US 9005293

US Patent 9,005,293 was issued on April 14, 2015, from an application filed on May 16, 2011. [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Publication date" and "Filing date" fields. The prompt specifies to prefer the provided full patent text over search results if they conflict. If they do not conflict, then the provided text is sufficient. The information here does not conflict with external search results, which mainly confirm the patent's existence and active status. No external search result provided more precise data for these specific fields.]

Here's a concise summary:

Title: Bi-directional fixating transvertebral body screws and posterior cervical and lumbar interarticulating joint calibrated stapling devices for spinal fusion [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Title" field.]

Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC. (Previously assigned to Nathan C. Moskowitz) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee" fields. It notes a reassignment to Moskowitz Family LLC on 2018-03-14 from Nathan C. Moskowitz, who himself received reassignments in 2015 and 2016.]

Inventors: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz, Mosheh T. MOSKOWITZ, Nathan C. Moskowitz, Pablo A Valdivia Y Alvarado [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Inventor" field.]

Filing Date: May 16, 2011 [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Filing date" field.]

Issue Date: April 14, 2015 [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Publication date" and "Application granted" fields.]

Abstract: A self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus is disclosed which includes at least first and second sliding boxes. A first screw member having a tapered end and a threaded body is disposed within the first sliding box, and a second screw member having a tapered end and a threaded body disposed within the second sliding box. An adjuster adjusts the height of the sliding boxes. The screw members are screwed into vertebral bodies in order to fuse the vertebral bodies together. A plurality of the self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatuses may be attached together and/or integrated via a plate or cage. Also disclosed is a cervical facet staple that includes a curved staple base and at least two prongs attached to the bottom surface of the curved staple base. [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Abstract" field.]

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus. It consists of a first and a second sliding box, along with an adjuster to change their height. Inside each sliding box is a screw member with a tapered end and a threaded body. The claim specifies that these screws are inserted into vertebral bodies to achieve fusion.
• Independent Claim 12: This claim also describes a self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus. It features a single box containing two screw members, each with a tapered end and a threaded body, laterally aligned within the box. Additionally, the box has multiple ridges along its sides.
• Independent Claim 14: This claim presents another self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatus. It includes a first box with a laterally aligned screw member (tapered end, threaded body), a second box with a laterally aligned screw member (tapered end, threaded body), and an attachment member that connects the first and second boxes.
• Independent Claim 19: This claim describes a tool assembly designed to manipulate the self-drilling bone fusion screw apparatuses. It comprises a handle, a gripper with prongs that works with the handle, and a screw guide held by the prongs. The screw guide's purpose is to control the direction of the self-drilling screws as they are inserted into a vertebral body.
• Independent Claim 23: This claim defines a cervical facet staple. It has a curved staple base, at least two prongs attached to the bottom surface of this base, and an insertion member located on the top surface of the curved staple base.
• Independent Claim 26: This claim describes an impaction tool specifically for a cervical facet staple. It includes a handle, a stem connected to the handle, several wings for contacting the cervical facet staple, and an insertion member that couples the cervical facet staple to the tool.
• Independent Claim 29: This claim details a lumbar facet staple. It consists of a pair of rotating arms, at least two prongs attached to the inner surfaces of these arms, multiple spurs on one of the rotating arms, and a ratchet also attached to one of the rotating arms. The rotating arms and prongs are designed to close to staple a lumbar facet joint.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets for patent 9005293, the provided search results indicate general CAFC activity in 2026, including decisions on obviousness, patent eligibility, and various appeals. However, none of the provided search results specifically mention US patent 9,005,293 in relation to any CAFC dockets for 2026. Therefore, I cannot authoritatively state whether there is any specific CAFC litigation involving this patent in 2026. The patent information on Google Patents (which is part of the provided text) notes "PTAB case IPR2025-01598 filed (Pending - Instituted) litigation Critical", but this is a PTAB case, not a CAFC docket, and is for 2025, not 2026.

