Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/384,878

Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 29, 2023
Examiner
SCHERBEL, TODD J
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
581 granted / 763 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +52% interview lift
Without
With
+51.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
781
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 763 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-10 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0199792 (Austin). 1. Austin teaches knee osteoarthritis treatment (see P0023 1 (mentioning acupuncture); Table 1 (listing muscles targeted for treatment in various regions, including muscles relevant to knee function); Examples 11-12), comprising: performing acupuncture on a first group of muscles associated with an osteoarthritic knee joint (e.g., performing acupuncture/needling to treat musculoskeletal disorders and explicitly references acupuncture (P0023) and quadriceps, gluteal, hamstrings, gastrocnemius/soleus (calf), quadratus lumborum, popliteus as targets for needling/therapy in connection with lower-extremity/knee-related conditions (Table 1) Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling the identified muscles for knee-related conditions but does not expressly limit the needle placement to origins or insertions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select specific needling loci along the same muscles— including the musculotendinous junctions, origins, or insertions— as a matter of routine clinical judgment and optimization to address enthesopathy/tendinopathy, trigger points near attachments, and pain referral commonly associated with those sites. Such selection represents the predictable use of known techniques to achieve the same therapeutic objective taught by Austin (reducing pain/improving function in knee OA) and would have yielded predictable results. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (allowing reliance on common sense and routine optimization where a combination yields predictable results). Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling therapy for knee-related dysfunction involving the same periarticular musculature and associated soft tissues (fascia) but does not expressly name the iliotibial tract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associated fascia of the knee joint—such as the iliotibial tract—when applying Austin’s method, because the iliotibial tract is a well-known fascia intimately associated with lateral knee mechanics and knee pain, and needling periarticular fascia along with the implicated muscles is a predictable adjunct to the same therapeutic goal in Austin. Applying acupuncture to the iliotibial tract in this context would have been a routine extension of Austin’s approach, with a reasonable expectation of success, to address tightness/pain in tissues functionally linked to the knee joint. See KSR (routine variation to achieve known goal). 2. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 1, wherein: said Quadriceps muscles comprise: Vastus Lateralis; said Gluteal muscles comprise: Gluteus Maximus, Gluteus Medius; said Hamstring muscles comprise: Semitendinosus, Semimembranosus, Biceps Femoris Long Head, Biceps Femoris Short Head; said Calf muscles comprise: Gastrocnemius Medial Head, Gastrocnemius Lateral Head (Table 1; Examples 11-12). 3. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 1, wherein: said acupuncture is performed by inserting one or more acupuncture needles into said each muscle origin or said each muscle insertion and said fascia for a period of time and withdrawing said one or more acupuncture needles after said period of time (P0023). 4. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 1, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment relieves taut muscles, muscle strain, muscle tightness, and undue pressure on said osteoarthritic knee joint and knee joint capsule (P0012; Examples 11-12). 5. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 4, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment facilitates and promotes said osteoarthritic knee joint and said knee joint capsule to heal naturally (P0012; Examples 11-12). 6. Austin teaches knee osteoarthritis treatment (see P0023 1 (mentioning acupuncture); Table 1 (listing muscles targeted for treatment in various regions, including muscles relevant to knee function); Examples 11-12), comprising: performing acupuncture on a first group of muscles associated with an osteoarthritic knee joint (e.g., performing acupuncture/needling to treat musculoskeletal disorders and explicitly references acupuncture (P0023) and quadriceps, gluteal, hamstrings, gastrocnemius/soleus (calf), quadratus lumborum, popliteus as targets for needling/therapy in connection with lower-extremity/knee-related conditions (Table 1) Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling the identified muscles for knee-related conditions but does not expressly limit the needle placement to origins or insertions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select specific needling loci along the same muscles— including the musculotendinous junctions, origins, or insertions— as a matter of routine clinical judgment and optimization to address enthesopathy/tendinopathy, trigger points near attachments, and pain referral commonly associated with those sites. Such selection represents the predictable use of known techniques to achieve the same therapeutic objective taught by Austin (reducing pain/improving function in knee OA) and would have yielded predictable results. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (allowing reliance on common sense and routine optimization where a combination yields predictable results). Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling therapy for knee-related dysfunction involving the same periarticular musculature and associated soft tissues (fascia) but does not expressly name the iliotibial tract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associated fascia of the knee joint—such as the iliotibial tract—when applying Austin’s method, because the iliotibial tract is a well-known fascia intimately associated with lateral knee mechanics and knee pain, and needling periarticular fascia along with the implicated muscles is a predictable adjunct to the same therapeutic goal in Austin. Applying acupuncture to the iliotibial tract in this context would have been a routine extension of Austin’s approach, with a reasonable expectation of success, to address tightness/pain in tissues functionally linked to the knee joint. See KSR (routine variation to achieve known goal). performing deep tissue massage on said first group of muscles associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint, comprising: said Quadriceps muscles; said Gluteal muscles; said Hamstring muscles; said Calf muscles; said Quadratus Lumborum; said Popliteus (P0023, P0124, P0125); performing deep tissue massage on said fascia associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint (P0023, P0124, P0125); performing deep tissue massage on a second group of muscles associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint (P0023, P0124, P0125), comprising: Sartorius; said Quadriceps muscles; Psoas Major; Hip Adductors (Table 1). 7. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 6, wherein: said Quadriceps muscles comprise: Rectus Femoris; said Hip Adductors comprise: Gracilis (Table 1, Examples 10-11, 30-31). 8. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 6, wherein: said acupuncture is performed by inserting one or more acupuncture needles into said each muscle origin or said each muscle insertion and said fascia for a period of time and withdrawing said one or more acupuncture needles after said period of time (P0012; Examples 11-12). 9. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 6, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment relieves taut muscles, muscle strain, muscle tightness, and undue pressure on said osteoarthritic knee joint and knee joint capsule (P0012; Examples 11-12). 10. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 9, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment facilitates and promotes said osteoarthritic knee joint and said knee joint capsule to heal naturally (P0012; Examples 11-12). 16. Austin teaches knee osteoarthritis treatment (see P0023 1 (mentioning acupuncture); Table 1 (listing muscles targeted for treatment in various regions, including muscles relevant to knee function); Examples 11-12), comprising: performing acupuncture on a first group of muscles associated with an osteoarthritic knee joint (e.g., performing acupuncture/needling to treat musculoskeletal disorders and explicitly references acupuncture (P0023) and Vastus Lateralis; Gluteus Maximus; Gluteus Medius; Semitendinosus; Semimembranosus; Biceps Femoris Long Head; Gastrocnemius Medial Head; Gastrocnemius Lateral Head; Biceps Femoris Short Head; Quadratus Lumborum; Popliteus as targets for needling/therapy in connection with lower-extremity/knee-related conditions (Table 1; Examples 11-12) Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling the identified muscles for knee-related conditions but does not expressly limit the needle placement to origins or insertions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select specific needling loci along the same muscles— including the musculotendinous junctions, origins, or insertions— as a matter of routine clinical judgment and optimization to address enthesopathy/tendinopathy, trigger points near attachments, and pain referral commonly associated with those sites. Such selection represents the predictable use of known techniques to achieve the same therapeutic objective taught by Austin (reducing pain/improving function in knee OA) and would have yielded predictable results. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (allowing reliance on common sense and routine optimization where a combination yields predictable results). Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling therapy for knee-related dysfunction involving the same periarticular musculature and associated soft tissues (fascia) but does not expressly name the iliotibial tract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associated fascia of the knee joint—such as the iliotibial tract—when applying Austin’s method, because the iliotibial tract is a well-known fascia intimately associated with lateral knee mechanics and knee pain, and needling periarticular fascia along with the implicated muscles is a predictable adjunct to the same therapeutic goal in Austin. Applying acupuncture to the iliotibial tract in this context would have been a routine extension of Austin’s approach, with a reasonable expectation of success, to address tightness/pain in tissues functionally linked to the knee joint. See KSR (routine variation to achieve known goal). 17. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 16, wherein: said acupuncture is performed by inserting one or more acupuncture needles into said each muscle origin or said each muscle insertion and said fascia for a period of time and withdrawing said one or more acupuncture needles after said period of time (P0012; Examples 11-12). 18. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 16, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment relieves taut muscles, muscle strain, muscle tightness, and undue pressure on said osteoarthritic knee joint and knee joint capsule (P0012; Examples 11-12). 19. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 18, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment facilitates and promotes said osteoarthritic knee joint and said knee joint capsule to heal naturally (P0012; Examples 11-12). 20. Austin teaches knee osteoarthritis treatment (see P0023 1 (mentioning acupuncture); Table 1 (listing muscles targeted for treatment in various regions, including muscles relevant to knee function); Examples 11-12), comprising: performing acupuncture on a first group of muscles associated with an osteoarthritic knee joint (e.g., performing acupuncture/needling to treat musculoskeletal disorders and explicitly references acupuncture (P0023) and Vastus Lateralis; Gluteus Maximus; Gluteus Medius; Semitendinosus; Semimembranosus; Biceps Femoris Long Head; Gastrocnemius Medial Head; Gastrocnemius Lateral Head; Biceps Femoris Short Head; Quadratus Lumborum; Popliteus as targets for needling/therapy in connection with lower-extremity/knee-related conditions (Table 1; Examples 11-12) Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling the identified muscles for knee-related conditions but does not expressly limit the needle placement to origins or insertions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select specific needling loci along the same muscles— including the musculotendinous junctions, origins, or insertions— as a matter of routine clinical judgment and optimization to address enthesopathy/tendinopathy, trigger points near attachments, and pain referral commonly associated with those sites. Such selection represents the predictable use of known techniques to achieve the same therapeutic objective taught by Austin (reducing pain/improving function in knee OA) and would have yielded predictable results. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (allowing reliance on common sense and routine optimization where a combination yields predictable results). Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling therapy for knee-related dysfunction involving the same periarticular musculature and associated soft tissues (fascia) but does not expressly name the iliotibial tract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associated fascia of the knee joint—such as the iliotibial tract—when applying Austin’s method, because the iliotibial tract is a well-known fascia intimately associated with lateral knee mechanics and knee pain, and needling periarticular fascia along with the implicated muscles is a predictable adjunct to the same therapeutic goal in Austin. Applying acupuncture to the iliotibial tract in this context would have been a routine extension of Austin’s approach, with a reasonable expectation of success, to address tightness/pain in tissues functionally linked to the knee joint. See KSR (routine variation to achieve known goal). performing deep tissue massage on said first group of muscles associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint, comprising: said Vastus Lateralis; said Gluteus Maximus; said Gluteus Medius; said Semitendinosus; said Semimembranosus; said Biceps Femoris Long Head; said Gastrocnemius Medial Head; said Gastrocnemius Lateral Head; said Biceps Femoris Short Head; said Quadratus Lumborum; said Popliteus (P0023, P0124, P0125); and performing deep tissue massage on said fascia associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint (P0023, P0124, P0125); performing deep tissue massage on a second group of muscles associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint, comprising: Sartorius; Rectus Femoris; Psoas Major; Gracilis (P0023, P0124, P0125); 21. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 20, wherein: said acupuncture is performed by inserting one or more acupuncture needles into said each muscle origin or said each muscle insertion and said fascia for a period of time and withdrawing said one or more acupuncture needles after said period of time (P0012; Examples 11-12).. 22. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 20, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment relieves taut muscles, muscle strain, muscle tightness, and undue pressure on said osteoarthritic knee joint and knee joint capsule (P0012; Examples 11-12).. 23. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 22, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment facilitates and promotes said osteoarthritic knee joint and said knee joint capsule to heal naturally (P0012; Examples 11-12). Claim(s) 11-15 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0199792 (Austin) in view of US 2017/0072214 (Liu). 