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 Invention I, Species 11 (shown in Figs. 107-112) in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12–13, 17–18, and 21–36 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the final wherein clause recites "the performing of the expansion using the wedge assembly independent of the expansion using the ramp assembly," which omits a verb. Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 and 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites "the width of the first end of the cage" and "the width of the second end of the cage." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. The claim earlier recites "a beam assembly having a first end, a second end," that is, ends of the beam assembly, not of the cage. It is unclear whether the first and second ends of the cage are the same structures as the first and second ends of the beam assembly, or additional structures. It is further unclear what "the width" refers to, as no width of the cage or of either end has been previously recited.
Claim 12 recites "expands the height of the cage." There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the height of the cage," as no height of the cage has been previously recited.
Claim 12 recites "a width expansion assembly positioned between the first beam and the spanning beam," but the recited components of that assembly (the first and second spacers and the first and second pivotal links) are structurally related only to the spanning beam. It is unclear what structural relationship, if any, the width expansion assembly bears to the first beam, and therefore unclear what is required by "positioned between."
Claim 12 recites that movement of the ramp "expands the height of the cage only at the first beam and the second beam." It is unclear whether this negative limitation excludes any height change at the spanning beam, or excludes only actuated height change while permitting the spanning beam to be carried along with the beam assembly. Clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites "a first set of interdigitating fingers attached to the first beam" and "a second set of interdigitating fingers attached to the spanning beam." The specification describes the interdigitating medial flanges 1176a–1176d as being formed on the endplates 1122a–1122d, which are pivotally or slidably coupled to the beams, rather than on the beams themselves (see par. 0400). It is unclear whether "attached to" is intended to encompass this indirect relationship. Clarification is required.
Claim 21 recites rotation of the pivotal endplate "about a longitudinal axis," while claim 12 recites "a long axis" of the beam assembly. It is unclear whether the longitudinal axis of claim 21 is the same as the long axis of claim 12 or a different axis. Consistent terminology is required.
Claim 24 depends from claim 23, which depends from claim 12, and recites "the pivotal endplate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as the pivotal endplate is first recited in claim 13, which is not in the chain of dependency. Applicant may correct this by amending claim 24 to depend from a claim that recites the pivotal endplate.
Claim 29 recites "causes the link elements to rotate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for the plural "the link elements"; the claim earlier recites "a first link element" and "a second link element" separately.
Claim 32 depends from claim 30, which recites "each link element," and then refers to "the linkage base of the link element" in the singular. It is unclear which of the first and second link elements is intended, or whether the limitation applies to both.
Claim 33 recites "a pair of anterior endplates coupled to the ramp assembly," while claim 29 already recites "a first anterior beam, and a second anterior beam." The specification uses "endplates or beams" interchangeably for elements 1122a–1122d (see par. 0393). It is therefore unclear whether the pair of anterior endplates of claim 33 are the same structures as the first and second anterior beams of claim 29, or two additional structures, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indeterminate. The same ambiguity attends "a pair of posterior endplates" relative to "a posterior beam." Claims 34–36, which depend from claim 33, are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 36 recites "during width expansion" and "during height expansion." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Claim 29 recites that translation "expands a width of the beam assembly" and "increases a height between the first anterior beam and the second anterior beam," but does not recite a "width expansion" or a "height expansion" as such.
Claims 22-23, 25-28, 30-31, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as depending from a rejected base claim and inheriting the deficiencies thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koch et al. (US 10,105,238 B2)
Shoshtaev (US 2018/0193164 A1)
Koch discloses an interbody spacer having first and second support members interconnected to opposed end bodies by pivotable link members, wherein axial movement of the end bodies along the spacer axis rotates the links laterally outward to expand the width of the spacer, and wherein ramped surfaces carried on the second ends of those same link members subsequently drive an upper body and a lower body apart to expand height. Koch further discloses an embodiment exhibiting asymmetric vertical expansion, in which one support member increases in height while the other does not.
Koch does not, however, disclose or render obvious a height expansion assembly positioned between the first beam and the second beam and having a ramp movably connected to the first beam and the second beam, as recited in claim 12. In Koch, the structure that produces vertical expansion is the ramped terminal end of the very link member that produces the width expansion. Koch therefore has no ramp that is a constituent of a height expansion assembly distinct from the width expansion assembly, and no ramp movably connected to two beams of the beam assembly. Claim 12 requires two structurally separate assemblies 1. a width expansion assembly disposed between the first beam and the spanning beam, and 2. a height expansion assembly disposed between the first beam and the second beam, each with its own recited actuating member. The single-linkage architecture of Koch cannot be read onto that arrangement without reciting the same link member as both the pivotal link of the width expansion assembly and the ramp of the height expansion assembly, which the claim’s separate recitation of the two assemblies forecloses.
Shoshtaev discloses wedges translatable along a longitudinal axis and ramps slideably coupled to endplates to effect height expansion, and further teaches decoupling the width expansion mechanism from the height expansion mechanism. Shoshtaev does not disclose a spacer rotatably connected to a pivotal link, the pivotal link rotatably connected to the spanning beam at an end of the cage, such that movement of the spacer along the long axis rotates the pivotal link to expand the width of that end of the cage. Width expansion in Shoshtaev is produced by translation of protrusions within transversely angled control slots, not by rotation of a link pinned to a beam. Neither is there any teaching in Shoshtaev of a three-beam assembly in which a spanning beam is excluded from the height expansion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-3819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4 PM .
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.
/ELLEN C HAMMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
