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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Cap I, Fastener I, Cannula B, Reamer E, Guide B, Driver C, Inserter Assembly C, Removable Lock B, Drill A, Power Adapter A, K-Wire A, and Array A in the reply filed on September 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Dilator C and Tulip A in the reply filed on September 29, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, with respect to the Dilator, Dilators B-E should be grouped together as they form a progressive dilator system, and with respect to the Tulip, Tulips A-B are the same tulip. This is found persuasive and accordingly, the restriction is withdrawn with regard to the aforementioned species of Dilator and Tulip. As such, the election of Dilators B-E with respect to nonelected Dilator A is being treated as without traverse. The Examiner further notes that there are no other Tulip species.
Claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species of Cap, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 29, 2025.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (the elected species of Cap as shown in Figs. 29A-E and 30B-D is not configured to receive a Tulip and therefore claims including a Tulip are drawn to a nonelected species of Cap), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 29, 2025.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 1-4 (see claims numbered 1-4 and located between claim 9 and claim 14) been renumbered as claims 10-13.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “to” should be inserted between “configured” and “promote” (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1).
Claim 14. Duggal discloses a facet fixation system, the system comprising:
a cap (cap 10) configured to span a vertebral facet joint (see abstract);
a fastener (fastener 50) configured to secure the cap to the vertebral facet joint (see abstract);
an inserter (shaft 561 and handle 562) configured to engage the cap (see Figs. 16B-16C); and
a lock (retaining members 564 including boss members 565) that is moveable, relative to the inserter (it is understood that retaining members 564 are flexibly attached to shaft 561 such that boss members 565 snap into and out of slots 18 of cap 10; see para. 0082), between a locked position (position in which boss members 565 extend fully into slots 18), in which the cap is not disengageable from the inserter, and an unlocked position (position in which retaining members 564 flex outwards such that boss members 565 are not seated in slots 18), in which the cap is disengageable from the inserter (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Claim 17. Duggal discloses wherein the system further comprises a dilator (dilator 500 and cannula 510 in combination) configured to dilate soft tissue (see para. 0077), the dilator comprising an inside diameter (diameter of dilator 500) eccentric to an outside diameter (outer diameter of cannula 510) (note that the diameters are eccentric when dilator 500 and cannula 510 are not assembled as shown in Fig. 12) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1) in view of Akallal et al. (US 2022/0249083 A1).
Claim 15. Duggal discloses wherein the cap comprises a distal surface (bone engaging side 3 having teeth 14 and tooth 4) configured to seat against a bone proximate the vertebral facet joint (see para. 0068) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Duggal fails to disclose an indicator configured to move from a first position to a second position in response to engagement of the distal surface with the bone (claim 15).
However, Duggal discloses that the distal surface includes projections (teeth 14 and tooth 4) for fixing the cap to bone (see para. 0068), wherein some of the projections (teeth 14) are located at a perimeter of the cap and another projection (tooth 4) is located interior of the perimeter of the cap (see Fig. 1C) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Akallal teaches a cap (device 10) comprising a distal surface (apposition surface 24), wherein the distal surface includes projections (anchors 22 and indicators 26) for fixing the cap to bone (see para. 0094), wherein some of the projections (anchors 22) are located at a perimeter of the cap and other projections (indicators 26) are located interior of the perimeter of the cap (see Fig. 3), wherein the interior projections are each in the form of an indicator (indicator 26) configured to move from a first position (see Fig. 7A) to a second position (see Figs. 5, 6, and 7B) in response to engagement of the distal surface with the bone (see paras. 0103-0104), wherein the indicators provide a visual indicator that the cap is seated as desired against the bone (see para. 0104) (Figs. 3-7B; paras. 0097-0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Duggal such that the projection (tooth 4) located interior of the perimeter of the cap is configured as an indicator as taught by Akallal, wherein the indicator is configured to move from a first position to a second position in response to engagement of the distal surface with the bone (claim 15), as suggested by Akallal, as such can provide a visual indicator that the cap is seated as desired against the bone.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1) in view of Yeh (US 2015/0080951 A1).
Duggal fails to disclose wherein the cap comprises a lattice structure configured to promote bone growth into the cap (claim 16).
Yeh teaches a cap (apparatus 10) configured to span a joint (see Fig. 3), wherein the cap comprises a distal surface (surface seated against vertebrae S and S’ as shown in Fig. 3) configured to seat against a bone, wherein the cap comprises a lattice structure (micro-lattice hollow structure 10’) configured to promote bone growth into the cap (see para. 0035) in order to enhance vertebral or spinal strength (see para. 0035) (Figs. 1-4; paras. 0022-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Duggal such that the cap comprises a lattice structure configured to promote bone growth into the cap (claim 16), as suggested by Yeh, in order to enhance vertebral or spinal strength.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1) in view of Biester et al. (US 2020/0121365 A1).
