Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/334,973

SURGICAL DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Jun 14, 2023
Examiner
BATES, DAVID W
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aesculap AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
801 granted / 1053 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1115
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1053 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to the amendment filed November 14, 2025. By that amendment, claims 1 and 3-6 were amended; and claims 13-16 were newly presented. Claims 1-16 are pending. 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 6, 8, and 12 under 35 USC 102 in view of Seki (US 6,258,096) and claim 2 under 35 USC 103 in view of Seki and Habegger (US 2012/0101504) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly presented rejections are necessitated by the amendments to the claims of November 14, 2025. Priority Examiner acknowledges applicant’s statement that the certified copy of the foreign priority document was submitted to the office. Examiner believes this to be the case, but is not able to access the document from his view of the case file (computer issues?) Examiner respectfully requests applicant re-submit the certified copy, at which time the priority date of the foreign document will be indicated. He believes this to be the simplest manner to get the document before examiner to review. If applicant wishes to pursue alternative means, examiner is open to those, as well. 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 1-16 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. Claims 1 and 14-16 each includes the phrase “instead of the anterior edge of the tibia”. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase, rendering metes and bounds of the claims unclear. Examiner requests clarification to each of the claims. 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahners (US 5,162,039). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Dahners teaches a surgical device as at fig. 6 capable of aligning an inferred extramedullary alignment rod 12 during a total knee arthroplasty, the surgical device comprising: a supporting portion 54 and second leg clamp connected to 28 having at least two supporting geometries (each clamp is considered a supporting geometry) separated from one another along a supporting line (an axis of the bone) that extends in a proximodistal direction and are each adapted for support on an anterior edge of a tibia (there is no reason that both clamps cannot be coupled to an anterior edge of a tibia); and a reference portion of 12 (e.g. the portion between the two connectors 36/22) that projects in an anterior direction from the supporting portion 54 and has at least two reference geometries (at locations where 36 and 22 are coupled) separated from one another along a reference line that extends in the proximodistal direction along the portion of 12, the reference line being separated from the supporting line by an anterior distance and extending parallel to the supporting line as in fig. 6, the at least two reference geometries and/or the reference line serving as a reference for aligning the extramedullary alignment rod (my moving the connectors) instead of the anterior edge of the tibia, the at least two reference geometries of the connectors at 36 and 22 are each adapted for at least mediolaterally form-fit mounting against an outer surface of the extramedullary alignment rod 12 as seen in fig. 6. Regarding claim 2, the reference portion of 12 has at least two first reference geometries separated from one another along a first reference line (the portions of 12 retained by the connectors 22 and 36), and two second reference geometries separated from one another along a second reference line (two other locations where 22 and 36 can couple to 12), the first reference line being separated by an anterior first distance from the supporting line and the second reference line being separated by an anterior second distance from the supporting line. Regarding claim 12, the system of claim 1 is taught, and includes and an extramedullary alignment rod 12. Allowable Subject Matter No prior art rejection is made of claims 14-16. At such time as the outstanding rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is overcome, the claims will be allowed. Claims 3-11 and 13 are 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. The claims cannot be allowed until such time as the outstanding rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is overcome. 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 David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-6PM 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Nov 14, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Mar 26, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 27, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599377
KNEE TENSIONER-BALANCER AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594071
COUNTER-TORQUE IMPLANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582450
BONE FIXATION DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582454
Bone Plate Implantation Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575837
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LASER ALIGNMENT CHECK IN SURGICAL GUIDANCE SYSTEMS
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
76%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+17.1%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1053 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