US 12011367

Here's a concise summary of US patent 12011367:

US Patent 12011367: Expandable Intervertebral Device

• Title: Expandable intervertebral device
• Assignee: Moskowitz Family LLC
• Inventors: Ahmnon D. Moskowitz, Mosheh T. Moskowitz, Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado, Eric Sugalski, Nathan C. Moskowitz, David Schoon
• Filing Date: August 20, 2021 (Application number US17/408,068)
• Issue Date: June 18, 2024
• Abstract: The patent describes a unique, universal Zero-Profile Expandable Intervertebral Spacer (ZP-EIS) device designed for spinal fusion and distraction. It can be inserted via various surgical approaches (anterior, anterolateral, lateral, far lateral, or posterior). The patent provides multiple ZP-EIS embodiments, each with distinct calibrated expansion mechanisms. Two embodiments include bi-directional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screws, while five others do not. The patent also discloses a universal tool for implanting and expanding these intervertebral devices.

Legal Status Note: The Google Patents entry indicates the legal status as "Expired - Lifetime, expires 2026-03-15". This presents a contradictory statement, as "Lifetime" typically implies the patent is in force for its full term, while the explicit expiration date of March 15, 2026, suggests it has expired (prior to the current date of April 26, 2026). Given the explicit expiration date, the patent is considered expired as of March 15, 2026.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes an expandable spinal fusion device with a top and bottom part that move apart to expand the device. It includes at least one internal guide for a screw and a rotation screw to drive the expansion. Both the top and bottom parts have external surfaces for contacting spinal bones and a hollow space (bone cavity) for bone fusion material. The device also has a tapered edge to help with insertion into the disc space.
• Claim 10: This claim outlines an expandable spinal fusion device similar to Claim 1, with a top and bottom housing that move relative to each other for expansion, at least one internal screw guide, bone-contacting surfaces, and a bone cavity. The key distinguishing feature is a "worm drive mechanism" for expansion, which uses a worm gear that engages a spur gear, with the spur gear connected to the top housing.
• Claim 11: This claim describes a "universal tool" used for intervertebral devices. It comprises a handle, a gripper with multiple prongs, a screw guide (held by the prongs) to direct self-drilling screws into vertebral bodies, and an Allen key for expanding the intervertebral devices.
• Claim 12: This claim specifies an expandable spinal fusion device featuring a "scissors jack expansion mechanism." Similar to Claim 1, it has expandable top and bottom housings, at least one internal screw guide, bone-contacting surfaces, and a bone cavity. The scissors jack mechanism uses a lead screw to linearly push a separation block, which is hinged to an internal linkage arm, causing the top and bottom housings to separate.
• Claim 13: This claim details an expandable spinal fusion device that uses a "tapered thread mechanism of expansion." Like Claim 1, it includes expandable top and bottom housings, at least one internal screw guide, bone-contacting surfaces, and a bone cavity. The tapered thread mechanism involves a rotation screw that allows the top and bottom housings to rotate relative to each other around pins.
• Claim 14: This claim describes an expandable spinal fusion device incorporating an "anchor mechanism of expansion." It shares the core features of expandable top and bottom housings, at least one internal screw guide, bone-contacting surfaces, and a bone cavity. The anchor mechanism employs a lead screw that moves a "translation nut" sideways. This nut is connected to at least two linkage bars, which then push against the top housing to expand the device.
• Claim 15: This claim covers an expandable spinal fusion device with a "modified wedge expansion mechanism." It includes the standard expandable top and bottom housings, at least one internal screw guide, bone-contacting surfaces, and a bone cavity. The modified wedge mechanism utilizes a lead screw that causes a "wedge-shaped translation nut" to move laterally. This wedge-shaped nut then pushes against an inner tapered surface of the top housing, forcing the top housing to rotate away from the bottom housing.

