Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/682,076

CERVICAL DISTRACTION METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 28, 2022
Examiner
RAMANA, ANURADHA
Art Unit
3775
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Providence Medical Technology Inc.
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
8-9
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1022 granted / 1237 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1274
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1237 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 – (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language. Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Pavlov et al. (US 20060064099). Regarding claims 1, 5 and 9, Pavlov et al. discloses insertion of a single piece cervical joint distraction device in the form of a screw 1 having a single piece structure with a proximal portion integrally formed with a tapered distal portion (Fig. 2a) placed into interfacet space (Fig. 5) (paras [0011]-[0047]). Pavlov et al. disclose the use of an access tool in the form of a trocar (Fig. 3 and para [0055]). Pavlov et al. also disclose a delivery tool in the form of a screwdriver 21 that has an elongated tubular body detachably coupled to a recess in the head of screw 1 and is detached from the device once the device is delivered or inserted into the facet joint (Fig. 5 and paras [0022] and [0057]) Regarding the functional recitation “cervical joint distraction device,” implant 10a can be inserted into any facet joint at any level of the spine depending on a patient’s condition (Fig. 4 shows a facet joint). Regarding claims 6 and 7, Pavlov et al. disclose the implant to have a tapered body so that a distal end portion has a smaller or different profile than a proximal end portion of the implant (Fig. 2a and para [0047]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pavlov et al. (US 20060064099) in view of Blain et al. (US 20050177240 A1). Pavlov et al. disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for an access tool in the form of an introducer needle. Blain et al. disclose a minimally invasive approach to the cervical spine and teach the equivalence of a trocar or needle to access the spinal facet joint that is to be treated wherein an introducer is placed over the needle followed by preparation of the articular surfaces using endoscopic instruments (para [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized an access tool such as an introducer needle instead of trocar wherein so doing amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another, as taught by Blain et al., to guide insertion of the aiming wire or an introducer for a minimally invasive approach to the cervical spine. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(e) over Pavlov et al., screw 1 is interpreted to be the facet joint distraction device. The transitional phrase “comprising” does not preclude the presence of other elements, such as an anti-rotation element. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 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 Anu Ramana whose telephone number is (571)272-4718. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-5:00 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, Kevin Truong can be reached at (571)272-4705. 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. April 3, 2026 /Anu Ramana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 31, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 29, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 16, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 27, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 23, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599414
RECEIVING PART FOR RECEIVING A ROD FOR COUPLING THE ROD TO A BONE ANCHORING ELEMENT AND A BONE ANCHORING DEVICE WITH SUCH A RECEIVING PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594102
SURGICAL SUTURE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594083
UNIVERSAL BROACH SYSTEM FOR HUMERAL IMPLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594095
LAPAROSCOPIC WORKSPACE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589007
INTRADISCAL FIXATION SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
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

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.6%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1237 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