Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/437,843

FLEXIBLE IMPLANTS AND METHODS OF ENHANCED BONE FIXATION

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 09, 2024
Examiner
HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA
Art Unit
3773
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
799 granted / 1025 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1058
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1025 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species a in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-37 are pending. Claims 31-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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 19, 22, 23, 25 and 26-30 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 19, 22, 23, 25 and 27-29 recite “the engagement member” in line 1. It is noted that the elected embodiment includes engagement member 208 (see Fig. 6A) which spans across a rigid shank 210 and spans across a shankless space 211. Independent claim 18 previously recites a flexible engagement member. For purposes of examination the recited “flexible engagement member” will be interpreted as the portion of engagement member 208 that spans across the shankless space 211. Accordingly, the recitation in claims 19 and 22 of “the engagement member” lacks clarity and specificity as to whether applicant is referencing the engagement member spanning the rigid shank portion, or the engagement member spanning the shankless space. Claim 26 recites the limitation "the cross-sectional shape" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 18-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben-Arye et al. (U.S. 2010/0305700 A1). Concerning claim 18, Ben-Arye et al. disclose a U-bridge implant device comprising: a length extending between a proximal end and a distal end; a driving head at the proximal end (see Fig. 9A below and see Fig. 8A, element 88); a mating connector at the distal end (see Fig. 9A below); and a flexible engagement member (see Fig. 4B, element 49, i.e., a cable) positioned between the driving head and the mating connector. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Engagement Member)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mating Connector the Distal End)][AltContent: textbox (Shank)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Driving Head at the Proximal End)] PNG media_image1.png 455 470 media_image1.png Greyscale Concerning claim 19, wherein the flexible engagement member (cable, see Fig. 4B, element 49) is attached to the driving head at the proximal end and the mating connector at the distal end, such that the engagement member extends for the length of the implant device. Concerning claim 20, wherein the driving head is attached to a shank (see Fig. 9A above; and see Fig. 8A, element 85) that extends towards the distal end for a portion of the length of the implant device. Concerning claim 21, wherein the length of the implant device comprising the shank (see Fig. 9A above; see Fig. 8A, element 85) is rigid. Concerning claim 22, wherein the engagement member (see Fig. 9A above; see Fig. 8A, element 86) attaches to an exterior of the shank for at least a portion of a length of the shank. Concerning claim 23, wherein the engagement member (see Fig. 9A above, i.e., thread; see Fig. 8A, element 86) extends from the shank at a proximal end and is attached to the mating connector at a distal end. It is noted that Applicant is not claiming direct attachment. Concerning claim 24, wherein the mating connector is selected from the group consisting of: a push lock fitting (ball and socket – see par. 0067; or see Fig. 7, element 73 – a winged deployable washer device), a threaded connector, and a magnet. Concerning clam 25, wherein the engagement member comprises a variable cross-sectional shape (see Fig. 8A, elements 86 to 84; threads to ridges). Concerning claim 26, wherein the cross-sectional shape is selected from the group consisting of: a triangle shape (threads), a square shape (ridges), a pentagon shape, a hexagon shape, a rectangular shape, a rhombus shape, a diamond shape, and a trapezoid shape. Concerning claim 27, wherein the engagement member has an outer diameter that is variable along the length of the engagement member, i.e., from threads to ridges (see Fig. 8A, elements 86 and 84). Concerning claim 28, wherein the engagement member has an inner diameter that is variable along the length of the engagement member, i.e., from threads to ridges (see Fig. 8A, elements 86 and 84). Concerning claim 29, the engagement member comprises an engagement structure on an outer-facing surface selected from the group consisting of: a screw thread (see Fig. 8A, element 86), a knurling pattern, a grating pattern (see Fig. 8A, element 84), and combinations thereof. 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) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Arye et al. (U.S. 2010/0305700 A1) as applied to claims 18 and 29 above, in view of Zucherman et al. (U.S. 2013/0253594 A1). Ben-Arye et al. discloses the invention substantially as described above. However, Ben-Arye et al. do not explicitly disclose that the screw thread has a thread pitch that is variable along the length of the screw thread. Zucherman et al. teach a bone fixation device having a screw thread with a thread pitch that is variable along the length of the screw thread (see Fig. 1A, elements 112 and 114) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of enhancing bone purchase for the specific stabilization technique. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ben-Arye’s thread to have a thread pitch that is variable along the length, the concept of which is disclosed by Zucherman et al., in order to reduce the chance of screw stripping. It is known that smaller thread pitches increase the surface area contact between the screw and bone. This is particularly beneficial in low-density bone. Modifying Ben-Arye’s thread to having a smaller pitch at the distal end would enhance security between the distal end and the bone within the vertebral body which is less dense than the outer cortical rim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art relates to bone fixation devices having variable thread pitch along the shaft, and varying flexibility along the bone penetrating portion. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-3819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4 PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo C. Robert, at 571 272-4719. 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. /ELLEN C HAMMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 09, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599409
HINGEAPPARATUS FOR EXTERNAL BONE FIXATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599410
MULTI-CLAMP APPARATUS FOR EXTERNAL BONE FIXATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582393
RETRACTOR FOR SPINAL SURGERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575940
INTERVERTEBRAL IMPLANTS, INSTRUMENTS, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569282
Tissue Retraction And Vertebral Displacement Devices, Systems, And Methods For Posterior Spinal Fusion
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
78%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1025 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