Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 17/943,867

MODULAR HANDLE FOR A PROSTHESIS DELIVERY DEVICE

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Sep 13, 2022
Priority
Sep 17, 2021 — provisional 63/245,502
Examiner
MANNAN, MIKAIL A
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Cook Medical Technologies LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
217 granted / 317 resolved
-1.5% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
373
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 317 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 This action is entered in response to Applicant's amendment and reply of 7/16/26. The claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 5-6, 8-12, and 17-20 are withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Election Requirement have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims 11 and 12 should not be withdrawn from consideration since the Election Requirement did not require the election of a species based on structure associated with the interface of a trigger wire and rotatable ring. Examiner makes notice, Applicant elected Species C, Figs. 54A-54B in the reply filed 1/20/26. Where the claims 11-12 are withdrawn from consideration by being drawn to a non-elected invention. Refer to paragraph [00170] of the instant application, the claim limitations are drawn toward the embodiment of Figs. 38-48. Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/16/26 with respect to the rejections of claim 1-4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vad (US2016/0135972) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, Vad fails to disclose “wherein the lock shell is coupled to the rotatable ring in the first position, the lock shell and the rotatable ring are not rotatable relative to the stationary main handle, and wherein when the lock shell is coupled to the rotatable ring in the second position, the lock shell and the rotatable ring are rotatable relative to the stationary main handle”. Applicant argues, the first position in Vad describes a position of the ring that allows the second handle to the be moved along the main handle without rotation, but the components are not prevented from rotation. Examiner disagrees, the rejection relies on what is disclosed in Vad, not inherency. Furthermore, paragraph [0070] describes the ratcheted collar 154 under the second handle 12, which allows unidirectional rotation of the second handle 12, “collar 154 may have on or more protrusions or teeth 156 that allow only for unidirectional rotation of the second handle 12: when the handle 12 is keyed to handle 10 and there is unidirectional rotation allowed only in the distal direction; therefore when the ring 220 is in the distal position and reverse rotation is locked, rotation would not be possible since the threads end at a distal location on handle 10 as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. Applicant’s arguments filed 7/16/26 with respect to the rejections of claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kratzberg (US2018/0200496) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, Kratzberg does not disclose a rotatable ring that is disposed about a stationary main handle. Applicant further states Kratzberg has a structural relationship in which element 110 (rotatable ring) is partially within element 352 (stationary handle) and that the element 110 extends into element 352 and is not disposed about it. Examiner disagrees, the threads of the element 352 extend inwardly and a portion of the element 110 is disposed about the threads 352 as shown in Fig. 15. Furthermore, the claim merely recites the rotatable ring is disposed about a stationary main handle, this limitation does not necessarily recite the rotatable ring is around the stationary main handle. Where the element 110 is disposed about an inner perimeter of the element 352 as shown in Fig. 15. 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. Claim 1-4 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vad (US2016/0135972 - cited in Applicant’s IDS). Regarding claim 1, Vad discloses a handle assembly for a prosthesis delivery device (see Abstract), comprising: a stationary main handle (main handle 10, handle is fixed relative to delivery device, [0064]) having a proximal end, a distal end, and an outer surface extending therebetween (see Fig. 1); a rotatable ring (second handle 12, [0069]) disposed about at least a portion of the stationary main handle (see Fig. 1); and a lock shell (outer ring 220) disposed around and selectively coupled to the rotatable ring in a first position or a second position, wherein when the lock shell is coupled to the rotatable ring in the first position (distalmost position of handle 12 and ring 220 on handle 10, see Fig. 32), the lock shell and the rotatable ring are not rotatable relative to the stationary main handle (when the handle 12 is keyed to handle 10 and there is unidirectional rotation allowed only in the distal direction; therefore when the ring 220 is in the distal position and reverse rotation is locked, rotation would not be possible since the threads end at a distal location on handle 10, [0096]), and wherein when the lock shell is coupled to the rotatable ring in the second position (Fig. 31), the lock shell and the rotatable ring are rotatable relative to the stationary main handle ([0095]). Regarding claim 2, Vad discloses the handle assembly of claim 1, further comprising a spacer ring (sleeve 222) disposed about at least a portion of the stationary main handle (see Fig. 31, 32), wherein when the lock shell (220) is coupled to the rotatable ring (12) in the first position, the lock shell engages the spacer ring (222) such that the lock shell and the rotatable ring are not rotatable relative to the stationary main handle ([0096]). Regarding claim 3, Vad discloses the handle assembly of claim 2, wherein the