Obviousness

The following analysis of US patent 10426633 (referred to as "'633 patent") for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is based solely on the "Prior art" section provided in the patent text, specifically the "external-priority" documents, and explicit statements within the '633 patent regarding the disclosures of its related applications. It is noted that the "Prior art" references listed are earlier applications within the same patent family, originating from the same inventive entity. In a typical obviousness analysis, such references might be considered for other reasons (e.g., anticipation if identical, or 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if published before the current patent's effective filing date and claiming different subject matter). However, for this exercise, they are treated as the specified "prior art references" to be combined.

The '633 patent describes "Zero-profile expandable intervertebral spacer devices for distraction and spinal fusion and a universal tool for their placement and expansion." Key claimed features (inferred from the abstract and detailed description) include the zero-profile nature, expandability, various surgical approaches, multiple embodiments with unique expansion mechanisms (two with bi-directional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screws and five without), bone cavities for fusion, and a universal tool.

The "Prior art" section of the '633 patent lists the following related patents from which priority is claimed:

• US7704279B2 (priority claimed from US11/208,644, filed Aug. 23, 2005, which claims priority to U.S. provisional application No. 60/670,231, filed Apr. 12, 2005).
• US7846188B2 (priority claimed from US11/536,815, filed Sep. 29, 2006, which claims priority to U.S. provisional application No. 60/670,231, filed Apr. 12, 2005).
• US7942903B2 (priority claimed from US11/842,855, filed Aug. 21, 2007, which claims priority to U.S. provisional application No. 60/670,231, filed Apr. 12, 2005).

The '633 patent explicitly states that its "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" (which include the above patents) disclose:

1. The terminology "zero-profile" relating to spinal fusion devices.
2. Zero-profile non-expandable and expandable stand-alone intervertebral spinal fusion device embodiments with incorporated BDFT screws.
3. A universal tool and its adaptability, including to "sliding boxes."
4. One specific embodiment with BDFT screws, featuring "two sliding triangular bases to house two screws driven in two opposing directions which can be expanded in two simultaneous directions, height and depth, by turning a built-in screw adjuster." This specific description directly corresponds to Embodiment I of the '633 patent.

Therefore, the core concepts of zero-profile expandable intervertebral spacers, BDFT screws, and a universal tool, including a specific sliding base mechanism (Embodiment I), are already disclosed in the cited prior art within the same patent family. The '633 patent's advancements, as described in its summary, lie in:

• "improved contoured body with tapered edges to more precisely insert into and conform to the biconcave disc space" (exemplified by Embodiment II).
• "more advanced ZP-EIS devices without accompanying BDFT screws each with very unique calibrated expandable mechanisms" (Embodiments III-VII: scissors jack, tapered thread, dry anchor, modified wedge, worm drive).

Based on this, the following combinations of prior art (as defined by the prompt) would render certain aspects of the '633 patent obvious:

Obviousness of "improved contoured body with tapered edges" (Embodiment II)

1. Prior Art Reference 1: US7704279B2 (or any of the earlier related patents/applications mentioned in the '633 patent's "Cross-Reference to Related Applications"). These references disclose a "zero-profile expandable intervertebral spacer device with incorporated BDFT screws" and the general concept of an expandable device with "sliding triangular bases" for height and depth adjustment.
2. General Knowledge in the Art: It is common knowledge in the field of surgical implant design that tapering or contouring the leading edges of an implant facilitates easier, less traumatic insertion into biological spaces. Many existing spinal implants, whether fusion cages or other intervertebral devices, incorporate such features to improve surgical maneuverability and minimize tissue disruption.
3. Motivation to Combine: A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in spinal implant design, upon reviewing the expandable intervertebral spacer devices disclosed in the earlier Moskowitz family patents, would be motivated to improve the ease of insertion. The '633 patent itself identifies issues with existing non-expandable spacers requiring "forceful distraction to allow placement of an imperfectly fitting spacer". The explicit goal of the '633 patent to achieve a "more precisely tailored complimentary fit between spacer and disc space" and "expand gradually in a calibrated manner" further highlights the desire for improved fit and less forceful insertion. Incorporating a "contoured body with tapered edges" into the known expandable spacer, as shown in Embodiment II, would be an obvious design modification to achieve smoother entry and better anatomical conformity, building upon the existing expandable spacer technology.

Obviousness of ZP-EIS Devices with Specific "Unique Calibrated Expandable Mechanisms" (Embodiments III-VII, without BDFT screws)

1. Prior Art Reference 1: US7704279B2 (or any of the earlier related patents/applications). These references disclose the fundamental concept of "zero-profile expandable intervertebral spacer devices." They also teach that such devices can be "calibrated expandable" for distraction and fusion.
2. General Mechanical Engineering and Medical Device Design Knowledge: The specific expansion mechanisms described in Embodiments III-VII (scissors jack, tapered thread, dry anchor, modified wedge, and worm drive) are well-established mechanical principles for achieving controlled linear or angular displacement and expansion. The patent classifications themselves (e.g., A61F2002/30523 for meshing gear teeth, A61F2002/30507 for threaded locking members, A61F2002/30266 for wedge-shaped elements, A61F2002/30471 for hinged linkage mechanisms) indicate that these types of mechanical connections and shapes are known in the broader field of prostheses and medical devices. The '633 patent's description of a "worm drive" mechanism is directly classified under A61F2002/30525, indicating its general knowledge in prostheses.
3. Motivation to Combine: A POSITA in spinal implant design, familiar with the expandable intervertebral spacer concept from the earlier Moskowitz patents, would be motivated to develop alternative or "more advanced" mechanisms of expansion, particularly for devices intended to be used without BDFT screws. The objective, as stated in the '633 patent, is to "incrementally and uniformly separate and distract the vertebral bodies" with "nuanced, fine-tuned incremental and calibrated distraction". Given this goal, exploring and adapting known, reliable mechanical expansion methods (like those used in jacks, clamps, or other adjustable devices) to create new "calibrated expandable mechanisms" would be a predictable engineering choice. The motivation would be to offer a variety of expansion options to surgeons, possibly to optimize performance for different anatomical locations, surgical approaches, or patient-specific needs, all while maintaining the "zero-profile" and expandable characteristics already taught in the prior art. The fact that the '633 patent presents several such "unique mechanically designed mechanism[s] of incremental expansion" suggests that these are logical variations on the core expandable spacer concept.