USPTO Database Search:
A search on the USPTO website for patent number 12011367 (literal interpretation) confirms the existence of patent US12011367B2, titled "Expandable intervertebral device", issued on June 18, 2024. The information aligns with the details extracted from Google Patents. No results for similar numbers were returned.

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:
A search of the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) dockets for the year 2026 regarding patent US12011367 (literal interpretation) did not return any direct results as of April 26, 2026. However, the Google Patents information indicates a "PTAB case IPR2026-00162 filed (Pending)" and a "US case filed in Minnesota District Court (0:25-cv-00769)", both related to this patent family. While these are not CAFC dockets directly, they indicate active litigation related to the patent family. Since the query specifically asked for CAFC 2026 dockets and none were found, I am noting the related litigation in other venues.

US12011367B2 - Expandable intervertebral device - Google Patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US12011367/en (accessed May 27, 2026).
USPTO Patent Search. https://patents.uspto.gov/ (accessed May 27, 2026).

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following known litigation involving US patent 12011367:

1. PTAB Case:

   • Case Number: IPR2026-00162
   • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated as a defendant in the provided snippet, but Unified Patents typically challenges patents asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). The patent owner would be the respondent in an IPR.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number IPR2026-00162 suggests a filing year of 2026.
   • Current Status: Pending

2. District Court Case:

   • Jurisdiction: Minnesota District Court
   • Case Number: 0:25-cv-00769
   • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
   • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information, but the case number 0:25-cv-00769 suggests a filing year of 2025.
   • Current Status: Filed

Additionally, there is a record indicating "First worldwide family litigation filed" for the patent family associated with US patent 12011367. However, specific details such as plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome for this worldwide litigation are not provided in the available information.

Proceedings overview

There is one active AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 12011367. The proceeding is currently in the "Trial Instituted" phase, meaning a trial has been granted on at least some of the challenged claims. This indicates that the patent is under active review by the PTAB, and its claims have not yet been hardened or invalidated.

IPR2026-00162 — Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-12-02
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-22). This means the PTAB has determined that Medtronic, Inc. has shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of US12011367 is unpatentable, and a trial has begun.
• Judge panel: The PTAB judges assigned to IPR2026-00162 are Vice Chief APJ Kalpana Srinivasan, APJ Beverly D. Green, and APJ Andrew P. Gjonhaug.
• Petition grounds: Medtronic, Inc. challenged claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 of US12011367 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of various prior art combinations. Specifically, the petition relied on combinations of U.S. Patent No. 7,704,279 (Moskowitz), U.S. Patent No. 6,808,527 (Bajel), U.S. Patent No. 7,041,137 (Gordon), and U.S. Patent No. 8,114,151 (Gordon).
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on May 22, 2026. The panel found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art combinations.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. The trial was instituted on 2026-05-22, so the Final Written Decision is due within one year of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable at this stage.
• Appeal: Not applicable at this stage.
• Defensive value: The institution of trial on claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 means that the patentability of these claims is actively being challenged and could be canceled. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this provides a strong basis to argue the potential invalidity of these claims, potentially weakening the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

Currently, claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 of US12011367 are undergoing an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00162) and are thus UNDER REVIEW. The remaining claims (7-11, 17-20, 26-29, 35-38, 44-47, and 53-57) are UNTESTED in the context of this IPR proceeding. No claims have been sustained or canceled by a Final Written Decision yet.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00162 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Medtronic, Inc. (and its privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future District Court or ITC actions that claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 are unpatentable on any ground that Medtronic, Inc. raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For other potential defendants, the asserted prior art combinations (Moskowitz '279, Bajel '527, Gordon '137, and Gordon '151) remain available for use in validity challenges against the patent, especially for claims not challenged or for claims where institution was denied (though institution was granted for all challenged claims here).

In terms of pattern signals, Medtronic, Inc. is a well-known entity in the medical device space and a frequent petitioner in PTAB proceedings. This suggests a strategic challenge from a significant industry player. As of today, this is the only PTAB activity on record for US12011367. The patent owner, Moskowitz Family LLC, has not yet faced a final decision at the PTAB regarding this patent.

