growth through the implant and maximizes the size of the central cavity therethrough without the need for additional support structures.
Gregersen et al. further fails to disclose wherein at least one tube of the plurality of interconnected tubes includes an outer tubular part and an inner fill part disposed within a hollow interior of the outer tubular part, the outer tubular part being a first material with a first porosity and the inner fill part being a second material with a second porosity greater than the first porosity.
Joshi et al. discloses a spinal implant (100, Figs. 1, 3A-4B, Paragraphs [0030, 0044, 0053]) comprising an implant body (104) and reinforcement structures (106) extending between upper and lower surfaces of the body, wherein in one particular embodiment depicted in Fig. 3D, the reinforcement structures are vertically extending cylindrical struts, and in another embodiment depicted in Fig. 3C, the reinforcement structures extend in a lattice arrangement (Paragraphs [0052-0053]), and Paragraph [0054] states that the reinforcement structure in some embodiments may zigzag or curve through the implant body. Paragraphs [0014 & 0047] disclose that “The reinforcement material may further include a hollow structure, a porous structure, a substantially solid structure, or combinations thereof. In certain embodiments, the reinforcement material includes a predetermined porosity to substantially match bone stiffness and accommodate bone growth. In certain embodiments, the predetermined porosity may range between about zero percent (0%) and about eighty percent (80%) by volume. Pore sizes may range between about 1 um and about 700 um in diameter. In certain embodiments, the reinforcement structure 106 may comprise materials substantially identical to the implant body 104, although, in some embodiments, its density may be substantially more concentrated. The reinforcement structure 106 may include a predetermined level of porosity to substantially match bone or other tissue stiffness and thus avoid a stress shielding effect. Further, the porosity may be specifically determined to accommodate bone ingrowth.” Paragraphs [0045-0046] further discloses “The reinforcement material or structure 106 may include biocompatible, bioinert ceramics, metals, and plastics. Suitable reinforcement materials 106 may include, for example, alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, tantalum carbide, titanium carbide, titanium nitride, titanium oxide, titania, titanium, titanium silicon, tantalum, tantalum carbide, tantalum nitride, tantalum alloys, stainless steel, niobium, niobium alloys, cobalt-chromium alloys, polytetrafluoroethylene, hydroxyapatite, Bioglass, tricalcium phosphate ("TCP"), calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, polyether ether ketone ("PEEK"), carbon fiber reinforced plastic ("CFRP"), polyethylene ("PE"), ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE"), or any other suitable reinforcement material known to those in the art. In some embodiments, the reinforcement material 106 may be composed of a combination of bioresorbable and non-bioresorbable ceramics, metals, plastics, polymers, and/or any other suitable materials known to those in the art. Such reinforcement materials 106 may be present on a microscopic scale as grains, powders, or grain boundary constituents, or on a macroscopic level as a physical mixture of beads, chopped fiber, wires, strands, mesh, rod structures, plate structures, cage structures, lattice structures, combinations thereof, or other such materials known to those in the art.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the struts and interconnected tubes of the implant of Gregersen et al. to each be formed as combination hollow and porous structures such that each tube includes a porous outer tubular part and a porous inner fill part disposed within the hollow interior of the outer tubular part, the outer tubular part being a first titanium material with a first porosity and the inner fill part being a second titanium material with a second porosity greater than the first porosity as taught by Joshi et al. in order to promote increased bone ingrowth and osteointegration through the implant after implantation.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Gregersen et al. and Joshi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in Claim 1, and Joshi et al. further discloses wherein: the first material and the second material are the same (titanium, Paragraphs [0045-0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Gregersen et al. and Joshi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in Claim 1, and Joshi et al. further discloses wherein: the first material is titanium and the second material is a titanium alloy. (Paragraphs [0045-0046]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Gregersen et al. and Joshi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in Claim 1, and Gregersen et al. further discloses wherein: the plurality of interconnected tubes (struts 110 and support members 120, Figs. 6-8) extend in parallel in a first direction (struts 110 are parallel to each other, and every other 120 are parallel to each other as seen in Figs. 7 & 9), the plurality of interconnected tubes being disposed evenly throughout the inner region (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Gregersen et al. and Joshi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in Claim 1, and Gregersen et al. further discloses wherein: the plurality of interconnected tubes includes a first group of tubes (struts 110) and a second group of tubes (support members 120), the first group of tubes being approximately in parallel with one another (struts 110 are parallel to one another, Fig. 7, Paragraphs [0132-0133]) and oriented in a first direction (angled/sloped between 12 and 14), and the second group of tubes being approximately in parallel with one another (Fig. 9, every other support member 120 is in parallel in one respective direction) and oriented in a second direction different from the first direction (angled with respect to vertical), the plurality of interconnected tubes defining a lattice structure within the inner region (Figs. 6-9).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Gregersen et al. and Joshi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in Claim 1, and Gregersen et al. further discloses wherein: the plurality of interconnected tubes include two or more interconnected tubes in a second layer (right section of struts 110 with 120 extending between in inner row 108 define a second layer as seen examiner annotated Fig. 10 above) parallel and adjacent to the first layer (first and second layers are directly adjacent and every other support member 120 is in parallel with one another throughout both layers).