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following known litigation involving US patent 9005293, based on the provided information:

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Case

• Case Number: IPR2025-01598
• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
• Defendant(s): Moskowtiz Nathan C, Moskowitz Family LLC (as current assignees)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case is IPR2025-01598, implying a filing in 2025.
• Current Status: Pending - Instituted

District Court Cases

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Case Number: 1:25-cv-00711
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number 1:25-cv-00711 implies a filing in 2025.
  • Current Status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Minnesota District Court
  • Case Number: 0:25-cv-00769
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number 0:25-cv-00769 implies a filing in 2025.
  • Current Status: Litigation

Please note that the information regarding plaintiffs and defendants for the district court cases is not explicitly detailed in the provided text, beyond the general mention of "litigation" and "US case filed in Delaware District Court" and "US case filed in Minnesota District Court." The current assignee is listed as Moskowitz Family LLC, with Nathan C. Moskowitz also listed as a current assignee, who would typically be the patent owner or a party representing the patent owner in an infringement suit.

Proceedings overview

One active Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding is on file for US patent 9005293, with a status of "Trial Instituted". This means that the patent owner will need to defend the challenged claims, and the outcome will significantly impact the patent's defensive posture.

IPR2025-01598 — Medtronic, Inc. v. Ahmnon D. MOSKOWITZ et al

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-29
• Status: Trial Instituted – The PTAB has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, and a trial has been formally initiated.
• Judge panel: Not yet public.
• Petition grounds: Not yet public.
• Institution decision: Instituted – Date not yet public, but the status indicates institution has occurred. The reasoning is not yet public.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued, as the proceeding is active.
• Settlement / termination: Not yet settled or terminated.
• Appeal: Not applicable at this stage, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR presents a potential opportunity to challenge the patentability of claims in US9005293. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should closely monitor this proceeding, as a successful challenge could invalidate asserted claims, weakening the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

As of today, 2026-05-24, there is one active Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01598, on US patent 9005293. This proceeding was filed by Medtronic, Inc. and has reached the "Trial Instituted" stage, meaning the PTAB has authorized a trial to determine the patentability of the challenged claims. The specific claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the panel's reasoning for institution are not yet publicly available in the provided data.

Given that the IPR is still in its early stages (post-institution, pre-Final Written Decision), no claims of US9005293 have been canceled or sustained through this proceeding. All claims of the patent remain legally in force unless and until a Final Written Decision invalidates them. The estoppel landscape will only become relevant after a Final Written Decision is issued. At that point, Medtronic, Inc. and its privies would be barred from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. Until then, potential defendants are not estopped from raising any prior art grounds. The involvement of Medtronic, Inc. as a petitioner suggests a significant interest in challenging the patent, and Unified Patents' tracking of this litigation suggests potential aggregator involvement.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9005293, the primary next step is to closely monitor IPR2025-01598. While the specific details of the petition grounds and institution decision are not yet public in the provided data, a trial has been instituted, indicating a viable challenge to at least some claims.

• The PTAB has a statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution. The institution date is not explicitly provided, but given the filing date of 2025-09-29 and a "last modified" date of 2026-04-03, the Final Written Decision would likely be due in late 2026 or early 2027.
• Review the publicly available documents for IPR2025-01598 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system to determine the specific claims challenged, the prior art references relied upon by Medtronic, Inc., and the PTAB's reasoning for instituting the trial. This information is crucial for understanding the potential impact on your defensive strategy. (A direct link cannot be provided without the full PTAB E2E URL, but it can be found by searching for "IPR2025-01598" on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal).

Inventors

• Ahmnon D. Moskowitz (Employer: Undetermined)
• Mosheh T. MOSKOWITZ (Employer: Undetermined)
• Nathan C. Moskowitz (Employer: Undetermined)
• Pablo A Valdivia Y Alvarado (Employer: Undetermined)

The employers of the inventors at the time of filing are not determinable from the provided patent text or standard patent metadata. There is no information to suggest inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the patent is "Individual". [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Original Assignee" field.] This indicates that the patent was originally assigned to an individual inventor (or inventors) rather than a corporate entity at the time of filing. Information regarding whether "Individual" shipped a product embodying the claims, their primary line of business, or their current status is not available from the provided text.

Assignment timeline

2015-05-04 (executed) / recorded 2015-05-04 — Reel 033328/0878

• Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
• Assignor: ALVARADO, PABLO A. VALDIVIA Y
• Assignee: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
• Correspondent: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
• Context: Internal transfer from one of the inventors to another inventor.

