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 Objections
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the second retractor blade is removed from the first bone anchor; and a second rod insertable into the second receiver while coupled to the second bone anchor and configurable to lock the first receiver once inserted” instead of “the second retractor blade is removed from the second bone anchor; and a second rod insertable into the second receiver while coupled to the second bone anchor and configurable to lock the second receiver once inserted” (emphasis added), in order to be consistent with the previously used claim terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,903 B2 and in view of Frey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0230191 A1, hereinafter “Frey”).
The table below shows the application claims and the patent claims side by side for direct comparison, with the differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all the limitations that differ, italicizing additional limitations, and underlining limitations that will be addressed below.
Application Claims:
Patent Claims:
1. A system for fixating an opening during surgery, the system comprising: a retractor body; a secondary retractor body coupled to the retractor body;
a first retractor blade having a proximal end coupled to the retractor body and a distal end; a first bone anchor, wherein the distal end of the first retractor blade is removably coupled to the first bone anchor; a secondary retractor blade coupled to a translating arm of the secondary retractor body for independent operation of the secondary retractor blade within an operative corridor, wherein the secondary retractor blade is configurable to be advanced into the operative corridor defined by the first retractor blade; a first receiver configurable to be coupled to the first bone anchor while the first retractor blade is removed from the first bone anchor; and a rod insertable into the first receiver while coupled to the first bone anchor and configurable to lock the first receiver once inserted.
4. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a second bone anchor; and a second retractor blade having a proximal end coupled to the retractor body and a distal end removably coupled to the second bone anchor.
5. The system of claim 4, further comprising: a second receiver configurable to be coupled to the second bone anchor while the second retractor blade is removed from the first bone anchor; and a second rod insertable into the second receiver while coupled to the second bone anchor and configurable to lock the first receiver once inserted.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the first retractor blade includes a hoop shim assembly to removably connect to the first bone anchor.
1. A system for fixating an opening during surgery, the system comprising: a retractor body; a secondary retractor body coupled to the retractor body; a first retractor blade having a proximal end adjustably coupled to the retractor body and a distal end including a first hoop shim assembly; a second retractor blade having a proximal end adjustably coupled to the retractor body and a distal end including a second hoop shim assembly; a first bone anchor, wherein the first hoop shim assembly at the distal end of the first retractor blade is removably coupled to the first bone anchor; a second bone anchor, wherein the second hoop shim assembly at the distal end of the second retractor blade is removably coupled to the second bone anchor; a secondary retractor blade coupled to a translating arm of the secondary retractor body for independent operation of the secondary retractor blade within an operative corridor; a first receiver configured to be coupled to the first bone anchor while the first retractor blade is removed from the first bone anchor; a second receiver configured to be coupled to the second bone anchor while the second retractor blade is removed from the second bone anchor; a rod insertable into the first receiver while coupled to the first bone anchor and configured to lock the first receiver once inserted; and a second rod insertable into the second receiver while coupled to the second bone anchor and configured to lock the second receiver once inserted.
2. The system of claim 1 further comprising an interbody implant for insertion into a disc space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra.
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising an interbody implant for insertion into a disc space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the first receiver is a tulip.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the first receiver is a tulip.
6. The system of claim 5, further comprising a guide that engages the first retractor blade to advance the first retractor blade into the operative corridor along an engagement plate of the guide.
4. The system of claim 1, further comprising a guide that engages the first retractor blade to advance the first retractor blade into the operative corridor along an engagement plate of the guide.
7. The system of claim 1 further comprising a pivot arm coupled to the secondary retractor blade that is operable to modify a height of the secondary retractor blade.
5. The system of claim 1, further comprising a pivot arm coupled to the secondary retractor blade that is operable to modify a height of the secondary retractor blade.
As is evident from the table above, the patent claims disclose all of the features of the application claims; except regarding application claim 1, “wherein the secondary retractor blade is configurable to be advanced into the operative corridor defined by the first retractor blade”. In addition, while Patent claim 1 fails to explicitly disclose, regarding claim 8, wherein the hoop shim assembly removably connects to the first bone anchor. The limitation in Patent claim 1 that the hoop shim is removably coupled to the first bone anchor is being considered to disclose this feature, since the definitions for coupled and connect both mean that a link is established.