Regarding Claims 30-31, Gregersen et al. discloses a spinal interbody implant (10, Figs. 1-9, Paragraphs [0119-0143]) comprising: a peripheral layer (outer row 104 of struts 106, Figs. 1- 3 & 6, Paragraphs [0119, 0131-0132, 0138]) including a plurality of struts (106, Figs. 6-9) extending vertically between an upper plate (12, Fig. 1) and a lower plate (14, Fig. 1); and an inner region (interior portion within 10 including inner row 108 and not including outer row 104 of struts 106) within the peripheral layer, the inner region defined by a plurality of interconnected tubes (struts 110 and support members 120, Figs. 7-8, Paragraphs [0133-0138]) made from a first material (“The interbody spinal fusion implants of the present invention are typically comprised of medical grade biocompatible metals such as titanium or titanium alloys. Other materials can also be used.”, Paragraph [0157]), wherein the plurality of interconnected tubes includes two or more interconnected tubes in a first layer (struts 110 and support members 120, See examiner annotated Figs. 1 & 4 below), the first layer extending from a first side (44, Fig. 1) to a second opposing side (46, Fig. 1) of the peripheral layer and spaced generally equal distances from third and fourth opposing sides (24 & 26, Fig. 4) of the peripheral layer (See examiner annotated Figs. 1 & 4 below), wherein the upper plate includes a plurality of struts extending from a first side of the implant to a second side of the implant (See examiner annotated Fig. 1 below), the plurality of struts including a first strut spaced generally equal distances from third and fourth opposing sides of the implant (See examiner annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
656
1059
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
699
895
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gregersen et al. fails to disclose that each of the two or more interconnected tubes extend transverse to the plurality of struts. As seen in the examiner annotated Fig. 7 above, the support members 120 extend transverse to the struts 106, and the struts 110 have a first end (upper end) on an inner surface of the upper plate (12) and a second end (lower end) on an inner surface of the lower plate (14)(Paragraph [0141]. Gregersen et al. discloses in Paragraphs [0144-0145] that “It is also appreciated that the features of the present invention can be modified in a variety of different ways. By way of example and not by limitation, FIG. 10 shows that not only can outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 be angled relative to top outer perimeter rail 24 and bottom outer perimeter rail 84 over a wide range of angles but also that outer struts 106 need not be parallel to inner struts 110. That is, although all of outer struts 106 may be disposed in parallel alignment and all of inner struts 110 may be disposed in parallel alignment, outer struts 106 can be disposed at a different angle than inner struts 110 relative to top outer perimeter rail 24 and bottom outer perimeter rail 84. Furthermore, as depicted in FIG. 10, outer struts 106 can be sloped in an opposite direction to inner struts 110. [0145] In another alternative as depicted in FIG. 11, outer struts 106 need not be disposed in parallel alignment relative to each other and inner struts 110 need not be disposed in parallel alignment relative to each other. For example, alternating outer struts 106 can be sloped in opposite directions and alternating inner struts 110 can be sloped in opposite directions so that both outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 are disposed a zigzag pattern. In all of the above alternatives for outer struts 106 and inner struts 110, support members 120 can be placed at different angles and at different locations between outer struts 106 and inner struts 110. Alternatively, depending on the size and location of outer struts 106 and inner struts 110, support members 120 can be eliminated. It is appreciated that having outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 in the configurations as depicted in FIGS. 10 and 11 achieves many of the same benefits as previously discussed above with regard to fusion implant 10. For example, having the spaced apart rows of outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 still provides uniform and large openings for lateral bone growth in fusion implant 10 and still maximizes the size of cavity 22 without requiring other support structures extending between top wall 12 and bottom wall 14.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the struts 110 in the first layer of the implant of Gregersen et al. to be angled/sloped between the upper and lower plates as taught by Gregersen et al. as an alternate and functionally equivalent strut arrangement which provides uniform and large openings for lateral bone growth through the implant and maximizes the size of the central cavity therethrough without the need for additional support structures.