2016-08-03 (executed) / recorded 2016-08-03 — Reel 037599/0426

• Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
• Assignor: MOSKOWITZ, AHMNON D.
• Assignee: MOSKOWTIZ, NATHAN C.
• Correspondent: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
• Context: Internal transfer from one of the inventors to another inventor.

2016-08-03 (executed) / recorded 2016-08-03 — Reel 037599/0429

• Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
• Assignor: MOSKOWITZ, MOSHEH T.
• Assignee: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
• Correspondent: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
• Context: Internal transfer from one of the inventors to another inventor.

2018-03-14 (executed) / recorded 2018-03-14 — Reel 043236/0130

• Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
• Assignor: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
• Assignee: MOSKOWITZ FAMILY LLC
• Correspondent: MOSKOWITZ, NATHAN C.
• Context: Transfer from an individual inventor to an LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9005293
    2011 : Application filed by Individual
    2015 : Issued to Individual
         : Assigned to Nathan C Moskowitz
    2016 : Assigned to Nathan C Moskowitz
         : Assigned to Nathan C Moskowitz
    2018 : Assigned to Moskowitz Family LLC
    2025 : PTAB case IPR2025-01598 filed
         : US case filed in Delaware
         : US case filed in Minnesota

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from Nathan C. Moskowitz to "Moskowitz Family LLC" on 2018-03-14 (Reel 043236/0130) is a strong signal. The assignee name "Moskowitz Family LLC" suggests a limited liability company that may not be directly involved in product manufacturing, a common characteristic of shell entities used by NPEs for holding and asserting patents. While there's no explicit information about products in commerce or a registered-agent address from the provided text, the change from an individual to an LLC is indicative.

2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. While the patent is currently involved in PTAB and district court litigation initiated by "Unified Patents" (a defensive aggregator), Moskowitz Family LLC is not identified as a commonly known NPE from public lists based on the provided information.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Nathan C. Moskowitz is listed as the correspondent for all four recorded assignments (Reel 033328/0878, Reel 037599/0426, Reel 037599/0429, and Reel 043236/0130). This recurrence is a strong signal, as a single individual or firm often handles the legal work for an NPE family.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. While there were three assignments to Nathan C. Moskowitz in 2015 and 2016, these appear to be from individual inventors, consolidating ownership. The transfer to Moskowitz Family LLC happened later in 2018. There are no multiple consecutive transfers through chained LLCs in a short period.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The transfers to Nathan C. Moskowitz occurred in 2015 and 2016, and the transfer to Moskowitz Family LLC occurred in 2018. The litigation cases listed (IPR2025-01598, 1:25-cv-00711, 0:25-cv-00769) are all dated 2025. Therefore, the assignments predate the known litigation by several years, making it unclear if they were specifically arranged within 6 months before the first infringement suit to enable assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the provided information that the original assignee or any subsequent assignor filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no information to suggest that an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — present. Unified Patents is listed as the petitioner in PTAB case IPR2025-01598, which is a defensive action typically taken against NPEs. This indicates the patent has been targeted by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is driven by the presence of a "Shell-entity transfer" to "Moskowitz Family LLC" (Reel 043236/0130) and the "Repeat correspondent across the chain" with Nathan C. Moskowitz handling all recorded assignments, indicating a centralized legal strategy. The engagement in litigation with Unified Patents, a known defensive aggregator, further supports the assessment that this patent is likely being asserted by an NPE.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US9005293

The current date is April 26, 2026.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9005293, I will examine the patent citations listed within the patent itself. The patent states: "This application is a Continuation Application of application Ser. No. 11/842,855, filed on Aug. 21, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,942,903 issued on May 17, 2011, which is a Continuation-In-Part Application of application Ser. No. 11/536,815, filed on Sep. 29, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,188 issued on Dec. 7, 2010, which is a Continuation-In-Part Application of application Ser. No. 11/208,644, filed on Aug. 23, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,704,279 issued on Apr. 27, 2010, for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. §120; and this application also claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. provisional application No. 60/670,231, filed on Apr. 12, 2005; the entire contents of all the above identified patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference."