Claim 18. Duggal discloses a reamer (reamer 530) configured to prepare a bone surface for implantation of a facet fixation device (see para. 0078), the reamer comprising a cutting head (head 532) comprising a plurality of cutting edges (see Fig. 13, which shows that head 532 includes cutting edges on the distal-facing surface) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Duggal fails to disclose wherein the cutting head is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (claim 18).
Biester teaches a reamer (reamer instrument 500) configured to prepare a bone surface (see para. 0117), the reamer comprising a cutting head comprising a plurality of cutting edges (bi-directional flutes 510), wherein the cutting head is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (see para. 0117) (Fig. 5A; para. 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Duggal such that the cutting head of the reamer is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (claim 18), as suggested by Biester, as such would allow for easier manual manipulation of the reamer by both right-handed and left-handed surgeons.
Claims 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1) in view of Akallal et al. (US 2022/0249083 A1).
Claim 1. Duggal discloses a facet fixation system, the system comprising:
a cap (cap 10) configured to span a vertebral facet joint (see abstract), the cap comprising a distal surface (bone engaging side 3 having teeth 14 and tooth 4) configured to seat against a bone proximate the vertebral facet joint (see para. 0068); and
a fastener (fastener 50) configured to secure the cap to the vertebral facet joint (see abstract) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Claim 3. Duggal discloses wherein the fastener and the cap are configured so that the fastener is captive relative to the cap (once cap 10 is seated against the bone and fastener 50 is fully screwed into the bone, fastener 50 would be captive relative to cap 10) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Claim 4. Duggal discloses wherein the cap comprises a plurality of recesses (slots 18; see para. 0070) configured to receive a guiding instrument (guide 560) (see para. 0082) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Claim 11. Duggal discloses wherein the system further comprises a dilator (dilator 500 and cannula 510 in combination) configured to dilate soft tissue (see para. 0077), the dilator comprising an inside diameter (diameter of dilator 500) eccentric to an outside diameter (outer diameter of cannula 510) (note that the diameters are eccentric when dilator 500 and cannula 510 are not assembled as shown in Fig. 12) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Claim 13. Duggal discloses wherein the fastener comprises a cylindrical screw head (head 51) and the cap comprises an aperture (capsule 12), offset from a geometric center of the cap (see Figs. 1C and 1D), configured to rotatably receive the cylindrical screw head (see Fig. 5B) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Duggal fails to disclose wherein the cap comprises an indicator configured to move from a first position to a second position in response to engagement of the distal surface with the bone (claim 1), wherein the cap and the indicator are integrally manufactured using an additive manufacturing process (claim 2), and wherein the fastener comprises a porous surface configured promote bone growth into the fastener (claim 12).
However, Duggal teaches an alternate embodiment of fastener (fastener 60) comprising a porous surface (shaft includes apertures 61) configured to promote bone growth into the fastener (see para. 0072) to promote fusion between the fastener, cap, and bone (see para. 0072) (Fig. 6; para. 0072).
Duggal also discloses that the distal surface includes projections (teeth 14 and tooth 4) for fixing the cap to bone (see para. 0068), wherein some of the projections (teeth 14) are located at a perimeter of the cap and another projection (tooth 4) is located interior of the perimeter of the cap (see Fig. 1C) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Akallal teaches a cap (device 10) comprising a distal surface (apposition surface 24), wherein the distal surface includes projections (anchors 22 and indicators 26) for fixing the cap to bone (see para. 0094), wherein some of the projections (anchors 22) are located at a perimeter of the cap and other projections (indicators 26) are located interior of the perimeter of the cap (see Fig. 3), wherein the interior projections are each in the form of an indicator (indicator 26) configured to move from a first position (see Fig. 7A) to a second position (see Figs. 5, 6, and 7B) in response to engagement of the distal surface with the bone (see paras. 0103-0104), wherein the indicators provide a visual indicator that the cap is seated as desired against the bone (see para. 0104) (Figs. 3-7B; paras. 0097-0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Duggal such that the projection (tooth 4) located interior of the perimeter of the cap is configured as an indicator as taught by Akallal, wherein the indicator is configured to move from a first position to a second position in response to engagement of the distal surface with the bone (claim 1), as suggested by Akallal, as such can provide a visual indicator that the cap is seated as desired against the bone. Claim 2 is a product-by-process claim. Patentable weight has only been given to the structure of the end product, not to the method of manufacture. The end product being considered the cap and indicator being integral. Manufacturing steps, such as additive manufacturing, are not given patentable weight in the claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113. Because the structure of the indicator (indicator 26) of Akallal is similar to and engages with the cap (device 10) in a manner similar to that disclosed by Applicant (compare Figs. 7A-7B of Akallal to Applicant’s Fig. 29D), and because the cap of Duggal has been modified to include such an indicator as stated above, the Examiner is taking the position that the cap and the indicator are capable of being integrally manufactured using an additive manufacturing process (claim 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Duggal such that the fastener comprises a porous surface configured promote bone growth into the fastener (claim 12), as suggested by an alternate embodiment of Duggal, in order to promote fusion between the fastener, cap, and bone.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1) in view of Akallal et al. (US 2022/0249083 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeh (US 2015/0080951 A1).
