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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-6, 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Pol (US Publication No. 2022/0257291 A1) in view of Predick (US Publication No. 2012/0232593 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Van Der Pol discloses an assembly comprising:
a tulip rod connector (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a spinal rod slot (14) having a first engagement direction (x direction shown in Fig. 1a) ;a cross-bar slot (13) having a second engagement direction (y direction shown in Fig. 1b) that is distinct from the first engagement direction (directions are perpendicular); and a lock screw slot (12, Fig. 1a) adjacent to the cross-bar slot (Fig. 1a), wherein the cross-bar slot is open to the lock screw slot such that the lock screw slot is defined by two opposing wings (see figure below), wherein the tulip rod connector (10) enables locking of both a spinal rod in the spinal rod slot and a cross-bar in the cross-bar slot with a single lock screw action [0033-0034];
a spinal rod (40a) (Fig. 2) configured and dimensioned to be received in the spinal rod slot (14); and
a cross bar (30) configured and dimensioned to be received in the cross-bar slot (13) (fig. 2) [0035].
PNG
media_image1.png
460
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Van Der Pol is silent to the cross bar (30) having at least one flat extending along a length thereof.
Predick discloses a rod connector in the same field of endeavor wherein the cross bar (114) has at least one flat (117) extending along a length of the cross bar (Fig. 1-3) in order to provide a preferable contact surface for the flat surface of the set screw which secures the rod [0014, 0029-0030].
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 shape of the cross bar of Van Der Pol to have at least one flat along its length as taught by Predick in order to provide a preferable contact surface for the flat surface of the set screw which secures the rod.
Regarding Claim 3, the spinal rod slot (14, Van Der Pol) enables a pressure-fit connection between the tulip rod connector (10) and the spinal rod [0030, Van Der Pol].
Regarding Claim 4, the spinal rod slot (14) is defined by a set of snap-fit members (16, 17) (Fig. 1b, Van Der Pol) [0030, Van Der Pol].
Regarding Claim 5, the cross-bar slot (13) is exposed at a top of the tulip rod connector (Fig. 1a, Van Der Pol).
Regarding Claim 6, further comprising a locking flange for engaging the cross-bar in the cross-bar slot (flange is interior threads of threaded wall 12 shown in Fig. 1a, 1c, Van Der Pol).
Regarding Claim 8, further comprising a compliant bending zone (76) adjacent to the spinal rod slot and the cross-bar slot (Fig. 1b,c, Van Der Pol) [0030, Van Der Pol].
Regarding Claim 9, the compliant bending zone (76) is fully capable of translating at least a portion of a downward force from the single lock screw action at the lock screw slot into a clamping force on the rod slot [0030, Van Der Pol].
Regarding Claim 10, the compliant bending zone (76 is defined by at least one of an aperture or a thinned section (76 is an aperture) (Fig. 1b-c, Van Der Pol) [0030, Van Der Pol].
Regarding Claim 11, the second engagement direction (y direction) is approximately perpendicular to the first engagement direction (x direction) (Fig. 1a-c, Van Der Pol).
Regarding Claim 12, a body of the tulip rod connector (10) is a monolithic piece of material (Fig. 1a-c, Van Der Pol).
Regarding Claim 14, a width of the spinal rod slot (14) is larger than a width of the cross-bar slot (13) (Fig. 1a-c, 2a-b, Van Der Pol).
Regarding Claim 15, the cross-bar slot (13)is non-circular (shown in Fig. 1a as rounded rectangular, Van Der Pol).
Regarding Claim 16, the cross-bar slot has a rounded rectangular cross-sectional shape in a direction perpendicular to the second engagement direction (y-direction) (when viewed in the perspective shown in Fig. 1a, Van Der Pol the cross section shown is perpendicular to the y-direction and constitutes a rounded rectangular cross sectional shape).
Regarding Claim 13, Van Der Pol in view of Predick discloses the device as described in the rejection of claim 1 and that the spinal rod slot (14, Van Der Pol) snaps about the spinal rod [0030, Van Der Pol]. Van Der Pol is silent to the body of the tulip rod connector (10) including a plurality of distinct components, including a main body and a collet at least partially defining the spinal rod slot.
Predick discloses a rod connector in the same field of endeavor which comprises a connector body (120) and a separate collet (138) for snapping and holding onto the spinal rod (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the monolithic spinal rod channel within the main body of Van Der Pol with a distinct collet to snap onto the spinal rod within the main body as taught by Predick in order to use a known spinal rod connection mechanism which will predictably clamp the spinal rod in a transverse connector.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Pol (US Publication No. 2022/0257291 A1) in view of Predick (US Publication No. 2012/0232593 A1) in further view of Lengyel (US Publication No. 2023/0129404 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Van Der Pol in view of Predick discloses the assembly as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Van Der Pol and Predick are silent to the cross bar slot being oversized relative to the cross bar so as to enable at least one of: off-axis positioning of the cross-bar, or engagement with a plurality of distinct cross-bars having distinct outer dimensions.
Lengyel discloses a spinal connector in the same field of endeavor. Lengyel teaches that the rod receiving slot (122) is oversized so as to off-axis positioning of the rod therethrough [0036] (fig. 8).
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 proportions between the cross bar slot and the cross bar to be oversized so as to enable off-axis positioning of the rod therethrough as taught by Lengyel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE T JOHANAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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.
/JACQUELINE T JOHANAS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773