Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/714,735

IMPROVEMENTS IN AND RELATING TO DEVICES FOR SURGICAL INSTRUMENT EXTRACTION

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
May 30, 2024
Examiner
BATES, DAVID W
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Depuy Ireland Unlimited Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
801 granted / 1053 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1115
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1053 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION This is the first office action on the merits in this application. The claims, as amended on May 30, 2024, are under consideration. Claims 3, 5-9, and 12-14 were amended. Claims 1-16 stand pending. 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 § 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 10-14 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 10 makes reference to “the elongate portion” at lines 2-3. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Examiner suggests this may have been referring to “the body” of claim 1. Correction is required. Claim 12 includes the limitation “for instance”. Examiner is unclear if the limitations following that phrase are required to be considered. This limitation renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Clarification is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biedermann et al. (US 2017/0056194 A1). Regarding claim 1, Biedermann teaches a surgical instrument extraction device 50, the extraction device comprising: a body 51; a first mounting location provided at the proximal end of the body (at threads where 60 is mounted onto 51 [0078]); a second mounting location (portion seen in fig. 3A) provided at the distal end of the body 51; wherein the second mounting location includes an engagement element 53 capable of use for the surgical instrument to be extracted in use, the engagement element 53 having a first extent (see fig. 3E, left and right sides of 53) between a first pair of points on opposite sides of the engagement element and having a second extent (up/down on 53 in fig. 3E) between a second different pair of points on opposite sides of the engagement element, wherein the first extent is greater than the second extent, the engagement element further including one or more non-planar surfaces 57. Regarding claim 2, the one or more non-planar surface sections include part-spherical surface sections 57. [0079] Regarding claim 3, the non-planar surfaces provide one or more engagement surface sections (57 is seen engaging another device 1 as in fig. 1). Regarding claim 4, one or more non-planar engagement surface sections 57 are provided adjacent a junction 62 between the second mounting location and the body 51. See fig. 3C. Regarding claim 5, one or more non-planar engagement surface sections 57 are provided distal a junction at 62 between the second mounting location and the body 51. Regarding claim 6, the one or more non-planar surfaces 57 comprise one or more surface sections which lie on a common sphere [0079]. Regarding claim 7, the engagement element 53 comprises one or more planar other surface sections 61. Regarding claim 8, the engagement element 53 comprises two planar other surface sections 61 which extend parallel to the longitudinal axis of the extraction device 50. Regarding claim 9, the engagement element 53 has the profile of a sphere at 57 with one or more spherical caps removed at 61. Regarding claim 10, the plane defining a second spherical cap removed is a first planar other surface 61. (Other alternatives are not considered since once a single alternative and/or is met, the other alternatives need not be further considered). Regarding claim 11, the first planar other surface 61 extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the extraction device 50. Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the first extent is between a first pair of points on two different non-planar surfaces of 57. Regarding claim 13, the body 51 includes a body portion 62 and an includes an elongate portion 63, together with a transition portion 56 that connects the body portion 62 to the elongate portion 63. Regarding claim 14, the first mounting location at the threads receiving 60 is adapted to connect the extraction device to the distal end of a tool (some other nut, and other properly configured structures, besides 60 can be coupled here). Regarding claim 15, the claim requires a kit including the device of claim 1, and additional limitations. The limitations of claim 1 are taught, as above. Biedermann further includes a tool 60 for attachment to the first mounting location (threads) of the surgical instrument extraction device. (There is no reason a nut cannot be said to be a tool, as presently claimed). Regarding claim 16, the tool 60 further includes one or more abutment surfaces (flats seen on 60 for driving the nut). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-6PM 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, 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 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. /DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599377
KNEE TENSIONER-BALANCER AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594071
COUNTER-TORQUE IMPLANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582450
BONE FIXATION DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582454
Bone Plate Implantation Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575837
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LASER ALIGNMENT CHECK IN SURGICAL GUIDANCE SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
93%
With Interview (+17.1%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1053 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