Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/466,192

MODULAR CONNECTOR ASSEMBLIES AND METHODS OF USE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 13, 2023
Examiner
COTRONEO, STEVEN J
Art Unit
3773
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Medos International Sàrl
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
627 granted / 910 resolved
-1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
956
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 910 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 . Election/Restrictions It is noted that comparison of the claims with Figures 1-5 and the specification shows, however, that the species of Figures 1-5 does not have a second flat surface as required in claim 24. The species of claim 24 is species 2. Claim 24 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/2025. 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 19-21, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrod et al. (US Pub 2021/0228241) in view of Chin et al. (US Pub 2007/0250061). With respect to claim 1, Harrod discloses a modular connector assembly (see figures 1, 2 and 4 below) comprising: a first connector (Fig 1, 20) having a first opening (Fig 2, 26) therein that is configured to receive a spinal fixation element (fig 1, 110); a second connector (fig 2, 60) extending into the first connector through a second opening (fig 2, 34) formed therein, the second connector having a bore (fig 2, 76) formed in a first end (fig 2, 64) thereof that is disposed within the first connector (fig 4); and a coupler (fig 2, 40) disposed within the first connector and passing through the bore of the second connector to prevent separation of the first connector and the second connector (fig 4). With respect to claim 2, Harrod discloses further comprising a set screw (Fig 1, 80) threadably coupled to the first connector. With respect to claim 3, Harrod discloses further comprising a spinal fixation element (fig 1, 110) disposed within the first opening of the first connector, wherein the set screw urges the spinal fixation element toward the coupler (fig 1 and 4). With respect to claim 6, Harrod discloses wherein the first opening is substantially U-shaped (fig 4, 26) with an open proximal end and is defined by spaced apart arms of the first connector. With respect to claim 8, Harrod discloses wherein the first connector includes an inner threaded surface (see fig 4 below) configured to interface outer threads (fig 1) of a set screw. With respect to claim 9, Harrod discloses wherein the second opening of the first connector has a shape that substantially matches a shape of a portion of the second connector that extends therethrough (fig 1 and 2 both share a rounded rectangular shape). With respect to claim 12, Harrod discloses, wherein the second connector comprises a rod (fig 2, 62) extending from the first connector. With respect to claim 19, Harrod discloses wherein the coupler comprises a proximal-facing rod receiving surface (fig 4, 46). With respect to claim 20, Harrod discloses wherein the rod receiving surface comprises any of a curved surface and opposed planar surfaces that are angled toward one another (fig 2 and 4 show curved surfaces). With respect to claim 21, Harrod discloses wherein the coupler comprises a distally-extending post(fig 2, 48) configured to extend through the bore formed in the second connector (fig 4). With respect to claim 23 Harrod discloses wherein the first end of the second connector has a larger diameter (see fig 4 below) than a second end (see fig 4 below of the second connector and the second connector includes a taper between the first end and the second end. PNG media_image1.png 716 622 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 1, Harrod discloses the claimed invention except for wherein second connector has a flat surface at the first end and the bore is formed in the flat surface. Chin discloses a second connector (fig 10, 140) has a flat surface (fig 10, 173) at the first end (see fig 10 below) and the bore is formed in the flat surface (paragraph 29, flat sides in the opening) to enable the rods to be parallel to each other (paragraph 29). PNG media_image2.png 564 420 media_image2.png Greyscale 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 device of Harrod to include the second connector has a flat surface at the first end and the bore is formed in the flat surface in view of Chin in order to enable the rods to be parallel to each other. With respect to claim 25, Harrod in view of Chin discloses the claimed invention except for the coupler having an indent configured to facilitate securing the coupler to the first connector. Harrod discloses the coupler (fig 4, 40) having a tab (fig 4, 44) while the first connector (fig 20, 25) has an indent (fig 4, 25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention reverse the tab and indent on the device such that the coupler having an indent configured to facilitate securing the coupler to the first connector, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12, 19-21, 23 and 25 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. 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 STEVEN J COTRONEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Eduardo Robert can be reached 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 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. /S.J.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2023
Application Filed
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 27, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 27, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 28, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599456
Cavity Surgical Lighting Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12564427
POLYAXIAL BONE ANCHORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544120
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL IMPLANTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12533161
NON-RADIOLOGIC CLOSED FEMORAL REDUCTION AND NAILING WITH A WEIGHT BEARABLE NAIL FOR FEMORAL FRACTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12527638
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR ROBOTIC MANIPULATION OF THE SPINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 910 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