Gregersen et al. further fails to disclose wherein at least one tube of the plurality of interconnected tubes includes an outer tubular part and an inner fill part disposed within a hollow interior of the outer tubular part, the outer tubular part being a first material with a first porosity and the inner fill part being a second material with a second porosity greater than the first porosity.
Joshi et al. discloses a spinal implant (100, Figs. 1, 3A-4B, Paragraphs [0030, 0044, 0053]) comprising an implant body (104) and reinforcement structures (106) extending between upper and lower surfaces of the body, wherein in one particular embodiment depicted in Fig. 3D, the reinforcement structures are vertically extending cylindrical struts, and in another embodiment depicted in Fig. 3C, the reinforcement structures extend in a lattice arrangement (Paragraphs [0052-0053]), and Paragraph [0054] states that the reinforcement structure in some embodiments may zigzag or curve through the implant body. Paragraphs [0014 & 0047] disclose that “The reinforcement material may further include a hollow structure, a porous structure, a substantially solid structure, or combinations thereof. In certain embodiments, the reinforcement material includes a predetermined porosity to substantially match bone stiffness and accommodate bone growth. In certain embodiments, the predetermined porosity may range between about zero percent (0%) and about eighty percent (80%) by volume. Pore sizes may range between about 1 um and about 700 um in diameter. In certain embodiments, the reinforcement structure 106 may comprise materials substantially identical to the implant body 104, although, in some embodiments, its density may be substantially more concentrated. The reinforcement structure 106 may include a predetermined level of porosity to substantially match bone or other tissue stiffness and thus avoid a stress shielding effect. Further, the porosity may be specifically determined to accommodate bone ingrowth.” Paragraphs [0045-0046] further discloses “The reinforcement material or structure 106 may include biocompatible, bioinert ceramics, metals, and plastics. Suitable reinforcement materials 106 may include, for example, alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, tantalum carbide, titanium carbide, titanium nitride, titanium oxide, titania, titanium, titanium silicon, tantalum, tantalum carbide, tantalum nitride, tantalum alloys, stainless steel, niobium, niobium alloys, cobalt-chromium alloys, polytetrafluoroethylene, hydroxyapatite, Bioglass, tricalcium phosphate ("TCP"), calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, polyether ether ketone ("PEEK"), carbon fiber reinforced plastic ("CFRP"), polyethylene ("PE"), ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE"), or any other suitable reinforcement material known to those in the art. In some embodiments, the reinforcement material 106 may be composed of a combination of bioresorbable and non-bioresorbable ceramics, metals, plastics, polymers, and/or any other suitable materials known to those in the art. Such reinforcement materials 106 may be present on a microscopic scale as grains, powders, or grain boundary constituents, or on a macroscopic level as a physical mixture of beads, chopped fiber, wires, strands, mesh, rod structures, plate structures, cage structures, lattice structures, combinations thereof, or other such materials known to those in the art.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the struts and interconnected tubes of the implant of Gregersen et al. to each be formed as combination hollow and porous structures such that each tube includes a porous outer tubular part and a porous inner fill part disposed within the hollow interior of the outer tubular part, the outer tubular part being a first titanium material with a first porosity and the inner fill part being a second titanium material with a second porosity greater than the first porosity as taught by Joshi et al. in order to promote increased bone ingrowth and osteointegration through the implant after implantation.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Gregersen et al. and Joshi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 30, and Gregersen et al. further discloses an anterior wall (40, Fig. 1), but Gregersen et al. does not disclose wherein the anterior wall defines a threaded aperture configured to receive a tool. The anterior wall 40 of Gregerson does comprise a plurality of apertures each for receiving a bone screw (96A-96C) and left and right apertures (100A, 100B) for engaging a tool. Furthermore, a similar embodiment depicted in Figs. 14 & 16 comprises an anterior wall (40’) which comprises similar left and right apertures (100A’, 100B’), one or more screw holes (96) as needed, and a central threaded mounting hole (130) extending therethrough configured to threadedly receive an insertion tool used for placing the implant (10’) between vertebra (Paragraph [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the anterior/trailing wall of the implant of the combination to replace the central hole with a threaded mounting hole as taught by Gregersen et al. as an alternate and functionally equivalent aperture arrangement which allows the implant to be engaged with a threaded inserter for placing, repositioning, or removing the implant from the surgical site as needed based on a patients particular needs.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregersen et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0183653) in view of Joshi et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0260324) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of McKay (US Patent No. 6,039,762).