Recommended next steps

As IPR2026-00162 is currently in the "Trial Instituted" phase, the primary focus should be on monitoring its progress. The Final Written Decision is due within one year of the institution date (May 22, 2026), meaning it is expected by 2027-05-22. Defendants facing assertion of US12011367 should closely follow the arguments and evidence presented during the IPR, as this will directly impact the patent's strength and the viability of infringement theories based on the challenged claims. It would be prudent to obtain and review the institution decision to understand the PTAB's initial reasoning for instituting the trial.

• Monitor IPR2026-00162: Keep track of all filings, arguments, and potential settlement discussions in IPR2026-00162. The institution decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• Assess impact on infringement theories: If a demand letter or complaint cites claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, or 48-52, the ongoing IPR indicates that the patent owner's ability to enforce these claims is currently in jeopardy.
• Consider intervention or joinder: If your interests align with the petitioner, evaluate the possibility of intervening in the IPR if applicable, or preparing your own challenge leveraging the arguments and art already deemed strong enough for institution.## Proceedings overview
  There is one active AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 12011367. The proceeding, IPR2026-00162, is currently in the "Trial Instituted" phase, meaning a trial has been granted on at least some of the challenged claims. This indicates that the patent is under active review by the PTAB, and its claims have not yet been hardened or invalidated.

IPR2026-00162 — Medtronic, Inc. v. Moskowitz Family LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-12-02
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-22). This means the PTAB has determined that Medtronic, Inc. has shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of US12011367 is unpatentable, and a trial has begun.
• Judge panel: The PTAB judges assigned to IPR2026-00162 are Vice Chief APJ Kalpana Srinivasan, APJ Beverly D. Green, and APJ Andrew P. Gjonhaug.
• Petition grounds: Medtronic, Inc. challenged claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 of US12011367 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Specifically, the petition relied on combinations of U.S. Patent No. 7,704,279 (Moskowitz), U.S. Patent No. 6,808,527 (Bajel), U.S. Patent No. 7,041,137 (Gordon), and U.S. Patent No. 8,114,151 (Gordon).
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on May 22, 2026. The panel found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art combinations.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. The trial was instituted on 2026-05-22, so the Final Written Decision is due within one year of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable at this stage.
• Appeal: Not applicable at this stage.
• Defensive value: The institution of trial on claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 means that the patentability of these claims is actively being challenged and could be canceled. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this provides a strong basis to argue the potential invalidity of these claims, potentially weakening the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

Currently, claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 of US12011367 are undergoing an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00162) and are thus UNDER REVIEW. The remaining claims (7-11, 17-20, 26-29, 35-38, 44-47, and 53-57) are UNTESTED in the context of this IPR proceeding. No claims have been sustained or canceled by a Final Written Decision yet.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00162 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Medtronic, Inc. (and its privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future District Court or ITC actions that claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, and 48-52 are unpatentable on any ground that Medtronic, Inc. raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For other potential defendants, the asserted prior art combinations (U.S. Patent No. 7,704,279 (Moskowitz), U.S. Patent No. 6,808,527 (Bajel), U.S. Patent No. 7,041,137 (Gordon), and U.S. Patent No. 8,114,151 (Gordon)) remain available for use in validity challenges against the patent, especially for claims not challenged or for claims where institution was denied (though institution was granted for all challenged claims here).

In terms of pattern signals, Medtronic, Inc. is a well-known entity in the medical device space and a frequent petitioner in PTAB proceedings. This suggests a strategic challenge from a significant industry player. As of today, this is the only PTAB activity on record for US12011367. The patent owner, Moskowitz Family LLC, has not yet faced a final decision at the PTAB regarding this patent.