11. Austin teaches knee osteoarthritis treatment (see P0023 (mentioning acupuncture); Table 1 (listing muscles targeted for treatment in various regions, including muscles relevant to knee function); Examples 11-12), comprising: performing acupuncture on a first group of muscles associated with an osteoarthritic knee joint (e.g., performing acupuncture/needling to treat musculoskeletal disorders and explicitly references acupuncture (P0023) and quadriceps, gluteal, hamstrings, gastrocnemius/soleus (calf), quadratus lumborum, popliteus as targets for needling/therapy in connection with lower-extremity/knee-related conditions (Table 1) Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling the identified muscles for knee-related conditions but does not expressly limit the needle placement to origins or insertions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select specific needling loci along the same muscles— including the musculotendinous junctions, origins, or insertions— as a matter of routine clinical judgment and optimization to address enthesopathy/tendinopathy, trigger points near attachments, and pain referral commonly associated with those sites. Such selection represents the predictable use of known techniques to achieve the same therapeutic objective taught by Austin (reducing pain/improving function in knee OA) and would have yielded predictable results. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (allowing reliance on common sense and routine optimization where a combination yields predictable results). Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling therapy for knee-related dysfunction involving the same periarticular musculature and associated soft tissues (fascia) but does not expressly name the iliotibial tract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associated fascia of the knee joint—such as the iliotibial tract—when applying Austin’s method, because the iliotibial tract is a well-known fascia intimately associated with lateral knee mechanics and knee pain, and needling periarticular fascia along with the implicated muscles is a predictable adjunct to the same therapeutic goal in Austin. Applying acupuncture to the iliotibial tract in this context would have been a routine extension of Austin’s approach, with a reasonable expectation of success, to address tightness/pain in tissues functionally linked to the knee joint. See KSR (routine variation to achieve known goal). performing deep tissue massage on said first group of muscles associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint, comprising: said Quadriceps muscles; said Gluteal muscles; said Hamstring muscles; said Calf muscles; said Quadratus Lumborum; said Popliteus; performing deep tissue massage on said fascia associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint (P0023, P0124, P0125); performing deep tissue massage on a second group of muscles associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint (P0023, P0124, P0125), comprising: Sartorius; said Quadriceps muscles; Psoas Major; Hip Adductors (Table 1). Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses treating an osteoarthritic knee joint (Table 1; Examples 11-12) but does not disclose injecting hyaluronic acid into said osteoarthritic knee joint. Liu teaches a knee osteoarthritis treatment in the same field of endeavor including injecting hyaluronic acid into said osteoarthritic knee joint (P0020) for the purpose of clinically treating the joint with an injection (P0020). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the treatment of Austin to include injecting hyaluronic acid into the knee joint as taught by Liu in order to clinically treat the joint with an injection. 12. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 11, wherein: said Quadriceps muscles comprise: Rectus Femoris; said Hip Adductors comprise: Gracilis (Table 1, Examples 10-11, 30-31). 13. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 11, wherein: said acupuncture is performed by inserting one or more acupuncture needles into said each muscle origin or said each muscle insertion and said fascia for a period of time and withdrawing said one or more acupuncture needles after said period of time (P0012; Examples 11-12). 14. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 11, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment relieves taut muscles, muscle strain, muscle tightness, and undue pressure on said osteoarthritic knee joint and knee joint capsule (P0012; Examples 11-12). 15. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 14, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment facilitates and promotes said osteoarthritic knee joint and said knee joint capsule to heal naturally (P0012; Examples 11-12). 