Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/631,249

ORTHOPAEDIC IMPLANT

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jan 28, 2022
Examiner
WILLSE, DAVID H
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Smith & Nephew Asia Pacific Pte. Limited
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
388 granted / 575 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
615
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 575 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation 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 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A coupler having male and female members (amended claim 1 at lines 7-13) in combination with the coupler being “monolithically formed with one or both of the load bearing component and the stem” (amended claim 7) is neither shown in the drawings nor described in the original specification, claims, and abstract. Additionally, the coupler being monolithically formed with both the load bearing component and the stem appears to be at odds with the angle adjustability feature as set forth in claim 1 at lines 14-16 and thus renders claim 7 vague, indefinite, and confusing as to the scope. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Thomas et al., US 2011/0054626 A1. Figures 1-3, for example, depict a knee prosthesis 10 comprising load bearing component 12 including a first connection mechanism 22 having a female member 32, a stem 16 for insertion into an intramedullary canal of a patient’s bone (paragraphs 0003-0004, 0028) and including a second connection mechanism having a male member 43, and a coupler 14 including a first end portion having a male member 28 defining a first central longitudinal axis 46 and a second end portion 40 having a female member 44 defining a second central longitudinal axis 48, male member 28 engaging female member 32 and female member 44 engaging male member 43 (paragraphs 0030, 0032). Axes 46 and 48 are non-intersecting (Figures 1 and 2), non-parallel (Figure 2), and offset from each other by a distance 50 (Figure 1); rotation of coupler 14 thus innately adjusts the varus/valgus angle of stem 16 relative to load bearing component 12 and facilitates reception of stem 16 in a bowed intramedullary canal (Figures 1-2; paragraphs 0005, 0033-0035). In the embodiments of Figures 1-8, coupler 14 is monolithically formed so that axes 46 and 48 are in a predetermined, non-adjustable configuration [paragraphs 0027, 0043, 0048 (contrasted with multiple piece coupler embodiments)]. Regarding claim 7, in another variant, the coupler is monolithically formed with the stem (Figures 7-8; paragraphs 0043+); the coupler lacks a female member (as set forth in Applicant’s claim 1), but neither does Applicant’s own original disclosure teach such a combination of elements, as explained above. Regarding claims 8-9 and 14, offset 50 (Figure 1) is capable (MPEP § 2114) of being oriented so as to lie along a medial/lateral plane, an anterior/posterior plane, or a plane angled from these planes but likewise extending along a superior/inferior dimension (paragraphs 0010, 0033, 0036) so as to define non-parallel axes components in both the coronal and the sagittal planes (similar to what is shown in Figure 2). Claims 1-3 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Lu, US 8,721,729 B1. Figure 9 illustrates portions of a knee prosthesis (column 3, lines 38-43) comprising a load bearing component 2 including a first connection mechanism or extension portion having a receiving bore 21 (column 3, lines 36-38), a stem component 1 for insertion into an intramedullary canal of bone B (column 3, lines 34-35), and a coupler 31c having a first end portion 311c for engaging said bore 21 and defining a first central longitudinal axis C1 that can be non-intersecting, non-parallel, and offset by a distance relative to second central longitudinal axis C2 of stem component 32 [column 2, lines 35-37; column 3, lines 44-60; column 4, line 33, to column 5, line 2 (“the column body 311c is provided as being skew in relation to the base body 312, so that the longitudinal central axis of the first connecting component and the longitudinal central axis of the second connecting component are skew to each other”)], with “skew” being defined as “[neither] parallel nor intersecting” (Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary: 1984) and “skew lines” meaning “straight lines that do not intersect and are not in the same plane” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.: 1996). The first connecting portion 31c by itself is thus a coupler integrally and monolithically formed to have a predetermined, non-adjustable first central longitudinal axis C1 along column body 311c and second central longitudinal axis C2 through base body 312, with second connecting component 32 being part of the stem as claimed. Bump 323 is then viewed as the male member of the stem for engaging groove or female member 313 of monolithic coupler 31c (Figure 2). That an intramedullary stem may, by definition, be of multiple parts is evident from a cursory review of the prior art and from Applicant’s own specification, which states that a coupler “can also be referred to as an intermediate stem extension” (paragraph 0056, first sentence; emphasis added). Regarding claim 1-3, 8-9, and 14, rotational adjustments to accommodate varus-valgus and flexion-extension angles are innate in the rotationally symmetric frusto-conical or Morse geometries depicted in Figures 2 and 9 and are further evident from the discussion in column 4, line 41, to column 5, line 9 [for example, “the stem means 1 may be selectively located in any orientations relative to the receiving means 2” (column 4, lines 51-53)]. Regarding claims 10-11, kits with a plurality of couplers having dissimilar offsets and/or angles are described in column 5, lines 2-9. Regarding claims 12-13, the structure and features of a chosen coupler from a kit are unaffected by the particular method of selection; in a product claim, “determination of patentability is based on the product itself” (MPEP § 2113). Response to Arguments Language added to amended claim 1 is broader in some respects than further limitations of canceled claim 6, for instance, and Lu is still applicable to the claims under “the alternate interpretation” (Applicant’s reply of March 5, 2026: page 6, last paragraph), as explained above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Thomas Barrett can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4746. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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. /DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Aug 11, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Nov 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 23, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594159
SEALING MEMBER FOR PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12558238
ARTHROPLASTY INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12508133
Prosthesis Surface Treatment for Soft Tissue Attachment Thereto
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12502288
PROSTHETIC FOOT WITH REMOVABLE FLEXIBLE MEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12496195
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF A GLENOID COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+12.9%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 575 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