Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/996,227

MEDICAL IMPLANT, MEDICAL DEVICE, SEPARATION DEVICE, FELTING DEVICE AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 14, 2022
Examiner
SPENCER, MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
ZURIMED TECHNOLOGIES AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 33% of cases
33%
Career Allow Rate
20 granted / 61 resolved
-37.2% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
110
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
61.8%
+21.8% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 61 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 1-7 and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/12/2025 Status of Claims Claims 1-15 are pending, of which claims 1-7 and 13-15 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 8-12 are examined below. Response to Arguments The remarks of 09/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the 08/07/2025 office action does not ser forth a serious search burden amongst each group. However, this requirement does not apply to applications filed under 35 U.S.C 371. As described in the 08/07/025 action the groups identified lack unity of invention. Further, in consideration of the prior art lack of unity is not raised or maintained on the basis of a narrow, literal, or academic approach per MPEP 1850. Therefore, the restriction is made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim(s) 8-12 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 Regarding claims 8-12 – Claim 8 recites “the medical device further comprises a medical textile, particularly comprising or consisting of a felt material”. This makes the scope of the claim unclear as “comprising” is open-ended while “consisting of” excludes additional elements. Claims 9-12 are also rendered indefinite due to their dependency on claim 8. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes – this claim language will be interpreted as an open-ended limitation (i.e. comprising a felt material) per MPEP 2111.03. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,214,047 (Melvin) in view of US 2007/0248640 (Karabey) Regarding claim 8, Melvin discloses a medical implant (Fig. 2) extending between a first end and a second end, wherein the medical implant comprises or consists of a plurality of fibers (Fig. 2, fibers 14 and 24), characterized in that the medical implant comprises: a main section (Fig. 2, 20) and a first connecting section (Fig. 2, 30) configured to be connected to soft biological tissue (Col. 6, Lines 8-10, wherein “muscle” corresponds to soft biological tissue) or to a medical textile, particularly comprising or consisting of a felt material (note: the limitations requiring a medical textile comprising or consisting of a felt material are currently claimed as an optional feature) wherein the first connecting section extends towards the first end (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and wherein the fibers are connected, particularly braided, twisted, knitted or felted, in the main section (Col. 5, Lines 31-45, wherein outer fibers 24 are braided around fiber 14) and separated from each other in the first connecting section (Col. 6, Lines 8-14, wherein “generally unbraided, unspun, untwisted, and unplaited” corresponds to fibers separated from each other”) PNG media_image1.png 457 1025 media_image1.png Greyscale Melvin doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a felted medical textile. Karabey discloses a medical textile (Fig. 2, 12), particularly comprising or consisting of a felt material (¶0175, “felting”) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the fibers of the first connecting section of Melvin to the felted medical textile, as taught by Karabey, in order to securely fasten the medical implant and the medical textile during implantation. Regarding claim 9, Melvin discloses a medical implant (see rejection of claim 8) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a medical textile extending along a plane, wherein the medical textile comprises a flat shape. Karabey discloses a medical textile which extends along a plane (Fig. 2c, wherein 12 extends along a plane) wherein particularly the medical textile comprises a flat shape (Fig. 2C, wherein 12 is flat) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical device of Melvin to include a medical textile extending along a plane which comprises a flat shape, as taught by Karabey, in order to decrease friction against the surface during implantation Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,214,047 (Melvin) in view of US 2007/0248640 (Karabey), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2018/0228596 (Wyland) Regarding claim 10, Melvin disclose a first medical implant (Fig. 2) according to any one of the claim 9, wherein the first connecting section (110) and/or the second connecting section (120) of the first medical implant (130) forms a fan-like structure extending in a plane parallel to an extension direction of the first medical implant (see annotated Fig. 2, wherein 30 forms a fan-like structure), and wherein the first medical implant (130) is connected to the medical textile (300), such that the first medical implant (130) extends from the medical textile (300) parallel to the plane of the medical textile (300), Melvin doesn’t explicitly teach or discloses a medical textile. Karabey discloses a medical textile (Fig. 2C, 12) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the medical implant of Melvin in parallel with the medical textile, as taught by Karabey, in order to ensure that the implant and textile are securely fastened. Melvin doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a second medical implant with a tubular structure with a cross-sectional width that increase monotonously towards a first end. Karabey doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a second medical implant with a tubular structure with a cross-sectional width that increase monotonously towards a first end. Wyland discloses a second medical implant wherein the first connecting section or the second connecting section of the second medical implant forms a tubular structure (Fig. 1, wherein 20 forms a tubular structure), particularly comprising a circular or oval-shaped cross-sectional contour perpendicular to an extension direction of the second medical implant (see Fig. 1, wherein 20 has an oval-shaped cross-section contour perpendicular to an extension direction), wherein particularly a width of the cross-sectional contour increases, particularly monotonously, towards the first end of the second medical implant (see annotated Fig. 1 below) PNG media_image2.png 396 784 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the medical textile of Melvin in view of Karabey perpendicular with the second medical implant, as taught by Wyland, in order to properly secure the medical textile and the medical implant once implanted in the body. Regarding claim 11, Melvin in view of Karabey discloses a medical textile according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a medical textile comprising a tubular shape and an opening for insertion of a soft biological material. Wyland discloses a medical textile (Fig. 1, 20) which comprises a tubular shape (Fig. 2, wherein 20 is tubular in shape), wherein the medical textile comprises an opening configured for insertion of a soft biological tissue (Fig. 2, 22, ¶0050, “connective tissue”) into the medical textile (Fig. 2, wherein 22 is inserted into 20), wherein particularly the first connecting section or the second connecting section of the medical implant forms a tubular structure (Fig. 2, wherein 30 forms a tubular structure), wherein the tubular structure is arranged in the medical textile contacting the inner circumference of the medical textile (note: this claim language is optional as currently written) or wherein the tubular structure is arranged at least partially around the outer circumference of the medical textile (Fig. 1, wherein the tubular structure of 30 is at least partially around the outer circumference), wherein the separated fibers of the tubular structure extend into or through the medical textile (Fig. 1, wherein separated fibers 40 extends into 30) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the medical implant of Melvin in view of Karabey with a medical textile, as taught by Wyland, in order to properly secure the medical textile and the medical implant once implanted in the body. Regarding claim 12, Melvin in view of Karabey discloses a medical device according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least one anchoring element. Wyland discloses at least one anchoring element (Fig. 5, screw 48) configured to be inserted into a bone (Fig. 5, wherein screw 48 is inserted into bone 46), wherien the anchoring element in connected to a medical implant (Fig. 5, ¶0056, wherein 48 is connected to 20) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the medical implant of Melvin in view of Karabey with an anchoring element, as taught by Wyland, in order to securely fasten the medical implant into bone. Conclusion Included below is relevant prior art that was considered but not relied upon for this office action: US 7,252,832 – discloses a felt textile material for soft tissue repair Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-8382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408.918.7557. 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. /MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 3774 /JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 14, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 26, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12508010
Medical Devices for Repairing Perforations in Tissue, Methods of Manufacturing Medical Devices, and Methods of Implanting a Medical Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12370066
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR RESISTIVE TORQUE CONTROL IN A MAGNETORHEOLOGICAL ACTUATOR USING A RECOVERY PULSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 29, 2025
Patent 12303408
POWERED FINGER WITH LOCKING RACK MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted May 20, 2025
Patent 12263102
PROSTHETIC FOOT WITH VARIABLE STIFFNESS ANKLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 01, 2025
Patent 12201538
EXPANDING TIBIAL STEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 21, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
33%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+32.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 61 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