Duggal and Akallal fail to teach wherein the cap comprises a lattice structure configured to promote bone growth into the cap (claim 5).
Yeh teaches a cap (apparatus 10) configured to span a joint (see Fig. 3), wherein the cap comprises a distal surface (surface seated against vertebrae S and S’ as shown in Fig. 3) configured to seat against a bone, wherein the cap comprises a lattice structure (micro-lattice hollow structure 10’) configured to promote bone growth into the cap (see para. 0035) in order to enhance vertebral or spinal strength (see para. 0035) (Figs. 1-4; paras. 0022-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Duggal such that the cap comprises a lattice structure configured to promote bone growth into the cap (claim 5), as suggested by Yeh, in order to enhance vertebral or spinal strength.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1) in view of Akallal et al. (US 2022/0249083 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biester et al. (US 2020/0121365 A1).
Claim 10. Duggal discloses a reamer (reamer 530) configured to prepare a bone surface for implantation of a facet fixation device (see para. 0078), the reamer comprising a cutting head (head 532) comprising a plurality of cutting edges (see Fig. 13, which shows that head 532 includes cutting edges on the distal-facing surface) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Duggal and Akallal fail to teach wherein the cutting head is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (claim 10).
Biester teaches a reamer (reamer instrument 500) configured to prepare a bone surface (see para. 0117), the reamer comprising a cutting head comprising a plurality of cutting edges (bi-directional flutes 510), wherein the cutting head is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (see para. 0117) (Fig. 5A; para. 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Duggal such that the cutting head of the reamer is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (claim 10), as suggested by Biester, as such would allow for easier manual manipulation of the reamer by both right-handed and left-handed surgeons.
Claims 19-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1) in view of Yeh (US 2015/0080951 A1).
Claim 19. Duggal discloses a facet fixation system, the system comprising:
a cap (cap 10) configured to span a vertebral facet joint (see abstract), the cap comprising a distal surface (bone engaging side 3 having teeth 14 and tooth 4) configured to seat against a bone proximate the vertebral facet joint (see para. 0068), and a proximal surface (surface shown in Fig. 1D, which is located opposite bone engaging side 3) facing proximally; and
a fastener (fastener 50) configured to secure the cap to the vertebral facet joint (see abstract) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Claim 22. Duggal discloses an inserter (inserter 560) configured to engage the cap (see Figs. 16B-16C), wherein: the cap comprises a load-carrying portion (side surfaces, which are located between the distal and proximal surfaces, and which include slots 18); and the inserter is configured to engage the load-carrying portion (see para. 0082) to permit insertion of the cap into the bone without transmitting force through the first lattice structure (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Claim 23. Duggal discloses wherein the inserter further comprises a recessed portion (portion between retaining members 564), wherein: the recessed portion is configured to receive the cap and the fastener (see Figs. 16B-16C); and the recessed portion is configured to prevent the fastener from disengaging from the cap during insertion of the cap (see para. 0082) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-16C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Claim 24. Duggal discloses wherein the system further comprises a dilator (dilator 500 and cannula 510 in combination) configured to dilate soft tissue (see para. 0077), the dilator comprising an inside diameter (diameter of dilator 500) eccentric to an outside diameter (outer diameter of cannula 510) (note that the diameters are eccentric when dilator 500 and cannula 510 are not assembled as shown in Fig. 12) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Duggal fails to disclose wherein the distal surface of the cap comprises a first lattice structure configured to promote bone growth into the cap (claim 19), wherein the proximal surface comprises a second lattice structure configured to promote bone growth into the proximal surface, wherein the second lattice structure is spaced apart from the first lattice structure (claim 20), wherein the cap comprises a hollow interior in communication with the second lattice structure and the first lattice structure such that bone growth can occur through the cap, from the second lattice structure to the first lattice structure, after implantation of the cap (claim 21), and wherein the first lattice structure is absent from the load-carrying portion such that force from the inserter is not transmitted through the first lattice structure (claim 22).