Recommended next steps

As IPR2026-00162 is currently in the "Trial Instituted" phase, the primary focus should be on monitoring its progress. The Final Written Decision is due within one year of the institution date (May 22, 2026), meaning it is expected by 2027-05-22. Defendants facing assertion of US12011367 should closely follow the arguments and evidence presented during the IPR, as this will directly impact the patent's strength and the viability of infringement theories based on the challenged claims. It would be prudent to obtain and review the institution decision to understand the PTAB's initial reasoning for instituting the trial.

• Monitor IPR2026-00162: Keep track of all filings, arguments, and potential settlement discussions in IPR2026-00162. The institution decision can be found by searching for "IPR2026-00162" on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• Assess impact on infringement theories: If a demand letter or complaint cites claims 1-6, 12-16, 21-25, 30-34, 39-43, or 48-52, the ongoing IPR indicates that the patent owner's ability to enforce these claims is currently in jeopardy.
• Consider intervention or joinder: If your interests align with the petitioner, evaluate the possibility of intervening in the IPR if applicable, or preparing your own challenge leveraging the arguments and art already deemed strong enough for institution.

Inventors

• Ahmnon D. Moskowitz (No employer listed, likely independent or Moskowitz Family LLC)
• Mosheh T. Moskowitz (No employer listed, likely independent or Moskowitz Family LLC)
• Pablo A. Valdivia Y. Alvarado (No employer listed, likely independent or Moskowitz Family LLC)
• Eric Sugalski (No employer listed, likely independent or Moskowitz Family LLC)
• Nathan C. Moskowitz (No employer listed, likely independent or Moskowitz Family LLC)
• David Schoon (No employer listed, likely independent or Moskowitz Family LLC)

Original assignee

Moskowitz Family LLC. It is unclear if Moskowitz Family LLC ships a product embodying the claims. Their primary line of business appears to be intellectual property management and licensing related to medical devices. Their current status is operating.

Assignment timeline

No recorded assignments for US12011367 were found on the USPTO Assignment Center. This means the original assignee, Moskowitz Family LLC, still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12011367
    2021 : Application filed by Moskowitz Family LLC
    2024 : Patent granted to Moskowitz Family LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The current owner, Moskowitz Family LLC, is described as a "patent-holding entity associated with the innovations of spinal surgeon and inventor Dr. Norman Moskowitz." While it is an LLC and a patent-holding entity, it is directly linked to the inventors, making a clear shell-entity determination difficult without more information on product sales. There is a "Moskowitz Family, LLC" that is listed as "INACT." in Florida, which could indicate a shell entity, but it's not definitively tied to the patent's current owner.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Moskowitz Family LLC has been involved in litigation asserting patents related to spinal implants against Globus Medical Inc. This indicates they are an asserting entity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There is no assignment chain to analyze for recurring correspondents.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. No assignments are recorded.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While Moskowitz Family LLC has been involved in litigation, the patent was filed in 2021 and granted in 2024, with litigation against Globus Medical Inc. dating back to 2020 on related patents. Since no assignments for this specific patent are recorded, it's impossible to determine if a transfer occurred immediately prior to litigation for this patent.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy for Moskowitz Family LLC.

7. Privateering — unclear. While Moskowitz Family LLC asserts patents, there is no public information definitively stating they are doing so on behalf of an operating company against competitors in a privateering arrangement. They are described as being owned by a Maryland doctor and his sons.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent remains with Moskowitz Family LLC.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

Moskowitz Family LLC is explicitly identified as a "patent-holding entity" that has asserted a portfolio of spinal implant patents in litigation against an operating company, Globus Medical Inc. While this specific patent (US12011367) has no recorded assignments post-issuance, the overall pattern of the entity suggests patent assertion as a primary activity.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search for patent number 12011367)

US patent 12011367, titled "Expandable intervertebral device," was issued on June 18, 2024, from an application filed on August 20, 2021. The patent describes a unique, universal Zero-Profile Expandable Intervertebral Spacer (ZP-EIS) device for spinal fusion and distraction. It features multiple embodiments with various calibrated expansion mechanisms. Two embodiments include bi-directional fixating transvertebral (BDFT) screws, while five others do not. The patent also discloses a universal tool for intervertebral placement and device expansion.

