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 § 103
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.
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, 8-11, 13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitblat et al. (US Pub 2014/0277145) in view of Pfaifer (US Patent 5,702,393).
With respect to claim 1, Reitblat discloses a cross connector device (See figures 6A-B and 7B below) comprising: a portal (fig 6, 103) having a rod attachment feature (fig 6B, 132) with a circular cutout (fig 6B, 128), a tulip (fig 7B, 104) attached to the portal, a cannula (fig 7B, 98) detachably attached to the tulip, and a retention component (fig 7B, 106) detachably connected to the portal. With respect to claim 2, Reitblat discloses wherein the portal includes a plurality of lips (fig 6B, 126s). With respect to claim 3, Reitblat discloses wherein the cannula includes two tabs (fig 6A, 94s) detachably connected (detachable at 96) to the tulip. With respect to claim 4, Reitblat discloses wherein the cannula includes a gap (see fig 7B below)between the two tabs. With respect to claim 8, Reitblat discloses wherein the retention component includes a plurality of lips (see fig 7B below).
With respect to claim 9, Reitblat discloses a cross connector device (see figs 6A-B and 7B below) comprising: a portal (fig 6, 103) having a rod attachment feature (Fig 6, 132) with a circular cutout (fig 6B, 128), the portal includes two lips (Fig 6B, 126), a tulip (Fig 7B, 104) attached to the portal, a cannula (fig 7B, 98) detachably attached (at fig 6A, 96) to the tulip, and a retention component (Fig 7B, 106) detachably connected to the portal. With respect to claim 10, Reitblat discloses wherein the cannula includes two tabs (Fig 7B, 94s) detachably connected to the tulip. With respect to claim 11, Reitblat discloses wherein the cannula includes a gap (see fig 7B below) between the two tabs.
With respect to claim 16, Reitblat discloses a cross connector device (see figs 6A-B and 7B above) comprising: a portal (fig 6, 103) having a rod attachment feature (Fig 6, 132) with a circular cutout (fig 6B, 128), the portal includes two lips (Fig 6B, 126), a tulip (Fig 7B, 104) attached to the portal, a cannula (fig 7B, 98) detachably attached (at fig 6A, 96) to the tulip, and a retention component (Fig 7B, 106) detachably connected to the portal. With respect to claim 17, Reitblat discloses wherein the portal includes a plurality of lips (fig 6B, 126). With respect to claim 18, Reitblat discloses wherein the cannula includes two tabs (Fig 7B, 94s) detachably connected to the tulip. With respect to claim 19, Reitblat discloses wherein the cannula includes a gap (see fig 7B below) between the two tabs.
PNG
media_image1.png
870
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1, 9 and 16, Reitblat discloses the claimed invention except for the portal having external helical threads and the retention component having internal helical threads configured to engage with the external helical threads of the portal.
Pfaifer discloses a portal (fig 2, 10) having external helical threads (fig 2, 10a) and the retention component (fig 2, 11 and 12) having internal helical threads (fig 4, matching 10a) configured to engage with the external helical threads of the portal (fig 4) to allow for simultaneous clamping of the first and second rod (col. 2, ll. 5-12). With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, Pfaifer discloses the internal threads of the retention component are tapered (fig 4 taper to a point).
PNG
media_image2.png
356
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Reitblat to include the portal having external helical threads and the retention component having internal helical threads configured to engage with the external helical threads of the portal in view of Pfaifer in order to allow for simultaneous clamping of the first and second rod.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitblat et al. in view of Pfaifer as applied to claims 1, and 9 above, and further in view of Butler et al. (US Pub 2009/0018586).
With respect to claims 7, 14, 15, Reitblat in view of Pfaifer discloses the retention component having a plurality of lips (see fig 7B above) but does not disclose one or more bumps on the lips.
Butler discloses a connector device (fig 2 16) having one or more bumps (fig 2, 19, 21) on lips (fig 2, 18 and 20) to better hold onto the rod (paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Reitblat in view of Pfaifer to include one or more bumps on the lips of the retention component in view of Butler in order to better hold onto the rod.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 8/28/2025, with respect to the objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amended claims. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 112 rejection of claims 4, 5, 12 and 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amended claims. The 112 rejection of claims 4, 5, 12 and 16-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 STEVEN J COTRONEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571) 272-4719. 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.
/S.J.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773