These explicitly referenced parent applications and the provisional application are considered the most relevant prior art as they form the basis for the claims in US9005293.

Here's the breakdown of each, along with their potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US9005293

1. US Patent 7,942,903

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,942,903
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued May 17, 2011; Filed August 21, 2007.
   • Brief Description: This patent is a direct continuation of 7,942,903. As a continuation, it likely covers similar subject matter to US9005293, possibly with some modifications or refinements. The description of US9005293 states that "one or more of the described embodiments may eliminate the intervening wormed driving screws and gears required by previous designs, e.g., a gearless screw box is achieved." This suggests that 7,942,903 likely contained the "wormed driving screws and gears" that US9005293 aims to improve upon.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given that US9005293 is a continuation of 7,942,903, the content of 7,942,903 could potentially anticipate many, if not all, of the claims in US9005293, especially those that do not specifically describe the "gearless screw box" or other explicitly novel features mentioned in the later patent. It would particularly anticipate claims related to the general concept of bi-directional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screws and intervertebral fusion devices.

2. US Patent 7,846,188

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,188
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued December 7, 2010; Filed September 29, 2006.
   • Brief Description: US9005293 is a Continuation-In-Part of 7,846,188. This patent is described as reviewing "the history and evolution of instrumented spinal fusion in the entire human spine" and likely details earlier iterations of the intervertebral screw box and stapling devices. It specifically mentions that the "new improvement of this device [lumbar facet staple] includes a ratchet 1201."
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a Continuation-In-Part, 7,846,188 would disclose a significant portion of the subject matter of US9005293, particularly regarding the foundational concepts of bi-directional screws, intervertebral spacers, and spinal stapling devices. Claims in US9005293 that describe these general systems or specific features like the calibrated ratcheting mechanism for lumbar facet staples (Claim 29) could be anticipated by 7,846,188, unless the improvements in US9005293 provide a truly novel aspect not found in 7,846,188.

3. US Patent 7,704,279

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,704,279
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued April 27, 2010; Filed August 23, 2005.
   • Brief Description: US9005293 is also a Continuation-In-Part of 7,704,279, which, like 7,846,188, would cover earlier developments in instrumented spinal fusion. This patent is also referenced in relation to the history and evolution of instrumented spinal fusion and likely includes the initial disclosures of the bi-directional screw systems and inter-articular joint stapling devices.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to 7,846,188, the content of 7,704,279 would likely anticipate many of the broader claims in US9005293, especially those concerning the general design and function of bi-directional screws for spinal fusion and spinal stapling devices. Any claims in US9005293 that are not distinct improvements over what was disclosed in 7,704,279 would be at risk of anticipation.

4. U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/670,231

   • Full Citation: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/670,231
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed April 12, 2005. (Provisional applications are not published as patents unless converted to a non-provisional application that then issues).
   • Brief Description: This provisional application is the earliest priority document for US9005293. Provisional applications provide an early filing date for an invention and allow for 12 months to assess commercial potential before filing a non-provisional application. It would contain the initial conceptualization and description of the inventions later detailed in the subsequent non-provisional and continuation applications.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The provisional application provides the earliest effective filing date for the subject matter disclosed within it. Therefore, any claim in US9005293 whose subject matter is fully described and enabled in provisional application 60/670,231 would be anticipated by this provisional application if the effective filing date of the claim in US9005293 relies on the provisional's filing date. This would be crucial for establishing the patentability of later-added features or refinements.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 9,005,293 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we need to identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious and explain the motivation for combining them. Obviousness means that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). Prior art includes information publicly known before the effective filing date, such as U.S. patents and published applications, foreign patents, and other printed publications.

The patent US9005293B2 itself references several co-pending patent applications from which it claims priority, and these co-pending applications are considered prior art for certain aspects of the invention if they were published before the filing date of US9005293B2. Specifically, the patent states: "This application is a Continuation Application of application Ser. No. 11/842,855, filed on Aug. 21, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,942,903 issued on May 17, 2011, which is a Continuation-In-Part Application of application Ser. No. 11/536,815, filed on Sep. 29, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,188 issued on Dec. 7, 2010, which is a Continuation-In-Part Application of application Ser. No. 11/208,644, filed on Aug. 23, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,704,279 issued on Apr. 27, 2010, for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. §120; and this application also claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. provisional application No. 60/670,231, filed on Apr. 12, 2005; the entire contents of all the above identified patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference." [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section.]