spacer ring includes a protrusion (protrusion 224) and the lock shell includes a cutout (channel formed in ring 220, [0096]), and wherein when the lock shell and the rotatable ring are coupled in the first position ([0094]), the protrusion of the spacer ring is at least partially received within the cutout of the lock shell such that the lock shell and the rotatable ring are not rotatable relative to the stationary main handle ([0096]). Regarding claim 4, Vad discloses the handle assembly of claim 1, wherein the rotatable ring (12) includes a proximal end, a distal end, and an outer surface extending therebetween (see Fig. 34), wherein the outer surface of the rotatable ring includes a convex portion (see raised portion at the distal end of 12 in Fig. 34, 35) extending radially outwardly from a rest of the outer surface of the rotatable ring. Regarding claim 7, Vad discloses the handle assembly of claim 4, wherein the lock shell (220) includes a proximal end, a distal end, and an outer surface extending therebetween (see Fig. 31), wherein an inner surface of the lock shell includes a groove (channel formed in inner surface of ring 220, see Fig. 12) extending longitudinally from the proximal end to the distal end ([0094]), and wherein the groove is configured such that when the lock shell is disposed around the rotatable ring, the convex portion of the rotatable ring is at least partially received in the groove (a portion of the convex portion would be within the portion of the channel formed on the inner surface of the ring 220, by the ring 220 covering the convex portion as shown in Fig. 12). Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kratzberg (US2018/0200496 - cited in Applicant’s IDS). Regarding claim 13, Kratzberg discloses a handle assembly for a prosthesis delivery device (see Abstract), comprising: a stationary main handle (352, interpreted as stationary by being held stationary when housing 110 is threaded to it) having a proximal end, a distal end, and an outer surface extending therebetween (see Fig. 1); a rotatable ring (housing 110, housing is rotatable by being threaded to 352, [0049]) disposed about the stationary main handle and rotatably movable relative to the stationary main handle (Where the housing 110 is disposed about an inner perimeter of the element 352 as shown in Fig. 15; otherwise, the threads of the element 352 extend inwardly and a portion of the housing 110 is disposed about the threads 352; [0043]), wherein the rotatable ring includes a guided track (track defined by area where the spacer element 366 is fixed to the housing 110, [0050]) disposed in an outer surface of the rotatable ring (see Fig. 12), and the guided track extends between a first end and a second end (see Fig. 1); a trigger wire (trigger wires) operatively connected to the rotatable ring, the trigger wire having a proximal end and a distal end ([0050]); and a bushing (rotatable ring 362, [0050]) configured to be connected to the distal end of the trigger wire and slidably received within the guided track (ring is adjacent the track defined by the spacer element 366, [0050]). Regarding claim 14, Kratzberg discloses the handle assembly of claim 13, wherein when the bushing is positioned in the guided track at the first end of the guided track (first end of the guided track defined by the spacer element 366 is interpreted as one half of the spacer element 366), at least a length of the trigger wire connected to the bushing is disposed in the guided track ([0050]). Regarding claim 15, Kratzberg discloses the handle assembly of claim 14, wherein rotation of the rotatable ring causes the bushing to slide within the guided track from the first end of the guided track towards the second end of the guided track (second end of the guided track defined by the spacer element 366 is interpreted as the other half of the spacer element 366, where the rotatable ring 362 slides within the first end of the guided track toward the second end by rotating around the guided track defined by the spacer element 366; where rotation of the housing 110/rotatable ring is capable of causes the busing to slide when either structure is rotated relative to each other). Regarding claim 16, Kratzberg discloses the handle assembly of claim 15, wherein after the bushing reaches the second end of the guided track, further rotation of the rotatable ring causes retraction of the trigger wire from the prosthesis delivery device ([0053]). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIKAIL A MANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6. 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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at (571)272-9062. 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. /MIKAIL A MANNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3774 /SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §102
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Jul 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Jul 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 16, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12714560
BALLOON EXPANDABLE DELIVERY SYSTEM WITH ACTUATED VALVE RETENTION
3y 11m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12708538
PROSTHESIS DELIVERY SYSTEM WITH TIP TRAVEL LIMITER AND METHOD OF USE
4y 12m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12697251
PRESSURIZED GOGGLE FOR INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE MODIFICATION
3y 11m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12622796
CONVEYOR AND LUMEN APPARATUS CONVEYING SYSTEM
3y 11m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12622689
ENDOSCOPIC SUTURE CINCHING AND CUTTING DEVICE
2y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+23.5%)
3y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 317 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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