Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/104,687

Quick-Connect Mounting System For Surgical Components

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 01, 2023
Examiner
FERGUSON, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
MAKO SURGICAL CORP.
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
793 granted / 1253 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Strong +74% interview lift
Without
With
+74.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1301
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1253 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, Figures 5-16, claims 1-4, 8-10 and 12-23, in the reply filed on August 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim Objections Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 12 (line 1) “of claim 7” should recite –of claim 1--. In claim 13 (line 1) “of claim 7” should recite –of claim 2--. For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made. 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. Claims 1-4, 8-10 and 12-23 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. Claim 1 (lines 16-21) and claim 21 (lines 23-27) each recite “the loading assembly comprising a loading shaft and a push rod coupled to the loading shaft, wherein the loading shaft and push rod are disposed within the bore of the second body, the loading shaft being moveable along the axis to a first load position in response to the push pin interfacing the push rod to move the push rod axially relative to the loading shaft from a locked position in which the loading shaft is restrained relative to the second body to an unlocked position in which the loading shaft is permitted to move relative to the second body”. Claims 1 and 21 each fail to recite any limitations which allow one to properly determine how the movement of the push rod actuates movement of the loading shaft “to a first load position… from a locked position in which the loading shaft is restrained relative to the second body to an unlocked position in which the loading shaft is permitted to move relative to the second body”. It is unclear as to how the push rod structurally engages the loading shaft such that the push rod is movable axially relative to the loading shaft; and unclear as to how such relative axial movement between the push rod and loading shaft actuates the movement of the loading shaft to the first load position from the locked position to the unlocked position. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what structural features or elements provide for the loading shaft being “restrained relative to the second body” in the locked position; and unclear as to what structural features or elements provide for the loading shaft being “permitted to move relative to the second body” in the unlocked position. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claims. Claims 2-4, 8-10 and 12-22 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite. Examiner notes that claims 1 and 23 must include the limitations of claims 8 and 9 in order to overcome such 35 USC 112 rejections. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 1 and 23 as best understood, Pace (US 5,692,851) discloses the claimed mounting system with the exception of the loading assembly comprising a loading shaft and a push rod coupled to the loading shaft, wherein the loading shaft and push rod are disposed within the bore of the second body, the loading shaft being moveable along the axis to a first load position in response to the push pin interfacing the push rod to move the push rod axially relative to the loading shaft from a locked position in which the loading shaft is restrained relative to the second body to an unlocked position in which the loading shaft is permitted to move relative to the second body. There is no teaching or suggestion, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting system disclosed by Pace to have the above mentioned elemental features. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious. 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 MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST). 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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. 03/20/26 /MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 01, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 27, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 27, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 03, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601198
PANEL FOR A RACKABLE BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595819
HINGE SYSTEM WITH ADJUSTABLE RESISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584328
MODULAR FENCE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577980
FLOATING JOINT AND ULTRASONIC VIBRATION JOINING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577978
IMPROVED HINGE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+74.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1253 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