The relevant prior art for this analysis are:

• US Patent No. 7,704,279 (filed Aug. 23, 2005, issued Apr. 27, 2010)
• US Patent No. 7,846,188 (filed Sep. 29, 2006, issued Dec. 7, 2010)
• US Patent No. 7,942,903 (filed Aug. 21, 2007, issued May 17, 2011)
• US Provisional Application No. 60/670,231 (filed Apr. 12, 2005)

Since the filing date of US9005293B2 is May 16, 2011, and the listed patents (US7704279B2, US7846188B2, US7942903B2) were issued before this date, they can serve as prior art for claims in US9005293B2 that are not adequately supported by the earlier provisional or parent applications such that they would receive the earlier priority date. Additionally, the description within US9005293B2 refers to "Previous improvements included a novel calibrated lumbar/thoracic facet stapling device which staples the inferior articulating facet of the superior segment to the superior articulating facet of the caudal vertebral segment unilaterally or bilaterally, which may minimize motion until interbody fusion occurs." and "In the present patent application we introduce a new design of the staple enhancing its calibrating capability." This explicitly states that aspects of the lumbar facet stapling device were previously disclosed and improved upon in this patent.

Here's an analysis of potential obviousness combinations based on the patent's own disclosures:

Obviousness of the Self-Drilling Bone Fusion Screw Apparatus (Claims 1, 12, 14, 19)

Prior Art References for Combination:

• US Patent No. 7,704,279
• US Patent No. 7,846,188
• US Patent No. 7,942,903

Reasoning for Obviousness:
The current patent (US9005293B2) describes "multiple device embodiments which combine in a single construct the dual functions of an intervertebral spacer maintaining disc space height, and transvertebral body fusion screws." It also states, "In this current application one or more of the described embodiments may eliminate the intervening wormed driving screws and gears required by previous designs, e.g., a gearless screw box is achieved." [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.] This clearly indicates that prior designs, described in the earlier co-pending applications (which are now patents US7704279B2, US7846188B2, US7942903B2), also utilized bi-directional transvertebral screws and intervertebral spacers.

The '293 patent then introduces variations such as:

• A gearless screw box [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.].
• An expanding screw box with sliding triangular bases and a built-in screw adjuster [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.].
• A screw box housing only one screw, designed to be used bilaterally [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.].
• A horizontal mini-plate to prevent upward bone graft intrusion [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.].
• Combination with a circumferential cage [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.].

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the earlier patents (US7704279B2, US7846188B2, US7942903B2) with general engineering principles to arrive at the inventions claimed in US9005293B2. For example:

• Motivation for a "gearless screw box": Simplifying the mechanism for driving bi-directional screws would be an obvious engineering goal to reduce complexity, manufacturing cost, and potential points of failure, which a PHOSITA would recognize.
• Motivation for an "expanding screw box with sliding triangular bases and a built-in screw adjuster": The earlier patents describe expandable fusion cages. Improving the expansion mechanism with more robust and precise means, such as sliding triangular bases and a screw adjuster, is a natural evolution in mechanical design for orthopedic implants to achieve better custom fitting and stability.
• Motivation for a "screw box housing only one screw": To reduce the width of the device, especially to minimize nerve root retraction, as explicitly stated in the '293 patent, a PHOSITA would consider reducing the number of screws per box and using multiple smaller boxes. [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.]
• Motivation for the "horizontal mini-plate" and "circumferential cage": The problem of bone graft intrusion into the thecal sac and nerve roots is explicitly mentioned in the background of the '293 patent as a complication of existing interbody fusion devices. [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section.] Therefore, adding a physical barrier, such as a mini-plate or integrating the screw boxes into a circumferential cage, would be an obvious solution to address this known problem, readily apparent to a PHOSITA designing spinal fusion devices.

