Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/568,491

CRANIOMAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANT AND METHOD OF DESIGNING THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
BECCIA, CHRISTOPHER J
Art Unit
3775
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Meticuly Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1196 granted / 1435 resolved
+13.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1470
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1435 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 II, Species D, drawn to claims 22-34 and 37-38 in the reply filed on December 23, 2025 is acknowledged. 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 22-34 and 37-38 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 22 recites the limitation "the warpage is configured preoperatively so as to adapt the implant to be set onto and supported by at least a craniomaxillofacial bone and/or a soft tissue layer overlaying the craniomaxillofacial bone " in lines 2-5. If the implant is set onto and supported by at least a craniomaxillofacial bone, and not a soft tissue layer overlaying the craniomaxillofacial bone (only first option of “and/OR” clause), then there is not adequate support for “the soft tissue layer” described in lines 6 and 7. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Claim 22 recites the limitation "the elevation of the soft tissue layer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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. Claims 22-34 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0344464 to Engstrand et al. As to Claim 22, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant (110, [0046, 0068-0069], Figs. 2-5) formed into a plate that is rigid, warped, and of a substantially uniform thickness (Figs. 2-5, [0044, 0046-0048]). The warpage is configured preoperatively (patient-customized bending described in [0048]) so as to adapt the implant to be set onto and supported by at least a craniomaxillofacial bone and/or a soft tissue layer overlaying the craniomaxillofacial bone [0048-0049], and support the soft tissue layer in place of at least the craniomaxillofacial bone, thereby compensating or augmenting the elevation of the soft tissue layer (customizing bone defect [0046, 0048, 0051] and including deformation of support frame 120A, [0070]). As to Claim 23, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant wherein the warpage is configured preoperatively so as to also adapt the implant to support the soft tissue layer in place of at least the craniomaxillofacial bone (customizing bone defect [0046, 0048, 0051], and including deformation of support frame 120A, [0070]), thereby compensating or augmenting the elevation of the soft tissue layer, the support being asymmetrical to that provided by a contralateral portion of the craniomaxillofacial bone (configuration described in [0069-0070]). As to Claim 24, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant wherein the substantially uniform thickness is within a range of 0.2-0.8 mm [0074, 0113]. As to Claim 25, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant, the soft tissue layer being one or more of muscle, fat, and skin (other tissues of [0050]). As to Claim 26, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant wherein the plate is also porous [0061]. As to Claim 27, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant comprising further a preoperatively configured mechanical reinforcement (120A, [0068-0069]). As to Claim 28, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant wherein the mechanical reinforcement (120A) fills the porosity of the plate locally [0068-0069]. As to Claim 29, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant wherein the mechanical reinforcement thickens the plate locally (fit described in [0069]). As to Claim 30, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant further including a means for fastening (screw inserted through 140A, 140B) and/or increasing stability of the implant upon the craniomaxillofacial bone [0067, 0071]. As to Claim 31, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant wherein the warpage is configured preoperatively so as to adapt the implant to support the soft tissue layer by way of receiving the soft tissue layer in place of at least the craniomaxillofacial bone (modification described in [0048, 0050]. As to Claim 32, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant wherein the warpage is configured preoperatively so as to adapt the implant to support the soft tissue layer by way of lifting the soft tissue layer over at least the craniomaxillofacial bone (e.g. fasteners driven through other tissue surrounding implantation site, [0050]). As to Claim 33, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant for reconstructing a defective craniomaxillofacial bone and a defective soft tissue layer overlaying the defective craniomaxillofacial bone [0066], wherein the warpage is configured preoperatively so as to adapt the implant to be set onto and supported by at least a non-defective part of the defective craniomaxillofacial bone [0068] and/or the defective part of the defective soft tissue layer [0068-0069], and support the defective soft tissue layer in place of the defective part of the defective craniomaxillofacial bone [0066, 0105], and the defective part of the defective soft tissue layer (via fasteners within 140A, 140B, [0069-0070]). As to Claim 34, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant wherein the defective craniomaxillofacial bone is a cranium [0045], and the defective soft tissue layer comprising overlaying temporalis muscle and fat [0045, 0051]. As to Claim 37, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant for a cosmetic surgery [0045], wherein the warpage is configured preoperatively so as to adapt the implant to be set onto and supported by at least the craniomaxillofacial bone and/or the soft tissue layer [0051-0052], and support the soft tissue layer in place of at least craniomaxillofacial bone, thereby altering the apparent contours of the craniomaxillofacial bone [0051-0052, 0069]. As to Claim 38, Engstrand discloses a patient-specific craniomaxillofacial implant, the cosmetic surgery being operated upon a nasal bone [0049, 0051]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BECCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00. 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, 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. /CHRISTOPHER J BECCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599376
ILLUMINATED MEDICAL DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594100
OSTEOTOMY DEVICE AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588930
DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS OF USE FOR DELIVERY OF MATERIALS IN COMBINATION WITH INTRAMEDULLARY DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588912
Surgical Saw for Actuating a Saw Blade with an Oscillating Head, the Saw Having a Coupling Assembly for Releasably Holding the Saw Blade
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582535
Stand Alone Interbody Spinal System
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
83%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+13.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1435 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