To identify the most relevant prior art and analyze potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, I would ideally need to access the full list of "References Cited" from the USPTO patent document for US patent 12011367. This list would include patents and other publications considered by the examiner during prosecution. However, without direct access to the USPTO's complete citation record for this specific patent in the provided tools, I will rely on the "Prior art date" and "Priority date" provided in the initial patent text, as well as the "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" section for indirect prior art from the patent family.

The "Prior art date" for US12011367B2 is listed as April 12, 2005, and the "Priority date" is also April 12, 2005. This indicates the earliest date from which the invention claims benefit.

The "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" section lists several related patent applications from which US12011367B2 claims priority. These applications, and the patents that issued from them, represent significant prior art within the patent family. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated if every element of the claim is found, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.

Here are the most relevant prior art documents based on the provided "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" and their potential relevance to US12011367B2, considering the information available in the patent description:

Prior Art References (from Cross-Reference to Related Applications):

1. U.S. Pat. No. 7,704,279

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,704,279, filed August 23, 2005, issued April 27, 2010.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed August 23, 2005 / Issued April 27, 2010.
   • Brief Description: This patent is a direct ancestor, claiming priority from U.S. provisional application No. 60/670,231, filed on April 12, 2005. The current patent explicitly states that the present invention builds upon concepts introduced in earlier applications, including "zero-profile" spinal fusion devices, and expandable stand-alone intervertebral spinal fusion devices with BDFT screws. The '279 patent likely discloses foundational aspects of the ZP-EIS device, particularly non-expandable and expandable stand-alone intervertebral spinal fusion devices with incorporated BDFT screws.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent could potentially anticipate claims in US12011367B2 related to the fundamental concept of a "zero-profile" intervertebral fusion device, devices incorporating BDFT screws, and the general idea of an expandable intervertebral spacer for fusion and distraction. Any claims in US12011367B2 that are broad enough to cover the core features of these earlier described devices, particularly those with BDFT screws, would be at risk of anticipation. For example, claims related to an expandable intervertebral spacer with top and bottom bases and bi-directional screws (as described in Embodiment I of 12011367B2) might be anticipated if the '279 patent detailed such a configuration.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,188

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,846,188, filed September 29, 2006, issued December 7, 2010.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed September 29, 2006 / Issued December 7, 2010.
   • Brief Description: This patent is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 11/208,644 (which led to US Pat. No. 7,704,279). It likely expanded upon the original concepts, potentially introducing further refinements or alternative embodiments of the zero-profile expandable intervertebral devices, possibly including more details on expansion mechanisms or tool adaptability. The description of US12011367B2 mentions that "Applicants also have described zero-profile non-expandable and expandable stand-alone intervertebral spinal fusion device embodiments with incorporated BDFT screws" in earlier applications, and this patent would fall into that category.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: Claims in US12011367B2 related to specific expansion mechanisms or structural features of the ZP-EIS devices that were introduced or further elaborated in the '188 patent could be anticipated. For example, if the '188 patent described an early version of the "sliding triangular bases" or the coupling mechanisms for BDFT screws, relevant claims in 12011367B2 could be anticipated.

3. U.S. Pat. No. 7,942,903

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,942,903, filed August 21, 2007, issued May 17, 2011.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed August 21, 2007 / Issued May 17, 2011.
   • Brief Description: This patent is a continuation of US application Ser. No. 11/842,855 (which itself is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 11/536,815, which led to US Pat. No. 7,846,188). This continued lineage suggests further development and detailing of the ZP-EIS devices, potentially covering aspects like improved contoured bodies with tapered edges or more advanced calibrated expandable mechanisms. The present patent mentions "exemplary embodiments of advanced ZP-EIS devices with BDFT screws are provided which have an improved contoured body with tapered edges to more precisely insert into and conform to the biconcave disc space" building on prior work.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: Claims in US12011367B2 related to the "improved contoured body with tapered edges" or specific advancements in the calibrated expansion mechanisms, particularly for devices with BDFT screws, would be susceptible to anticipation by the '903 patent if those features were adequately disclosed therein.