Regarding Claims 11-12, the combination of Gregersen et al. and Joshi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the outer tubular part of the at least one tube of the plurality of tubes includes a series of openings therethrough (based on the porosity of the material, there are openings through the outer tubular part). The combination does not disclose that the series of openings in the outer tubular part are filled with the second material. Joshi et al. does disclose that “In certain embodiments, the reinforcement material includes a predetermined porosity to substantially match bone stiffness and accommodate bone growth. In certain embodiments, the predetermined porosity may range between about zero percent (0%) and about eighty percent (80%) by volume. Pore sizes may range between about 1 um and about 700 um in diameter. The reinforcement structure 106 may include a predetermined level of porosity to substantially match bone or other tissue stiffness and thus avoid a stress shielding effect.”
McKay discloses various embodiments of spinal interbody implants (10, Figs. 1- 6, Abstract, Col. 4, Line 25 - Col. 9, Line 12) which combine the advantages of porous biocompatible materials with stronger materials such as metals, such that the outer cylindrical sleeve is composed of the stronger material and provides a tension band around the inner porous biocompatible material which provides a large surface area for bone ingrowth (See Figs. 6 & 12), wherein the outer cylindrical sleeve is composed of a metal material which is relatively strong under compressive loads such as “any surgically suitable metal including titanium, titanium-vanadium-aluminum alloy, cobalt- chromium alloy, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy, cobalt-nickel-chromium- molybdenum alloy, biocompatible stainless steel, tantalum, niobium, hafnium, tungsten and alloys thereof. Preferably, the metal is 316 LVM stainless steel, titanium or tantalum foam.” “Porosity of the biocompatible material is required for ingrowth, but it is generally understood that as porosity increases, strength decreases. Implants according to the present invention will optimize porosity with strength requirements to avoid fracture. The biocompatible materials of this invention preferably include porosities of between about 40% and about 60%, with a 50% porosity being most preferred. A pore diameter of at least 200 to 600 microns is required for bone ingrowth.” McKay further discloses with respect to the Fig. 12 embodiment that the outer cylindrical sleeve is made from a metal foam which comprises a series of openings therethrough, similar to the embodiment of Fig. 6 which also comprises a series of openings through the solid cylindrical sleeve.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second titanium material of the inner fill part of the struts of the combination to comprise a foam as taught by McKay in order to provide an added means for promoting increased bone growth through the struts after implantation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/23/25, have overcome the objection to claim 6.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/23/25, with respect to all claims rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Gregersen et al. in view of Joshi et al. and Gregersen et al. in view of Joshi et al and McKay: The Applicant’s arguments, filed in the RCE on 12/23/25, have been fully considered but are not persuasive as Gregersen et al. in view of Joshi et al. disclose the newly amended claims under a new interpretation as seen in the office action above. Specifically, in regards to the Applicant’s contention that “Applicant notes that the support members 120 of Gregersen are only intended to extend between the outer struts 106 and inner struts 110 and would never extend from the upper plate to the lower plate. Thus, if two or more intersecting tubes had to be linear and extend between the upper and lower plates, that would exclude the support members from being part of the "intersecting tube," and none of the inner struts 110 would ever intersect with each other on their own. Therefore, Gregersen lacks tubes which both intersect and extend from the upper plate to the lower plate”: As seen in the first inserted examiner annotated Fig. 4 above, the plurality of interconnected tubes include two or more linear intersecting tubes which include struts 110 and support members 120, wherein the struts 110 have a first/upper end on an inner surface of the plate 12 and a second/lower end on an inner surface of the plate 14, and wherein upon modifying the struts 110 to be angled/sloped between the inner surfaces of the plates 12 & 14, the two or more linear intersecting tubes are transverse to the plurality of struts of the peripheral layer. Thus, the combination discloses the invention of newly amended independent Claim 1 & newly added Claim 30 and the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WEISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, KEVIN T. 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.
/JESSICA WEISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775