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 .
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.
Claims 1-8 & 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 9 & 11-20 of related U.S. Patent No. 10,034,768.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the application recites a surgical system comprising: a frame that forms a continuous perimeter around a frame opening (See Claim 1, Lines 1-7 of the patent); a spacer received in the frame opening (See Claim 1, Lines 8-13 of the patent); and one or more fixation members insertable in the frame, wherein the one or more fixation members includes at least a first fixation member that is angled in an upward direction and a second fixation member that is angled in a downward direction (See Claim 1, Lines 14-18 of the patent).
Regarding Claims 2-8 & 10 of the application: Claims 2-8 & 10 of the application are substantially similar or identical to Claims 2-8 & 9 of the patent.
Claim 11 of the application recites 11. A surgical system comprising: a frame that forms a continuous perimeter around a frame opening (See Claim 11, Lines 1-6 of the patent); a spacer received in the frame opening (See Claim 11, Lines 7-13 of the patent); and one or more fixation members insertable in the trailing end of the frame, wherein the one or more fixation members includes at least a first fixation member that is angled in an upward direction and a second fixation member that is angled in a downward direction (See Claim 11, Lines 14-18 of the patent).
Regarding Claims 12-20 of the application: Claims 12-20 of the application are substantially similar or identical to Claims 12-20 of the patent.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 2, the word --are-- should be added before the word “connected”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 1, the word --the-- should be added before the word “second” and before the word “pin”. 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 5, 8, & 11-20 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 5 recites “wherein the first opening is configured to receive a first fixation member, the second opening is configured to receive a second fixation member, and the third opening is configured to receive a third fixation member.” which renders the claim indefinite is it is unclear if the recited first, second and third fixation members are the same as the “one or more fixation members” previously recited in claim 1, or in addition thereto. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “wherein the first opening is configured to receive a first fixation member of the one or more fixation members, the second opening is configured to receive a second fixation member of the one or more fixation members, and the third opening is configured to receive a third fixation member of the one or more fixation members.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the spacer is formed of a first member, a second member and a third member that connected to each other horizontally.” Which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the recited first, second, and third members are the same as the “multiple members” previously recited in claim 7, or in addition thereto, or if the claim should instead depend from Claim 1 and not Claim 7. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “wherein the multiple members comprise a first member, a second member and a third member connected to each other horizontally.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 at Line 4 recites the limitation “the trailing end of the frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the term is being interpreted as “a trailing end of the frame”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the leading end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what leading end is being recited- a leading end of the frame, spacer, fixation member(s), or the system. For purposes of examination, the term is being interpreted as “a leading end of the frame”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the first sidewall” in Line 1 and “the second sidewall” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what sidewalls are being recited- sidewalls of the frame, spacer, or something else. For purposes of examination, the term is being interpreted as “a first sidewall of the spacer” and “a second sidewall of the spacer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the leading end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what leading end is being recited- a leading end of the frame, spacer, fixation member(s), or the system. For purposes of examination, the term is being interpreted as “a leading end of the frame”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 at Lines 2-4 recites “a first non-threaded fixation member, a second opening for receiving a second non-threaded fixation member, and a third opening for receiving a third non-threaded fixation member.” which renders the claim indefinite is it is unclear if the recited first, second and third non-threaded fixation members are the same as the “one or more fixation members” previously recited in claim 11, or in addition thereto. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “wherein the frame comprises a first opening for receiving a first non-threaded fixation member of the one or more fixation members, a second opening for receiving a second non- threaded fixation member of the one or more fixation members, and a third opening for receiving a third non-threaded fixation member of the one or more fixation members.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11-12, 15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kueenzi et al. (US PG Pub No. 2010/0312346).
Regarding Claim 1, Kueenzi et al. discloses a surgical system (Figs. 3A-3B, Paragraph [0041]) comprising: a frame (plate 40) that forms a continuous perimeter around a frame opening (when tightened, Fig. 3B, Paragraph [0041]); a spacer (spacer 20) received in the frame opening; and one or more fixation members (fasteners 75, Paragraph [0032]) insertable in the frame (through 42, Fig. 3A), wherein the one or more fixation members includes at least a first fixation member (each upper fastener 75, Fig. 3A) that is angled in an upward direction and a second fixation member (each lower fastener 75, Fig. 3A) that is angled in a downward direction (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 4, Kueenzi et al. discloses wherein the frame comprises an upper chamfer and a lower chamfer (upper and lower angled edges defining corner between teeth portions and respective adjacent rounded portions 112a’ and 114’).
