Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/549,300

DEVICE FOR HELPING TO BEND SURGICAL RODS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 06, 2023
Examiner
HANNA, SAMUEL SALEEB
Art Unit
3775
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire De Poitiers
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
331 granted / 572 resolved
-12.1% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
592
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 572 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 of group (I) and claims 1 – 13 in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 14 – 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/04/2025. Claim Objections Claim 11 – 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11, delete “[Math 4]” before the equation, for clarity. In claim 12, add “,” after “claim 6”, for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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 9 and 11 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 9 recites the limitation "the memory of the device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, the preceding limitation is interpreted as referring to “a memory of a device”. In claim 11, the recitation of “S=” in the formula, makes the claim unclear and vague, for not specifying what “S” refers to, clarification is requested. For the sake of examination, the “S” is interpreted as referring to the geometry for the bending of the rod. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al. (US Pub. 2020/0060768 A1). Claim 1, Mosnier discloses a method for helping with bending a rod that can be implanted in a patient [abstract, Figs. 1 – 13, and ¶2], the method comprising, on the basis of a prior acquisition of one or more measurements of distance and/or of angle between elements of a spinal column of the patient, these measurements being taken from an image of the back of the patient [¶13, preoperative x-ray, ¶3 - ¶6, ¶24 - ¶28, ¶49, ¶57 and ¶67 - ¶68, measurements being distance and/or angle], the following steps: a) determining a type of spinal column of the patient according to a classification [¶14 - ¶21, vertebral column of the patient to be treated]; b) identifying one or more invariable geometrical parameters corresponding to the type of spinal column determined [¶3 - ¶7, ¶15 and/or ¶37, pelvic parameters and/or intervertebral spaces]; c) calculating one or more radii of curvature for the bending of a rod as a function of said measurements, of the type of spinal column determined and of said invariable parameters previously identified [claims 21, 34 and 43, defining curve having one or more radii]; d) obtaining a representation of the rod bent to said one or more radii of curvature [Fig.11, ¶54]; and e) displaying the representation at a scale [Fig.11, ¶54]. Though, Mosnier does not explicitly disclose displaying the representation at a scale of 1:1. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display the representation at a scale of 1:1 for the sake of providing perfect clarity and sharpness for the representation by mapping each image pixel to a screen pixel, and preventing blurring and distortion from scaling, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Mosnier discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Mosnier discloses: Claim 2, wherein said distance and/or angle measurements comprise at least the measurement of a distance between vertebrae L4 and Si and/or the distance between vertebrae L1 and Si [¶3 - ¶6, ¶24 - ¶28, ¶49, ¶57 and ¶67 - ¶68]. Claim 3, wherein the said invariable parameters comprise a pelvis parameter and an inter-vertebrae distance [¶3 - ¶7, ¶15 and/or ¶37, pelvic parameters and/or intervertebral spaces]. Claim 4, wherein said distance and/or angle measurements comprise a pelvic tilt measurement [¶3 - ¶7 and ¶15]. Claim 5, wherein the spinal column is classified according to a type selected from four types of spinal column (TYi, TY2, TY3, TY4) defining models of lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, cervical lordosis, cervical kyphosis and neutral [Figs.2 – 10, ¶42 - ¶48]. Claim 6, an algorithm implementing a bending-calculation formula including the invariable parameters of said geometric invariables associated with said types of spinal column [¶29 and ¶38 - ¶39]. Claim 7, wherein the calculation for determining a geometry (s) for the bending of the rod is of the form: s= fn(qi) the parameters qi being dependent on the measurements, on the type of spinal column and on invariables according to the types of spinal column [¶29 and ¶38 - ¶39]. Claim 8, wherein the function fn(qi) is produced from equations of circles, of ellipses, or of combinations of splines [claims 21, 34 and 43, defining curve having one or more radii]. Claim 9, wherein said equations are integrated into the memory of the device [claim 32]. Claim 10, wherein said equations are adapted by the surgeon or the practitioner using a specific formula [claims 21, 34 and 43, defining curve having one or more radii]. Claim 12, comprising the calculation of several successive radii of curvature of the rod [¶29 and ¶38 - ¶39]. Claim 13, wherein said invariable parameters are identified on at least one image of the back of the patient in a sagittal plane [¶3 - ¶7, ¶13 - ¶15, Figs. 1 – 10]. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 11 is 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S. HANNA whose telephone number is (571)270-3248. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F. 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, Kevin Truong can be reached 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 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. /SAMUEL S HANNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594081
MEDICAL CUTTING DEVICES WITH STATIC COMPONENTS HAVING TEMPERATURE SENSORS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594109
SURGICAL EXTRACTOR WITH A RATCHETING HANDLE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597153
METHOD FOR OPTICALLY CALIBRATING AN INSTRUMENT DRILL TIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582418
KNEE-SURGERY SYSTEM, KNEE-SURGERY ROBOT, AND TECHNIQUES FOR COMPUTER-GUIDED KNEE REPAIR AND/OR KNEE RECONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582413
SURGICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
58%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+35.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 572 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