24. Austin teaches knee osteoarthritis treatment (see P0023 1 (mentioning acupuncture); Table 1 (listing muscles targeted for treatment in various regions, including muscles relevant to knee function); Examples 11-12), comprising: performing acupuncture on a first group of muscles associated with an osteoarthritic knee joint (e.g., performing acupuncture/needling to treat musculoskeletal disorders and explicitly references acupuncture (P0023) and Vastus Lateralis; Gluteus Maximus; Gluteus Medius; Semitendinosus; Semimembranosus; Biceps Femoris Long Head; Gastrocnemius Medial Head; Gastrocnemius Lateral Head; Biceps Femoris Short Head; Quadratus Lumborum; Popliteus as targets for needling/therapy in connection with lower-extremity/knee-related conditions (Table 1; Examples 11-12) Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling the identified muscles for knee-related conditions but does not expressly limit the needle placement to origins or insertions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select specific needling loci along the same muscles— including the musculotendinous junctions, origins, or insertions— as a matter of routine clinical judgment and optimization to address enthesopathy/tendinopathy, trigger points near attachments, and pain referral commonly associated with those sites. Such selection represents the predictable use of known techniques to achieve the same therapeutic objective taught by Austin (reducing pain/improving function in knee OA) and would have yielded predictable results. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (allowing reliance on common sense and routine optimization where a combination yields predictable results). Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses needling therapy for knee-related dysfunction involving the same periarticular musculature and associated soft tissues (fascia) but does not expressly name the iliotibial tract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associated fascia of the knee joint—such as the iliotibial tract—when applying Austin’s method, because the iliotibial tract is a well-known fascia intimately associated with lateral knee mechanics and knee pain, and needling periarticular fascia along with the implicated muscles is a predictable adjunct to the same therapeutic goal in Austin. Applying acupuncture to the iliotibial tract in this context would have been a routine extension of Austin’s approach, with a reasonable expectation of success, to address tightness/pain in tissues functionally linked to the knee joint. See KSR (routine variation to achieve known goal). performing deep tissue massage on said first group of muscles associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint, comprising: said Vastus Lateralis; said Gluteus Maximus; said Gluteus Medius; said Semitendinosus; said Semimembranosus; said Biceps Femoris Long Head; said Gastrocnemius Medial Head; said Gastrocnemius Lateral Head; said Biceps Femoris Short Head; said Quadratus Lumborum; said Popliteus (P0023, P0124, P0125); and performing deep tissue massage on said fascia associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint (P0023, P0124, P0125); performing deep tissue massage on a second group of muscles associated with said osteoarthritic knee joint, comprising: Sartorius; Rectus Femoris; Psoas Major; Gracilis (P0023, P0124, P0125); Austin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses treating an osteoarthritic knee joint (Table 1; Examples 11-12) but does not disclose injecting hyaluronic acid into said osteoarthritic knee joint. Liu teaches a knee osteoarthritis treatment in the same field of endeavor including injecting hyaluronic acid into said osteoarthritic knee joint (P0020) for the purpose of clinically treating the joint with an injection (P0020). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the treatment of Austin to include injecting hyaluronic acid into the knee joint as taught by Liu in order to clinically treat the joint with an injection. 25. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 24, wherein: said acupuncture is performed by inserting one or more acupuncture needles into said each muscle origin or said each muscle insertion and said fascia for a period of time and withdrawing said one or more acupuncture needles after said period of time (P0012; Examples 11-12). 26. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 24, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment relieves taut muscles, muscle strain, muscle tightness, and undue pressure on said osteoarthritic knee joint and knee joint capsule (P0012; Examples 11-12). 27. The knee osteoarthritis treatment of claim 26, wherein: said knee osteoarthritis treatment facilitates and promotes said osteoarthritic knee joint and said knee joint capsule to heal naturally (P0012; Examples 11-12). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD J SCHERBEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00. 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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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. TJ SCHERBEL Primary Examiner Art Unit 3771 /TODD J SCHERBEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 29, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599540
Pressure Pad Headgear Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599375
MEDICAL MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594405
CATHETER HAVING COMPLIANT BALLOON
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594076
SIDE-TO-END ANASTOMOTIC COUPLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589014
EXPANDABLE BODY DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+51.8%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 763 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month