Regarding Claim 5 as best understood, Kueenzi et al. discloses wherein the frame includes a first opening (upper left through hole 42, Fig. 3A, Paragraph [0032]), a second opening (upper right through hole 42, Fig. 3A, Paragraph [0032]) and a third opening (lower left through hole 42, Fig. 3A, Paragraph [0032]), wherein the first opening is configured to receive a first fixation member of the one or more fixation members (upper left fastener 75, Fig. 3A), the second opening is configured to receive a second fixation member of the one or more fixation members (upper right fastener 75, Fig. 3A), and the third opening is configured to receive a third fixation member of the one or more fixation members (lower left fastener 75, Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 6, Kueenzi et al. discloses wherein the spacer is formed of allograft bone (Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Claim 11 as best understood, Kueenzi et al. discloses a surgical system (Figs. 3A-3B, Paragraph [0041]) comprising: a frame (plate 40) that forms a continuous perimeter around a frame opening (when tightened, Fig. 3B, Paragraph [0041]); a spacer (spacer 20) received in the frame opening; and one or more fixation members (fasteners 75, Paragraph [0032]) insertable in a trailing end of the frame (flat proximal end of 40, Fig. 3A), wherein the one or more fixation members includes at least a first fixation member (upper left fastener 75, Fig. 3A) that is angled in an upward direction and a second fixation member (lower left fastener 75, Fig. 3A) that is angled in a downward direction.
Regarding Claim 12 as best understood, Kueenzi et al. discloses wherein a leading end of the frame is convex (end at 110’ leads when the implant is inserted, Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 15, Kueenzi et al. discloses wherein the spacer is biconvex in two planes (20 is symmetrically convex from a birds eye view and from a front end view, thus about a vertical plane running centrally between proximal and distal ends of 20 and about a horizontal plane running centrally through a height of 20. Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 18 as best understood, Kueenzi et al. discloses wherein a leading end of the frame includes a first tool engagement hole (upper left through hole 42, Fig. 3A) and a second tool engagement hole (lower left through hole 42, Fig. 3A) (end at 110’ leads when the implant is removed, Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 19 as best understood, Kueenzi et al. discloses wherein the frame comprises a first opening (upper left through hole 42, Fig. 3A) capable of receiving a first non-threaded fixation member, a second opening (upper right through hole 42, Fig. 3A) capable of receiving a second non-threaded fixation member, and a third opening (lower left through hole 42, Fig. 3A) capable of receiving a third non-threaded fixation member.
Regarding Claim 20, Kueenzi et al. discloses wherein the frame has a generally similar height to the spacer (Fig. 3A-3B).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueenzi et al. (US PG Pub No. 2010/0312346) in view of Lawson et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0366674).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Kueenzi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, except wherein the frame comprises a first window and a second window; and wherein the spacer comprises a first protruding portion and a second protruding portion, wherein the first protruding portion is configured to be received in the first window and the second protruding portion is configured to be received in the second window. Kueenzi et al. does disclose in Paragraph [0041] that “The interconnected arms 112', 114' of the split ring 110' of the third preferred embodiment may be tighten by any means including but not limited to a ratcheting locking mechanism 118, a hose clamp design, etc. Incorporation of the split ring 110' of the third preferred embodiment enables the plate 40 to accommodate spacers 20 of variable dimensions and compositions. Furthermore, incorporation of the split ring 110' of the third preferred embodiment may enable the intervertebral implant 10 to be assembled in situ. Other, alternate designs of the plate 40 that allow for the coupling of the plate 40 around the spacer 20 are envisioned.”
Lawson et al. discloses various embodiments of an intervertebral implant system (5, Figs. 1A-3D) comprising a frame (50) and a spacer (10 ) received in an opening of the frame, wherein the frame comprises a first window (left window 72, Fig. 2A) and a second window (right window 72, Fig. 2D)(Paragraph [0025]); and wherein the spacer comprises a first protruding portion (left hump 26, Fig. 3B) and a second protruding portion (right hump 26, Fig. 3B), wherein the first protruding portion is configured to be received in the first window and the second protruding portion is configured to be received in the second window (“ In addition, in some embodiments, each of the side arms 13 of the spacer 10 can also include a hump region 26 (shown in FIG. 3B) that can extend in part into a window 72 of an attached plate 50 (shown in FIG. 2A), thereby advantageously providing a second locking mechanism between the spacer 10 and the plate 50. Advantageously, by providing secure first and second locking mechanisms between the spacer 10 and the plate 50, the plate and spacer will be kept securely together during any type of impaction of the plating system within the body.”, Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frame and the spacer of Kueenzi et al. to add a window in the left and right side walls of the frame and add a corresponding hump along the left and right side walls of the spacer as taught by Lawson et al. in order to provide the system with an added means for securing various sized spacers to the frame.