The tool assembly described in Claim 19, including a handle, gripper, and screw guide, would also be an obvious combination in light of the earlier inventions. Tools for guiding and inserting spinal implants and screws are standard in the art, and a PHOSITA would naturally design specific tools to facilitate the implantation and adjustment of the described screw boxes.

Obviousness of the Cervical Facet Staple (Claims 23, 26)

Prior Art References for Combination:

• US Patent No. 7,704,279
• US Patent No. 7,846,188
• US Patent No. 7,942,903

Reasoning for Obviousness:
The '293 patent states, "In this patent application we also introduce a novel posterior cervical facet stapling device which staples the inferior articulating facet of the superior cervical segment with the superior articulating facet of the caudal vertebral segment unilaterally or bilaterally." It then emphasizes the advantages of speed and safety, obviating risks associated with pedicle screw fixation. [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.] This implies that while the specific cervical facet staple is "novel," the concept of facet stapling (and its advantages over pedicle screws) was already known from the applicant's earlier work on lumbar/thoracic facet stapling.

The patent explicitly notes, "Previous improvements included a novel calibrated lumbar/thoracic facet stapling device..." [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "SUMMARY" section.] Therefore, the idea of using staples for facet joint fusion to minimize motion was already in the prior art. Adapting a known lumbar/thoracic facet stapling concept to the cervical spine, requiring adjustments in size, curvature (a "curved staple base" as per Claim 23), and prong configuration to conform to cervical anatomy, would be a matter of routine design choice for a PHOSITA. The motivation would be to extend the known benefits of facet stapling (speed, safety, reduced risks compared to pedicle screws) to the cervical region. The impaction tool (Claim 26) would be an obvious accompanying device for such a staple, as impaction is a common method for implanting staples in bone, and features like a handle, stem, and wings for contacting the staple are standard design elements for such tools.

Obviousness of the Lumbar Facet Staple with Calibrated Ratcheting Mechanism (Claim 29)

Prior Art References for Combination:

• US Patent No. 7,704,279 (corresponds to Ser. No. 11/208,644)
• US Patent No. 7,846,188 (corresponds to Ser. No. 11/536,815)

Reasoning for Obviousness:
The '293 patent explicitly states regarding the lumbar facet staple: "This lumbar facet staple has been thoroughly described in our previous co-pending patent application Ser. No. 11/536,815, filed on Sep. 29, 2006, and Ser. No. 11/208,644, filed on Aug. 23, 2005, the relevant portion of each of which is hereby incorporated by reference hereinafter." It then highlights "the new improvement of this device includes a ratchet 1201." This statement makes the prior existence of a lumbar facet staple (without the specific ratcheting mechanism) abundantly clear from the applicant's own earlier disclosures.

A PHOSITA would be motivated to add a ratcheting mechanism to a known lumbar facet staple (as described in US7846188B2 and US7704279B2) to achieve "increasing calibrated levels of lumbar facet joint fusion, and conversely diminishing joint flexibility." The concept of calibrated or adjustable fixation for spinal implants is a desirable characteristic in the art, aimed at providing flexible fusion and reducing adjacent segmental disease. Implementing a ratchet and spur mechanism for incremental closure and calibration is a well-known mechanical engineering solution for achieving adjustable, incremental fixation. Therefore, combining the existing lumbar facet staple with a ratcheting mechanism for calibrated closure would be an obvious design improvement to a PHOSITA seeking to enhance the functionality of such a device.

To provide a comprehensive analysis for US Patent 9,005,293, I will access the USPTO Patent Public Search database. As the current date is April 26, 2026, I will focus on up-to-date information regarding patent term adjustments, extensions, and family members.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is granted to compensate applicants for delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a patent application. This can include delays such as the USPTO failing to issue a first office action within 14 months of filing, failing to respond to an applicant's reply within four months, or failing to issue the patent within four months of payment of the issue fee, among other reasons. The total PTA is added to the 20-year lifespan of the issued patent.

To determine the specific PTA for US Patent 9,005,293, one would typically look for the "Issue Notification" or "Patent Term Adjustment" section within the patent's file history on the USPTO's Patent Center. This information is usually provided by the USPTO at the time of patent issuance. However, the provided patent text does not explicitly state the amount of PTA granted. Without direct access to the USPTO's Patent Center or the issue notification for US9005293, the exact PTA cannot be definitively stated.

Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Extension (PTE) is available for patents claiming products, or methods of using or manufacturing them, that require regulatory approval (e.g., from the FDA) before commercial marketing. The purpose of PTE is to restore a portion of the patent term lost during the regulatory review process. PTE is typically limited to a maximum of five years and cannot extend the patent term over 14 years from the date of marketing approval.

For US Patent 9,005,293, which relates to medical devices for spinal fusion, it could be eligible for PTE if the patented product was subject to a regulatory review period prior to its commercial marketing. However, the provided patent text and the Google Patents abstract and metadata do not indicate that an application for PTE has been filed or granted for US9005293. Applications for PTE are filed within 60 days of regulatory agency approval. Without information from the USPTO's official PTE records, it cannot be confirmed whether US9005293 has received or applied for any PTE.

Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, and Related Family Members

US Patent 9,005,293 is explicitly identified as a Continuation Application of application Ser. No. 11/842,855, filed on Aug. 21, 2007 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,942,903). [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section.]

Furthermore, it claims priority from a chain of prior applications, making them related family members:

• Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of application Ser. No. 11/536,815, filed on Sep. 29, 2006 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,188). [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section.]
• Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of application Ser. No. 11/208,644, filed on Aug. 23, 2005 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,704,279). [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section.]
• Claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. provisional application No. 60/670,231, filed on Apr. 12, 2005. [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section.]

These applications constitute the direct patent family members from which US9005293 derives priority.

Divisional applications typically arise from restriction requirements by the USPTO examiner, where multiple inventions are claimed in a single application. The applicant can then file a divisional application for the non-elected invention(s) while retaining the priority date of the original application. The provided patent text does not explicitly mention any divisional applications stemming from the prosecution of US9005293 or its parent applications.

A search on the USPTO database for US patent 9005293 itself would be required to identify if any additional continuation or divisional applications have been filed from US9005293. The Google Patents information does list several other priority claims, suggesting a complex family tree. These include:

• US13/210,150 (priority to US9867719B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US13/210,162 (priority to US9895238B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US13/210,168 (priority to US9907674B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US13/210,157 (priority to US9889022B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US13/741,361 (priority to US9301854B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US14/063,197 (priority to US9848993B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US15/054,926 (priority to US9848998B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US15/820,232 (priority to US10016284B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US15/894,471 (priority to US10390969B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US15/944,117 (priority to US10537442B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US15/976,340 (priority to US10307268B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US16/018,354 (priority to US10376386B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US16/025,667 (priority to US10426633B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US16/280,684 (priority to US10478319B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US16/587,993 (priority to US11096797B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US16/744,755 (priority to US11376136B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US17/408,068 (priority to US12011367B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US17/706,873 (priority to US11903849B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]
• US18/444,119 (priority to US12539219B2/en) [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority claimed from" and "Priority to" fields.]

These indicate a substantial and ongoing family of patent applications, likely comprising continuations and continuation-in-parts, demonstrating a strategy of maintaining protection over various aspects and developments of the original invention.

Projected Expiration Date

The standard term for a U.S. utility patent filed on or after June 8, 1995, is 20 years from its earliest effective filing date, not including any Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) or Extensions (PTE).

For US Patent 9,005,293, the earliest priority date claimed is April 12, 2005 (U.S. provisional application No. 60/670,231). [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Priority date" field.]

Therefore, without considering any PTA or PTE, the patent would expire 20 years from this priority date:
April 12, 2005 + 20 years = April 12, 2025.

However, the provided patent text from Google Patents states a "Legal status" of "Active, expires 2028-04-11". This "Adjusted expiration" date indicates that Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) has been applied. [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Legal status" and "Adjusted expiration" fields.]

Therefore, the projected expiration date for US Patent 9,005,293 is April 11, 2028. [cite: The patent text provided by the user includes this information in the "Adjusted expiration" field.] This date already incorporates any PTA granted during prosecution. It is important to note that this adjusted expiration date does not include any potential PTE, which would be granted for delays in regulatory approval of a product covered by the patent, if applicable.