Yeh teaches a cap (apparatus 10) configured to span a joint (see Fig. 3), wherein the cap comprises a distal surface (surface seated against vertebrae S and S’ as shown in Fig. 3) configured to seat against a bone and a proximal surface (surface facing away from vertebrae S and S’ as shown in Fig. 4 and opposite the distal surface), wherein the distal surface comprises a first lattice structure (micro-lattice hollow structure 10’) configured to promote bone growth into the cap (see para. 0035) and the proximal surface comprises a second lattice structure (micro-lattice hollow structure 10’; see paras. 0035-0036, which indicate that micro-lattice hollow structure 10’ extends from the distal surface to the proximal surface within wall W) configured to promote bone growth into the proximal surface (see para. 0035), wherein the second lattice structure is spaced apart from the first lattice structure (note that the lattice structure at the proximal surface is spaced from the lattice structure at the distal surface), wherein the cap comprises a hollow interior (see Fig. 2, which shows the hollows in micro-lattice hollow structure 10’) in communication with the second lattice structure and the first lattice structure such that bone growth can occur through the cap, from the second lattice structure to the first lattice structure, after implantation of the cap (see para. 0035), wherein the cap comprises a load-carrying portion (wall W) located at the side surfaces and between the proximal and distal surfaces, wherein the first lattice structure is absent from the load-carrying portion (see Fig. 1), wherein the first and second lattice structures enhance vertebral or spinal strength (see para. 0035) (Figs. 1-4; paras. 0022-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Duggal such that the distal surface of the cap comprises a first lattice structure configured to promote bone growth into the cap (claim 19), wherein the proximal surface comprises a second lattice structure configured to promote bone growth into the proximal surface, wherein the second lattice structure is spaced apart from the first lattice structure (claim 20), wherein the cap comprises a hollow interior in communication with the second lattice structure and the first lattice structure such that bone growth can occur through the cap, from the second lattice structure to the first lattice structure, after implantation of the cap (claim 21), and wherein the first lattice structure is absent from the load-carrying portion (claim 22), as suggested by Yeh, in order to enhance vertebral or spinal strength. In view of such a modification, force from the inserter would not be transmitted through the first lattice structure (claim 22).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2013/0123848 A1) in view of Yeh (US 2015/0080951 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Biester et al. (US 2020/0121365 A1).
Claim 25. Duggal discloses a reamer (reamer 530) configured to prepare a bone surface (see para. 0078), the reamer comprising a cutting head (head 532) comprising a plurality of cutting edges (see Fig. 13, which shows that head 532 includes cutting edges on the distal-facing surface) (Figs. 1, 5A-5B, 10-13, and 16A-C; paras. 0067-0070, 0077-0078, and 0082).
Duggal and Yeh fail to teach wherein the cutting head is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (claim 25).
Biester teaches a reamer (reamer instrument 500) configured to prepare a bone surface (see para. 0117), the reamer comprising a cutting head comprising a plurality of cutting edges (bi-directional flutes 510), wherein the cutting head is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (see para. 0117) (Fig. 5A; para. 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Duggal such that the cutting head of the reamer is configured to cut in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction (claim 25), as suggested by Biester, as such would allow for easier manual manipulation of the reamer by both right-handed and left-handed surgeons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Afzal (US 2021/0338454 A1) teaches an implant (cage 12) having a distal surface (inferior support surface 16) and a proximal surface (superior support surface 14), wherein each of the distal surface and the proximal surface have structures (struts 60) defining openings (spaces between struts 60), and wherein the structures of the distal surface are entirely separated from the structures of the proximal surface (separated by center opening 100) (Fig. 12; para. 0090). Stuart (US 2023/0000639 A1) teaches an implant (implant 1500) having a distal surface (surface with struts 1511 shown in Fig. 15A) and a proximal surface (opposite from the identified distal surface), wherein each of the distal surface and the proximal surface have lattice structures (struts 1511), wherein the lattice structures are entirely separated from each other (see center space occupied by frame 1513), and wherein the implant comprises a load-carrying portion (inner frame 1513 and outer frame 1215 – see Fig. 12 and para. 0192) extending from one side of the implant to the other (Figs. 15A-C; paras. 0190-0196).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANNA N HARVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00am-5:00pm 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.
/JULIANNA N HARVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773