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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 15 January 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 4-9, 12, 13, and 15-23 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 14, and 24-36 currently stand pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 10, 11, 14, and 24-36, in the reply filed on 15 January 2026, is acknowledged. In an interview conducted on 12 February 2026 with Devanie DuFour, election was made of Species A, FIGS. 1-39, to be fully responsive to the Restriction Requirement dated 20 November 2025.
Examiner notes that although claim 24 appears to be directed to non-elected Species B, in its current form it is broad enough to read on Species A and is examined below. Claims 27, 29, 31, 32, and 36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
The priority date is 12 March 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: improper antecedence. Appropriate correction is required. The following amendments are suggested:
Claim 11 / line 3: “for [[the]] insertion”
Claim 14 / line 3: “for [[the]] insertion”
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 24-26, 28, 30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0292361 to Lopez.
As to claim 1, Lopez discloses a spinal implant device, FIGS. 26-28, comprising: a shell comprising: a distal end and a proximal end, a lower wall (bottom component) forming a lower surface of the shell, FIGS. 26-27; a movable lid (upper component) forming an upper surface of the shell, FIGS. 26-27, wherein the movable lid is configured to rotate and translate (par. [0120], [0142]), FIGS. 26-27; and an insert (4, 5) configured to couple with the shell (par. [0139]), FIGS. 26 and 29.
As to claim 2, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 1, wherein the movable lid is configured to rotate up to 180 degrees (the lid is fully capable of rotating up to 180 degrees as seen in FIG. 28, where the lid is rotated a lesser angle and therefore not more than 180 degrees, i.e. up to 180 degrees, and is fully capable of rotating a greater angle up to 180 degrees since the slots can rotate freely about the pins 204 in the fully translated position).
As to claim 3, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 1, wherein the movable lid is configured to translate between 0 mm and 6 mm (3.5 mm, par. [0203]).
As to claim 10, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 1, wherein the insert comprises a retention feature (4) and the movable lid comprises a complementary retention feature (angled interior walls of the upper component) (the retention features cooperate to retain the insert in a particular longitudinal position with respect to the movable lid).
As to claim 24, Lopez discloses a spinal implant device, FIGS. 26-28, comprising: a body (4, 5); a movable lid (upper component) configured to rotate relative to the body, FIG. 27; an endplate (bottom component), wherein the body, the movable lid, and the endplate form a cavity (between the movable lid and the endplate and around the body) configured to be packed with material (interpreted as language of intended use; any negative space is fully capable of being packed with material).
As to claim 25, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, further comprising a pin (204) (par. [0120]), wherein the movable lid is configured to rotate relative to the pin, FIG. 27.
As to claim 26, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 25, wherein the pin comprises titanium (as a component of the implant device fabricated from titanium, par. [0192]).
As to claim 28, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the movable lid is printed as a separate piece (the movable lid is a separate piece). The claimed phrase “printed” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The movable lid disclosed by Lopez is a separate piece appearing to be substantially the same as the printed separate piece of the instant application.
As to claim 30, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the endplate is printed as a separate piece (the endplate is a separate piece). The claimed phrase “printed” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The endplate disclosed by Lopez is a separate piece appearing to be substantially the same as the printed separate piece of the instant application.
As to claim 33, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the movable lid comprises titanium (as a component of the implant device fabricated from titanium, par. [0192]).
As to claim 34, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the body comprises PEEK (as a component of the implant device fabricated from PEEK, par. [0192]).
As to claim 35, Lopez discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the endplate comprises titanium (as a component of the implant device fabricated from titanium, par. [0192]).
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 24-26, 28, 30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 11,491,024 to Baynham.
As to claim 1, Baynham discloses a spinal implant device, FIGS. 13-16, comprising: a shell comprising: a distal end and a proximal end, a lower wall (282) forming a lower surface (292) of the shell (col. 6 / lines 24-40); a movable lid (252) forming an upper surface (262) of the shell (col. 6 / lines 8-23), wherein the movable lid is configured to rotate and translate (rotates about pins 296, 298 and translates along slots 266, 268; col. 6 / lines 28-40), FIGS. 14-15; and an insert (300) configured to couple with the shell (col. 6 / lines 41-58).
As to claim 2, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 1, wherein the movable lid is configured to rotate up to 180 degrees (the lid is fully capable of rotating up to 180 degrees as seen in FIG. 13, where the lid is rotated a lesser angle and therefore not more than 180 degrees, i.e. up to 180 degrees, and is fully capable of rotating a greater angle up to 180 degrees since the slots can rotate freely about the pins in the fully translated position).
As to claim 10, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 1, wherein the insert comprises a retention feature (top surface 302) and the movable lid comprises a complementary retention feature (270, 272) (the retention features cooperate to retain the insert within the movable lid, col. 6 / lines 21-23), FIGS. 13-14.
As to claim 11, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 1, wherein the insert comprises a first insert opening (314) and the lower wall comprises a first opening (aperture through lower wall aligned with 314), wherein the first insert opening and the first opening are aligned along a trajectory for the insertion of a first fastener (interpreted as language of intended use; the openings are aligned and fully capable of being aligned along a trajectory for the insertion of a first fastener).
As to claim 14, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 1, wherein the insert comprises a first insert opening (314) and the movable lid comprises a first opening (274), FIG. 16, wherein the first insert opening and the first opening are aligned along a trajectory for the insertion of a first fastener (interpreted as language of intended use; the openings are aligned in FIG. 13 and fully capable of being aligned along a trajectory for the insertion of a first fastener).
As to claim 24, Baynham discloses a spinal implant device, FIGS. 13-16, comprising: a body (300) (col. 6 / lines 41-58); a movable lid (252) configured to rotate relative to the body (col. 6 / lines 8-23); an endplate (282) (col. 6 / lines 24-40), wherein the body, the movable lid, and the endplate form a cavity (314) configured to be packed with material (interpreted as language of intended use; any negative space is fully capable of being packed with material).
As to claim 25, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, further comprising a pin (296, 298) (col. 6 / lines 28-40), wherein the movable lid is configured to rotate relative to the pin, FIG. 15.
As to claim 26, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 25, wherein the pin comprises titanium (described in another embodiment, as part of the endplate, col. 5 / lines 24-28).
As to claim 28, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the movable lid is printed as a separate piece (the movable lid is a separate piece). The claimed phrase “printed” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The movable lid disclosed by Baynham is a separate piece appearing to be substantially the same as the printed separate piece of the instant application.
As to claim 30, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the endplate is printed as a separate piece (the endplate is a separate piece). The claimed phrase “printed” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The endplate disclosed by Baynham is a separate piece appearing to be substantially the same as the printed separate piece of the instant application.
As to claim 33, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the movable lid comprises titanium (described in another embodiment, col. 5 / lines 24-28).
As to claim 34, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the body comprises PEEK (described in another embodiment, col. 5 / lines 43-44).
As to claim 35, Baynham discloses the spinal implant device of claim 24, wherein the endplate comprises titanium (described in another embodiment, col. 5 / lines 24-28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY L KAMIKAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-7276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:30 PM.
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, Kevin Truong, can be reached 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 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.
/TRACY L KAMIKAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3775