Frey discloses a system for fixating an opening during surgery (see Fig. 1), wherein a secondary retractor blade (220) is configurable to be advanced into and removed from the operative corridor (see para. [0032] “releasably attachable thereto”) defined by a first retractor blade (320) in order to enable shifting aside of soft tissue and blood vessels as desired (see para. [0032]) while the vertebral distraction / tissue displacement is maintained by the first and second retractor blades attached to the vertebra by the first and second anchors (see para. [0037] “tissue displacement”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the secondary retractor blade in Patent claim 1 to be configurable to be advanced into the operative corridor defined by a first retractor blade in order to enable shifting aside of soft tissue and blood vessels while the vertebral distraction is maintained.
Claim(s) 9-11, 12, 14, 16-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 6-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,903 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The table below shows the application claims and the patent claims side by side for direct comparison, with the differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all the limitations that differ, italicizing additional limitations, and underlining limitations that will be addressed below.
Application Claims:
Patent Claims:
9. A system for fixating an opening during surgery, the system comprising: a retractor body; a secondary retractor body coupled to the retractor body, the secondary retractor body including a secondary retractor blade coupled to the secondary retractor body, the secondary retractor blade configured for independent operation within an operative corridor; a first and second bone anchor, the first bone anchor including a first receiver and the second bone anchor including a second receiver; and a first and second retractor blade each having a proximal end coupled to the retractor body, the first retractor blade including a first distal end removably coupled to the first bone anchor, the second retractor blade including a second distal end removably coupled to the second bone anchor, wherein the first and second retractor blades are configurable to define an operative opening.
10. The system of claim 9, further comprising: a first rod insertable into the first receiver and configurable to lock the first receiver once inserted; and a second rod insertable into the second receiver and configurable to lock the second receiver once inserted.
11. The system of claim 9, further comprising a medial retractor blade having a proximal end coupled to the retractor body and configured to define the operative corridor in conjunction with the first and second retractor blades.
6. A system for fixating an opening during surgery, the system comprising: a retractor body; a secondary retractor body coupled to the retractor body, the secondary retractor body including a secondary retractor blade coupled to a translating arm of the secondary retractor body, the secondary retractor blade configured for independent operation within an operative corridor; first and second bone anchors, the first bone anchor including a first receiver and the second bone anchor including a second receiver; first, second, and medial retractor blades each having a proximal end adjustably coupled to the retractor body, the first retractor blade including a first distal end including a first hoop shim assembly removably coupled to the first bone anchor, the second retractor blade including a second distal end including a second hoop shim assembly removably coupled to the second bone anchor; and first and second rods, the first rod insertable into the first receiver and configured to lock the first receiver once inserted, and the second rod insertable into the second receiver and configured to lock the second receiver once inserted; wherein the first, second, medial and secondary retractor blades are configured to define the operative opening therebetween.
12. The system of claim 10, further comprising a translating arm coupled to the retractor body, the translating arm including a distal end coupled to the secondary retractor blade.
7. The system of claim 6, further comprising a translating arm coupled to the retractor body, the translating arm including a distal end coupled to the secondary retractor blade.
14. The system of claim 9, wherein the first and second receivers are tulips.
8. The system of claim 6, wherein the first and second receivers are tulips.
16. A system for fixating an opening during surgery, the system comprising: a retractor body; a first retractor blade coupled to the retractor body and a first bone anchor; a second retractor blade coupled to the retractor body and a second bone anchor; a medial retractor blade coupled to the retractor body; a secondary retractor blade coupled to a secondary retractor body for independent operation of the secondary retractor blade within an operative corridor, the secondary retractor body coupled to the retractor body; a first rod insertable into a first receiver of the first bone anchor to lock the first bone anchor to a first vertebra; a second rod insertable into a second receiver of the second bone anchor to lock the second bone anchor to a second vertebra; and wherein, the first retractor blade, the second retractor blade, the medial retractor blade, and the secondary retractor blade are operable to form the operative corridor defined between the first vertebra and the second vertebra.
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the secondary retractor body couples to the secondary retractor blade through a translating arm.
20. The system of claim 16, wherein the first retractor blade and the second retractor blade each include a hoop shim assembly to removably connect to the first bone anchor and the second bone anchor.