Claim(s) 7-9, 13-14 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueenzi et al. (US PG Pub No. 2010/0312346) in view of Hunt (US PG Pub No. 2014/0121776).
Regarding Claims 7, 8 as best understood & 9, Kueenzi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, except wherein the spacer is formed of multiple members secured to one another via pin members, wherein the spacer is formed of a first member, a second member and a third member that connected to each other horizontally, and wherein the spacer is configured to receive a cancellous plug therein. Kueenzi et al. does disclose in Paragraph [0028] that “the spacer 20 may include one or more windows or channels (not shown) designed to receive bone graft material. For example, the spacer 20 may include one or more vertical windows or channels (not shown) extending through the spacer 20 from the upper surface 30 to the lower surface 32 for insertion of bone graft material such that bone growth is promoted through the vertical windows or channels following implantation of the intervertebral implant 10. Alternatively or in addition, the spacer 20 may have one or more horizontal windows or channels (not shown) extending through the spacer 20 from the first lateral end 26 to the second lateral end 28 for receiving bone graft material.” Paragraph [0041] even further discloses that “Alternatively, incorporation of the split ring 110' of the third preferred embodiment may enable the surgeon to incorporate bone packing material as opposed to a pre-formed spacer 20 as described herein and as would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art.”
Hunt discloses a spacer (100, Fig. 1A-1B) comprising a truss structure defined by a plurality of interconnected pin members (102), including horizontal members (111, 112, Paragraphs [0031, 0035]), wherein “In some embodiments, the web structure of an implant (e.g., the external and internal struts of the implant) may also provide surface area for bone graft fusion. For example, the web structure extending throughout an implant may add additional surface areas (e.g., on the surface of the struts making up the implant) to fuse to the bone graft material and prevent bone graft material from loosening or migrating from the implant. In some embodiments, the web structure may also support bone in-growth. For example, when implanted, adjacent bone (e.g., adjacent vertebrae if the implant is used as a spinal implant) may grow over at least a portion of struts of the implant. The bone growth and engagement between the bone growth and the implant may further stabilize the implant.” (Paragraph [0045])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spacer of the system of Kueenzi et al. to comprise a truss structure defined by a plurality of interconnected pin members as taught by Hunt in order to allow the spacer to support bone in-growth and prevent bone graft material from loosening or migrating from the implant after implantation.
Regarding Claims 13-14 as best understood, Kueenzi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11, except wherein a first sidewall of the spacer comprises a first window and a second sidewall of the spacer comprises a second window, and wherein at least one of the first window and the second window is in the form of a lattice. Kueenzi et al. does disclose in Paragraph [0028] that “the spacer 20 may include one or more windows or channels (not shown) designed to receive bone graft material. For example, the spacer 20 may include one or more vertical windows or channels (not shown) extending through the spacer 20 from the upper surface 30 to the lower surface 32 for insertion of bone graft material such that bone growth is promoted through the vertical windows or channels following implantation of the intervertebral implant 10. Alternatively or in addition, the spacer 20 may have one or more horizontal windows or channels (not shown) extending through the spacer 20 from the first lateral end 26 to the second lateral end 28 for receiving bone graft material.” Paragraph [0041] even further discloses that “Alternatively, incorporation of the split ring 110' of the third preferred embodiment may enable the surgeon to incorporate bone packing material as opposed to a pre-formed spacer 20 as described herein and as would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art.”