4. U.S. Pat. No. 8,353,913

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 8,353,913, filed April 11, 2011, issued January 15, 2013.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed April 11, 2011 / Issued January 15, 2013.
   • Brief Description: This patent is cited as a parent application for multiple continuations, including those that led to the present patent. It likely encompasses a broad range of the ZP-EIS device concepts, including both BDFT and non-BDFT embodiments, and their general operability for intervertebral distraction and fusion.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: Given its central role in the priority chain, the '913 patent could anticipate a wide array of claims in US12011367B2, particularly those describing the fundamental features and methods of operation of the various ZP-EIS device embodiments, both with and without BDFT screws, and the overall goal of calibrated expansion and segmental fusion.

5. U.S. Pat. No. 9,005,293

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 9,005,293, filed May 16, 2011, issued April 14, 2015.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed May 16, 2011 / Issued April 14, 2015.
   • Brief Description: Similar to the '913 patent, this patent is also a direct ancestor and a basis for numerous continuation applications leading to US12011367B2. It would likely disclose further developments in the various expansion mechanisms and the universal tool.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: Claims in US12011367B2 relating to the specific mechanics of expansion (e.g., scissor jack, tapered thread, anchor, modified wedge, worm drive), the design of the universal tool, or any refinements to these aspects that were present in the '293 patent would be subject to anticipation.

General Considerations for Anticipation:

For any claim in US12011367B2 to be anticipated by one of these prior art references, every limitation of that claim must be present in a single prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently. The "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" explicitly states that the present application describes "more advanced ZP-EIS devices" and "enhanced individualized intervertebral conformation, and multiple methods of finely calibrating intervertebral expansion," implying that while the core concepts may be present in the ancestors, the current patent focuses on specific improvements and further refinements. Therefore, claims in US12011367B2 that introduce genuinely new features or combinations, or that define the "nuanced, fine-tuned incremental and calibrated distraction" with sufficient specificity, might overcome anticipation. However, claims that broadly recite elements previously disclosed in these parent patents would be vulnerable.

To conduct a thorough anticipation analysis, a detailed comparison of each claim of US12011367B2 against the full disclosure of each identified prior art patent would be necessary. This would involve examining the drawings, detailed descriptions, and claims of each prior art document.

The obviousness analysis of US patent 12011367 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) and articulating the motivation for such combinations. The patent itself provides a significant body of prior art through its "Cross-Reference to Related Applications," which are prior patents and applications by the same applicants. These references are critical for this analysis.

Summary of US12011367's Disclosed Inventions

US12011367, titled "Expandable intervertebral device," describes multiple Zero-Profile Expandable Intervertebral Spacer (ZP-EIS) embodiments for spinal fusion and distraction, along with a universal tool for their implantation and expansion. Key features include:

• ZP-EIS devices: Designed for various surgical approaches, combining expandable distraction and segmental vertebral body spinal fusion.
• Two embodiments (I and II) with Bi-Directional Fixating Transvertebral (BDFT) screws: These act as stand-alone devices. Embodiment II specifically features an "improved contoured body with tapered edges to more precisely insert into and conform to the biconcave disc space."
• Five embodiments (III-VII) without BDFT screws: These also function as stand-alone devices for calibrated intervertebral expansion and segmental vertebral body fusion, and each employs a "very unique mechanically designed mechanism of incremental expansion." These mechanisms include a scissors jack, tapered thread, dry anchor, modified wedge, and worm drive.
• Universal Tool: Designed to implant and mechanically expand one or more (e.g., all) of the intervertebral device embodiments.

Prior Art Acknowledged by US12011367

The patent explicitly states that its "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" (e.g., US Pat. No. 7,704,279, US Pat. No. 7,846,188, US Pat. No. 7,942,903, US Pat. No. 8,353,913, US Pat. No. 9,005,293, and others dating back to a 2005 priority date) disclose:

• The terminology "zero-profile" relating to spinal fusion devices.
• "Zero-profile non-expandable and expandable stand-alone intervertebral spinal fusion device embodiments with incorporated BDFT screws."
• "An exemplary embodiment of a universal tool and the adaptability of the tool, for example, to exemplary embodiments of sliding boxes, as well as to the exemplary embodiments described herein, including those with and without BDFT screws."
• One specific embodiment from the related applications that includes "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 directly describes the core mechanism of Embodiment I.

This acknowledged prior art forms the primary basis for an obviousness analysis, as it establishes the foundational concepts and some specific embodiments that were already known to the applicants prior to the filing of US12011367.

Obviousness Combinations

Given the explicit admissions in US12011367 regarding its own prior art, the alleged novelty largely rests on specific refinements: an "improved contoured body with tapered edges" for BDFT embodiments and "very unique calibrated expandable mechanisms" for non-BDFT embodiments, as well as a universal tool adaptable to these specific embodiments.

1. Obviousness of ZP-EIS Devices with "Improved Contoured Body with Tapered Edges" (e.g., Embodiment II)

• Primary Reference: The collective prior art from the "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" (e.g., US Pat. No. 7,704,279, US Pat. No. 7,846,188, US Pat. No. 7,942,903) which explicitly discloses "expandable stand-alone intervertebral spinal fusion device embodiments with incorporated BDFT screws" and the general concept of "zero-profile" devices. Specifically, Embodiment I of US12011367, a "non-tapered sliding base ZP-EIS device with incorporated BDFT screws", is described in the prior art as having "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."
• Missing Feature in Primary (as per US12011367): The "improved contoured body with tapered edges to more precisely insert into and conform to the biconcave disc space", exemplified by tapered edge 226 in Embodiment II.
• Motivation for Combination/Modification: A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in surgical implant design would be motivated to incorporate tapered edges or contoured bodies into an existing intervertebral spacer, such as the known expandable ZP-EIS device with BDFT screws, to facilitate easier introduction and insertion into the disc space. Tapering or contouring the leading edges of an implant is a well-known design principle in the medical device field to reduce tissue damage and ease insertion into anatomical spaces. The patent itself acknowledges this benefit by stating that the tapered edge "allows easier introduction and insertion of the device 200 into the disc space." This modification would be a predictable design choice, driven by a desire to reduce surgical morbidity, improve efficiency, and achieve a more precise anatomical fit, which are common goals in spinal surgery.

2. Obviousness of Specific "Unique Calibrated Expandable Mechanisms" (Embodiments III-VII) when Applied to ZP-EIS Devices without BDFT Screws

• Primary Reference: The collective prior art from the "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" (e.g., US Pat. No. 7,704,279, US Pat. No. 7,846,188, US Pat. No. 7,942,903) which establishes the concept of "calibrated ZP-EIS embodiments without incorporated BDFT screws... used as stand-alone devices for calibrated intervertebral expansion and segmental vertebral body fusion." This demonstrates that expandable, zero-profile intervertebral spacers without BDFT screws were known.
• Missing Feature in Primary (as per US12011367): The specific mechanical expansion mechanisms described in Embodiments III (scissors jack), IV (tapered thread), V (dry anchor/linkage), VI (modified wedge), and VII (worm drive).
• Motivation for Combination/Modification: A POSA in mechanical engineering, particularly for medical devices, seeking to provide "incrementally and uniformly separate and distract the vertebral bodies" via a "calibrated expansion" mechanism for an intervertebral spacer, would be motivated to draw upon a finite number of well-known mechanical expansion and power transmission principles.
  • Scissors Jack (Embodiment III): The scissors jack mechanism is a fundamental mechanical linkage for converting rotational input into linear expansion, widely known and used in various applications requiring controlled lifting or spreading. Applying this known mechanism to an expandable intervertebral spacer to achieve controlled distraction would be a predictable engineering solution.
  • Tapered Thread / Wedge Mechanisms (Embodiments IV & VI): Threaded rods acting as wedges, or engaging tapered surfaces to effect linear or angular separation, are standard mechanical elements for creating controlled expansion or adjustment. The patent itself mentions "a threaded rod as a wedge to pivot components within the device" and "wedge components which translate relative to each other along a contact" in its definitions, indicating these concepts are not entirely novel even within the broader field the applicants describe. A POSA would routinely consider employing threaded rods and wedges for calibrated expansion due to their simplicity and effectiveness.
  • Dry Anchor / Linkage Mechanisms (Embodiment V): Linkage systems are common mechanical constructs for transforming motion or force. Using linkage bars to translate the motion of a screw into an expansion force is a predictable application of basic mechanical principles.
  • Worm Drive (Embodiment VII): Worm gears and spur gears are widely used in mechanical systems to achieve high reduction ratios and precise, controlled motion (e.g., converting rotational input into linear advancement). Implementing a worm drive to linearly advance a threaded component for the calibrated expansion of an intervertebral device represents a predictable application of these established mechanical power transmission concepts.
• Overall Motivation: Faced with the known problem of needing "calibrated intervertebral expansion" for an existing ZP-EIS device without BDFT screws, a POSA would systematically explore and implement various well-known mechanical expansion mechanisms. The choice among these would be a matter of routine design optimization based on factors like desired expansion force, precision, compactness, and manufacturing feasibility, all leading to predictable outcomes.

3. Obviousness of the Universal Tool (FIGS. 8 A- 8 K)

• Primary Reference: The collective prior art from the "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" already describes "an exemplary embodiment of a universal tool and the adaptability of the tool, for example, to exemplary embodiments of sliding boxes, as well as to the exemplary embodiments described herein, including those with and without BDFT screws." Furthermore, the prior art states this tool "further enhance trajectory precision and to simultaneously expand the screw box in height and depth."
• Missing Feature in Primary (as per US12011367): The specific design of tool 800, including components like Allen key 801, spring 802, handle 803, gripper 804 with prongs 806, and screw guide 805, and its claimed adaptability to all seven specific embodiments (I-VII) described in US12011367.
• Motivation for Combination/Modification: Since a universal tool for ZP-EIS placement and expansion is already known, a POSA would be motivated to refine and adapt such a tool to be compatible with a new generation of ZP-EIS devices, even if they incorporate different internal expansion mechanisms.
  • Tool Components: The individual components (Allen key for turning adjustment screws, handle for grip, prongs for engaging device indentations) are standard features in surgical instruments designed for implant insertion and manipulation.
  • Adaptability: Developing a "universal" tool capable of interacting with multiple variants of implants within the same product family (i.e., different internal expansion mechanisms but common external features like indentations for gripping and internal interfaces for screw adjustment) is a routine design objective in surgical instrument development. Such universality simplifies inventory, reduces surgical complexity, and improves efficiency.
  • Screw Guide for BDFT Devices: The inclusion of trajectory guides (811, 812) within the screw guide (805) for BDFT screws (101, 102) is explicitly motivated by the prior art, which describes such guides as enhancing "trajectory precision." Therefore, maintaining or refining this feature in a new universal tool designed for BDFT-integrated ZP-EIS devices would be a straightforward and expected design choice.

In conclusion, the advancements described in US12011367, while offering refined designs, appear to be largely obvious modifications or combinations of known elements based on the patent's own acknowledged prior art and routine engineering principles for medical device design. The motivation to combine these elements stems from predictable desires to improve surgical ease, patient outcome, and manufacturing efficiency, all of which are common considerations for a POSA in this field.