9. A system for fixating an opening during surgery, the system comprising: a retractor body; a first retractor blade adjustably coupled at a proximal end thereof to the retractor body and adjustably coupled by a first hoop shim assembly at a distal end thereof to a first bone anchor; a second retractor blade adjustably coupled at a proximal end thereof to the retractor body and adjustably coupled by a second hoop shim assembly at a distal end thereof to a second bone anchor; a medial retractor blade adjustably coupled at a proximal end thereof to the retractor body; a secondary retractor blade coupled to a translating arm of a secondary retractor body for independent operation of the secondary retractor blade within an operative corridor, the secondary retractor body coupled to the retractor body; a first rod insertable into a first receiver of the first bone anchor to lock the first bone anchor to a first vertebra; and a second rod insertable into a second receiver of the second bone anchor to lock the second bone anchor to a second vertebra; wherein, the first retractor blade, the second retractor blade, the medial retractor blade, and the secondary retractor blade are operable to form the operative corridor defined between the first vertebra and the second vertebra.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the first receiver and second receiver are tulips.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are tulips.
19. The system of claim 16, wherein the secondary retractor body includes a pivot arm that is operable to modify a height of the secondary retractor blade.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the secondary retractor body includes a pivot arm that is operable to modify a height of the secondary retractor blade.
As is evident from the table above, the patent claims disclose all of the features of the application claims.
While Patent claim 6 fails to explicitly disclose, regarding application claim 11, that the medial retractor blade is configured to define the operative corridor in conjunction with the first and second retractor blades. The limitation in Patent claim 6 that the first, second, medial and secondary retractor blades are configured to define the operative opening therebetween is being considered to disclose this feature, since the blades defining the operative opening therebetween means that the operative corridor is being defined in conjunction with the blades.
While Patent claim 9 fails to explicitly disclose, regarding application claim 18, that the secondary retractor body couples to the secondary retractor blade through a translating arm. The limitation in Patent claim 9 : a secondary retractor blade coupled to a translating arm of a secondary retractor body is being considered to disclose this feature, since the secondary retractor blade is being coupled to the secondary retractor by or through the translating arm.
While Patent claim 9 fails to explicitly disclose, regarding application claim 20, wherein the hoop shim assembly removably connects to the first bone anchor. The limitation in Patent claim 9 that the hoop shim is removably coupled to the first bone anchor is being considered to disclose this feature, since the definitions for coupled and connect both mean that a link is established.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,903 B2, as applied to claims 9 and 11 above, and in view of Frey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0230191 A1, hereinafter “Frey”).
Patent claim 6 discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, as previously set forth above, except regarding claim 13, wherein the secondary retractor blade is configurable to be advanced into the operative corridor defined by the first retractor blade.
Frey discloses a system for fixating an opening during surgery (see Fig. 1), wherein a secondary retractor blade (220) is configurable to be advanced into and removed from the operative corridor (see para. [0032] “releasably attachable thereto”) defined by a first retractor blade (320) in order to enable shifting aside of soft tissue and blood vessels as desired (see para. [0032]) while the vertebral distraction / tissue displacement is maintained by the first and second retractor blades attached to the vertebra by the first and second anchors (see para. [0037] “tissue displacement”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the secondary retractor blade in Patent claim 6 to be configurable to be advanced into the operative corridor defined by a first retractor blade in order to enable shifting aside of soft tissue and blood vessels while the vertebral distraction is maintained.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0230191 A1, hereinafter “Frey”).