Hunt discloses a spacer (100, Fig. 1A-1B) comprising a truss structure defined by a plurality of interconnected pin members (102), including horizontal members (111, 112, Paragraphs [0031, 0035]), wherein “In some embodiments, the web structure of an implant (e.g., the external and internal struts of the implant) may also provide surface area for bone graft fusion. For example, the web structure extending throughout an implant may add additional surface areas (e.g., on the surface of the struts making up the implant) to fuse to the bone graft material and prevent bone graft material from loosening or migrating from the implant. In some embodiments, the web structure may also support bone in-growth. For example, when implanted, adjacent bone (e.g., adjacent vertebrae if the implant is used as a spinal implant) may grow over at least a portion of struts of the implant. The bone growth and engagement between the bone growth and the implant may further stabilize the implant.” (Paragraph [0045])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spacer of the system of Kueenzi et al. to comprise a truss structure defined by a plurality of interconnected pin members and windows through sidewalls thereof as taught by Hunt in order to allow the spacer to support bone in-growth and prevent bone graft material from loosening or migrating from the implant after implantation.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Kueenzi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11, and further discloses wherein the spacer is made from a biocompatible material (Paragraph [0030]), “For example, the plate 40 may be formed of a metallic material such as, for example, a titanium or a titanium alloy, and the spacer 20 may be formed of a non-metallic material such as, for example, an allograft, a polymer, a bioresorbable material, a ceramic, etc. Alternatively, the plate 40 and the spacer 20 may be formed from the same material.” Kueenzi et al. does not disclose wherein the spacer is formed of at least a first member joined to a second member via a pin, and wherein the first member, second member and pin are all comprised of the same material. Kueenzi et al. does disclose in Paragraph [0030] that “The intervertebral implant 10 may be constructed of any suitable material or combination of materials including, but not limited to polymer (e.g. PEEK), titanium, titanium alloy, stainless steel, Nitinol, tantalum nitride (TaN), allograft bone, bioresorbable material, magnesium, composites, synthetic bone-welding polymers, etc. The plate 40 may be formed of a different material than the spacer 20. For example, the plate 40 may be formed of a metallic material such as, for example, a titanium or a titanium alloy, and the spacer 20 may be formed of a non-metallic material such as, for example, an allograft, a polymer, a bioresorbable material, a ceramic, etc. Alternatively, the plate 40 and the spacer 20 may be formed from the same material. For example, the plate 40 and the spacer 20 may both be constructed of tantalum nitride (TaN).” Kueenzi et al. further discloses in Paragraph [0028] that “the spacer 20 may include one or more windows or channels (not shown) designed to receive bone graft material. For example, the spacer 20 may include one or more vertical windows or channels (not shown) extending through the spacer 20 from the upper surface 30 to the lower surface 32 for insertion of bone graft material such that bone growth is promoted through the vertical windows or channels following implantation of the intervertebral implant 10. Alternatively or in addition, the spacer 20 may have one or more horizontal windows or channels (not shown) extending through the spacer 20 from the first lateral end 26 to the second lateral end 28 for receiving bone graft material.” Paragraph [0041] even further discloses that “Alternatively, incorporation of the split ring 110' of the third preferred embodiment may enable the surgeon to incorporate bone packing material as opposed to a pre-formed spacer 20 as described herein and as would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art.”
Hunt discloses a spacer (100, Fig. 1A-1B) comprising a truss structure defined by a plurality of interconnected pin members (102), including horizontal members (111, 112, Paragraphs [0031, 0035]), wherein “In some embodiments, the web structure of an implant (e.g., the external and internal struts of the implant) may also provide surface area for bone graft fusion. For example, the web structure extending throughout an implant may add additional surface areas (e.g., on the surface of the struts making up the implant) to fuse to the bone graft material and prevent bone graft material from loosening or migrating from the implant. In some embodiments, the web structure may also support bone in-growth. For example, when implanted, adjacent bone (e.g., adjacent vertebrae if the implant is used as a spinal implant) may grow over at least a portion of struts of the implant. The bone growth and engagement between the bone growth and the implant may further stabilize the implant.” (Paragraph [0045])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spacer of the system of Kueenzi et al. to comprise a truss structure defined by a plurality of interconnected pin members made from a first material as taught by Hunt in order to allow the spacer to support bone in-growth and prevent bone graft material from loosening or migrating from the implant after implantation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueenzi et al. (US PG Pub No. 2010/0312346) in view of McDonough et al. (US PG Pub No. 2010/0145459).
Regarding Claim 10, Kueenzi et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, except wherein the spacer is c-shaped. Kueenzi et al. further discloses in Paragraph [0028] that “the spacer 20 may include one or more windows or channels (not shown) designed to receive bone graft material. For example, the spacer 20 may include one or more vertical windows or channels (not shown) extending through the spacer 20 from the upper surface 30 to the lower surface 32 for insertion of bone graft material such that bone growth is promoted through the vertical windows or channels following implantation of the intervertebral implant 10. Alternatively or in addition, the spacer 20 may have one or more horizontal windows or channels (not shown) extending through the spacer 20 from the first lateral end 26 to the second lateral end 28 for receiving bone graft material.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a vertical window through the spacer which intersects a window through a side wall thereof would provide the spacer in a c-shape.
McDonough et al. discloses an implant system (10, Fig. 1C) comprising a frame (50, Fig. 1C) that forms a perimeter around a frame opening and a spacer (20) received in the frame opening, wherein the spacer comprises an opening formed through it vertically which intersects a side wall thereof, thus providing the spacer with a c-shape (Fig. 1C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spacer of the system of Kueenzi et al. to add a vertical central opening which intersects a proximal sidewall thereof so that the spacer defines a c-shape as taught by McDonough et al. in order to provide the spacer with a means for promoting increased bone ingrowth through the system after implantation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WEISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, KEVIN T. TRUONG, 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 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.
/JESSICA WEISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights