Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/279,222

CONSTRAINING SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 24, 2021
Examiner
MCGINNITY, JAMES RYAN
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
OA Round
11 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
12-13
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
52 granted / 93 resolved
-14.1% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
143
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 93 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Amendment The claims filed on March 12th, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-22 remain pending in the Application. The claim amendments overcome some of the previous 112(b) rejections. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed March 12th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended limitation “wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth interlocking strands has a combination of strand properties comprising strand thickness, strand coefficient of friction, strand material, and strand stiffness, each of the combinations of strand properties differing from each other” overcomes the previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections based on paragraphs [0044] and [0047]. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited paragraphs discuss a first embodiment of the present invention involving two interlocking strands, and how they may have multiple different strand properties from each other, such as having both a different tensile strength and a different surface roughness, and lists that these strand properties may include strand thickness, strand coefficient of friction, strand material, and strand stiffness. However, neither cited paragraph discusses using more than two interlocking strands, which is described in a second embodiment in [0054] that discusses four interlocking strands. This second embodiment does not state that the combinations of strand properties for each interlocking strand are different from each other; instead, the examples given are one strand is different in one property from the other three stands, or two strands are different in one property from the other two strands. Since there is no support for the amendment in the present Specification, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 12, and 15 each recited a variation of “wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth interlocking strands has a combination of strand properties comprising strand thickness, strand coefficient of friction, strand material, and strand stiffness, each of the combinations of strand properties differing from each other” despite this feature not appearing in the Specification or in the Drawings. In the present Specification, [0044] and [0047] discuss two interlocking strands which can have multiple different strand properties from each other, but this first embodiment does not discuss four interlocking strands. A second embodiment is disclosed in [0054] which has four interlocking strand properties, but does not discuss the interlocking strands having combinations of stand properties which are different from each other. Therefore, these limitations of claim 1, 12, and 15 constitute new matter that was not in the application prior to the amendment, and is rejection under 112(a). Claims 2, 4, 8-11, 14, 16-17, and 19-22 are rejected for their dependency on claims 1, 12, and 15. 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 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-22 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. Claims 1, 12, and 15 recite the limitation “a combination of” in lines 13, 10, and 11, respectively. This limitation is indefinite because the claim does not particularly point out what combinations of strand thickness, strand coefficient of friction, strand material, and strand stiffness are being claimed, and the limitation can be interpreted in several different ways, including all of the properties must be different, or the combination of properties must be different where only one individual property needs to be different to change the totality of the combination. Claims 2, 4, 8-11, 14, 16-17, and 19-22 are rejected for their dependency on claims 1, 12, and 15. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RYAN MCGINNITY whose telephone number is (571)272-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-5:30 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JRM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 24, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 05, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 09, 2023
Response Filed
Apr 06, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 20, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 13, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 21, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 07, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 29, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 11, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 16, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 22, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 07, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 05, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Mar 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 22, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 12, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594067
ROTARY STITCHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12551279
LITHOTRIPSY BALLOON CATHETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12514585
ADHESION PROMOTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12478508
TUBE DEPLOYING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12458361
OCCLUSIVE DEVICES WITH SPIRAL STRUTS FOR TREATING VASCULAR DEFECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

12-13
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 93 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month