Frey discloses, regarding claim 1, a system for fixating an opening during surgery (10, see Fig. 1), the system comprising: a retractor body (20); a secondary retractor body (40) coupled to the retractor body (see Fig. 1); a first retractor blade (e.g. 320 attached to V3, see Fig. 4) having a proximal end (see annotated Fig. 8 below) coupled to the retractor body (via 70 and 40) and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 8 below); a first bone anchor (102), wherein the distal end of the first retractor blade is removably coupled to the first bone anchor (e.g. coupled via receiver 106, see para. [0050] “yoke 106 are received and firmly seated in a socket portion 338”); a secondary retractor blade (220) coupled to a translating arm (70) of the secondary retractor body for independent operation of the secondary retractor blade within an operative corridor (see Fig. 3), wherein the secondary retractor blade is configurable to be advanced into the operative corridor defined by the first retractor blade (see Fig. 1, note that the secondary retractor blade can be removably attached to 20 enabling the secondary retractor blade to be advanced into the operative corridor separate of the other retractor blades and defined by the other retractor blades, see also Fig. 3); a first receiver (106, see Fig. 12) configurable to be coupled to the first bone anchor while the first retractor blade is removed from the first bone anchor (see Fig. 12, note that the receiver is configured to remain coupled to the bone anchor when the retractor blade is removed); and a rod insertable into the first receiver while coupled to the first bone anchor and configurable to lock the first receiver once inserted (see para. [0049] “spinal rod” and “set screw”).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, further comprising an interbody implant for insertion into a disc space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra (see para. [0030] “spinal prosthesis”).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the first receiver is a tulip (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 4, further comprising: a second bone anchor (102); and a second retractor blade (e.g. 320 attached to V4) having a proximal end (see annotated Fig. 8 above) coupled to the retractor body (via 40 and 70) and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 8 above) removably coupled to the second bone anchor (e.g. coupled via receiver 106, see para. [0050] “yoke 106 are received and firmly seated in a socket portion 338”).
Regarding claim 7, further comprising a pivot arm (87) coupled to the secondary retractor blade that is operable to modify a height of the secondary retractor blade (see Figs. 5 and 11, see paras. [0045] and [0063]).
Frey discloses, regarding claim 9, a system for fixating an opening during surgery (10, see Fig. 1), the system comprising: a retractor body (20); a secondary retractor body (40) coupled to the retractor body (see Fig. 1), the secondary retractor body including a secondary retractor blade (220) coupled to the secondary retractor body (via enlarged receptacle 60, see Fig. 16, see para. [0058]), the secondary retractor blade configured for independent operation within an operative corridor (see Fig. 3); a first and second bone anchor (e.g. 102 attached to V3 and V4), the first bone anchor including a first receiver (106, see Fig. 12) and the second bone anchor including a second receiver (106, see Fig. 12); and a first and second retractor blade (e.g. 320 attached to V3 and V4) each having a proximal end (see annotated Fig. 8 above) coupled to the retractor body (via 40 and 70), the first retractor blade including a first distal end (see annotated Fig. 8 above) removably coupled to the first bone anchor (e.g. coupled via receiver 106, see para. [0050] “yoke 106 are received and firmly seated in a socket portion 338”), the second retractor blade including a second distal end (see annotated Fig. 8 above) removably coupled to the second bone anchor (e.g. coupled via receiver 106, see para. [0050] “yoke 106 are received and firmly seated in a socket portion 338”), wherein the first and second retractor blades are configurable to define an operative opening (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, further comprising a medial retractor blade (120) having a proximal end (126) coupled to the retractor body (via 40 and 70) and configured to define the operative corridor in conjunction with the first and second retractor blades (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the first and second receivers are tulips (see Fig. 12).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-6, 10, 12-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in view of Wilcox (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0114167 A1, hereinafter “Wilcox”).
Frey discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, as previously set forth above. Frey further discloses, regarding claim 5, further comprising: a second receiver (106) configurable to be coupled to the second bone anchor while the second retractor blade is removed from the first bone anchor (see Fig. 12, note that the receiver is configured to remain coupled to the bone anchor when the retractor blade is removed); regarding claim 6, further comprising a guide (87, see Fig. 11) that engages the first retractor blade to advance the first retractor blade into the operative corridor along an engagement plate (94) of the guide (see Fig. 11, see para. [0043]); regarding claim 10, further comprising: a first rod insertable into the first receiver and configurable to lock the first receiver once inserted (see para. [0049] “spinal rod” and “set screw”); regarding claim 12, further comprising a translating arm (70) coupled to the retractor body (via 40), the translating arm including a distal end (76) coupled to the secondary retractor blade (at 228, see Fig. 5, see para. [0038]); regarding claim 13, wherein the secondary retractor blade is configurable to be advanced into the operative corridor defined by the first retractor blade (see Fig. 1, note that the secondary retractor blade can be removably attached to 20 enabling the secondary retractor blade to be advanced into the operative corridor separate of the other retractor blades and defined by the other retractor blades, see also Fig. 3); and regarding claim 15, wherein the operative corridor is defined by the first retractor blade, the second retractor blade, the medial retractor blade, and the secondary retractor blade (see Fig. 1).
Frey fails to disclose, regarding claim 5, and a second rod insertable into the second receiver while coupled to the second bone anchor and configurable to lock the first receiver once inserted; and regarding claim 10, and a second rod insertable into the second receiver and configurable to lock the second receiver once inserted.
Wilcox discloses a system for spinal fixation (see Fig. 2), with first and second receivers and bone screw (14) and a first rod (10) configured to be locked once inserted by set screws (16), wherein the system further includes a second rod (100) insertable into the second receiver (see Fig. 2) in order to enable extension of the spinal fixation device to additional vertebrae of the spinal column (see para. [0026]) and to enable an adjacent level of the spinal column to be treated by a different size or material or material rod to provide more movement along that section of the spinal column with a rod that is less stiff or rigid (see para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system in Frey to include a second rod in view of Wilcox in order to order to enable extension of the spinal fixation device to additional vertebrae of the spinal column and to enable an adjacent level of the spinal column to be treated by a different size or material or material rod to provide more movement along that section of the spinal column with a rod that is less stiff or rigid.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0230191 A1, hereinafter “Frey”) and in view of Wilcox (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0114167 A1, hereinafter “Wilcox”).
Frey discloses, regarding claim 16, a system for fixating an opening during surgery (10, see Fig. 1), the system comprising: a retractor body (20); a first retractor blade (e.g. 320 attached to V3) coupled to the retractor body (via 40 and 70) and a first bone anchor (102); a second retractor blade (e.g. 320 attached to V4) coupled to the retractor body (via 40 and 70) and a second bone anchor (102); a medial retractor blade (120) coupled to the retractor body (via 40 and 70); a secondary retractor blade (220) coupled to a secondary retractor body (40) for independent operation of the secondary retractor blade within an operative corridor (see Fig. 3), the secondary retractor body coupled to the retractor body (see Fig. 1); a first rod insertable into a first receiver of the first bone anchor to lock the first bone anchor to a first vertebra (see para. [0049] “spinal rod” and “set screw”); and wherein, the first retractor blade, the second retractor blade, the medial retractor blade, and the secondary retractor blade are operable to form the operative corridor defined between the first vertebra and the second vertebra (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the first receiver and second receiver are tulips (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the secondary retractor body couples to the secondary retractor blade through a translating arm (70).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the secondary retractor body includes a pivot arm (87) that is operable to modify a height of the secondary retractor blade (see Figs. 5 and 11, see paras. [0045] and [0063]).
Frey fails to disclose, regarding claim 16, a second rod insertable into a second receiver of the second bone anchor to lock the second bone anchor to a second vertebra.
Wilcox discloses a system for spinal fixation (see Fig. 2), with first and second receivers and bone screw (14) and a first rod (10) configured to be locked once inserted by set screws (16), wherein the system further includes a second rod (100) insertable into the second receiver (see Fig. 2) in order to enable extension of the spinal fixation device to additional vertebrae of the spinal column (see para. [0026]) and to enable an adjacent level of the spinal column to be treated by a different size or material or material rod to provide more movement along that section of the spinal column with a rod that is less stiff or rigid (see para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system in Frey to include a second rod in view of Wilcox in order to order to enable extension of the spinal fixation device to additional vertebrae of the spinal column and to enable an adjacent level of the spinal column to be treated by a different size or material or material rod to provide more movement along that section of the spinal column with a rod that is less stiff or rigid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8 and 20 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof could be found which disclose, or suggest:
A system for fixating an opening during surgery comprising a first retractor blade having a proximal end coupled to a retractor body and a distal end removably coupled to a first bone anchor, and as per claim 8, wherein the first retractor blade includes a hoop shim assembly to removably connect to the first bone anchor.
A system for fixating an opening during surgery comprising first and second retractor blades each having a proximal end coupled to a retractor body and a distal end removably coupled to a bone anchor, and as per claim 20, wherein the first retractor blade and the second retractor blade each include a hoop shim assembly to removably connect to the first bone anchor and the second bone anchor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle C. Green whose telephone number is (571)270-7051. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday between 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo C. Robert, 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 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.
/M.C.G/ Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /JACQUELINE T JOHANAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights