Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/767,658

CANNULATED SCREW REMOVAL DEVICE AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 09, 2024
Examiner
BATES, DAVID W
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Acumed LLC
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 §103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to the Response to Restriction Requirement of December 8, 2025. By that response, claims 13-15 were canceled. Claims 1-12 and 16-20 are 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 and 16-20, in the reply filed on December 8, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 13-15 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 8, 2025. By the amendment of December 8, 2025, withdrawn claims 13-15 are now canceled. 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, 2, 4-6, 10-12, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valentine (US 1,785,847). Regarding claim 1, Valentine teaches a cannulated screw removal device as at figs. 1-3 (for removing a cannulated screw 13, with a cannula 16 formed therein) comprising: an elongated shaft B comprising one or more threads (bottom of B) configured to secure the elongated shaft B to a cannula 16 of a cannulated screw 13; and a collar A comprising: a cannula 10 extending from a distal end of the collar to a proximal end of the collar A, wherein the cannula 10 of the collar A is configured to receive the elongated shaft B; and one or more protrusions 12 configured to engage with at least a portion of the cannulated screw 13 as seen at fig. 2, wherein the collar A is configured to: surround at least a portion of the elongated shaft B when the elongated shaft B is received within the cannula 10 of the collar A; and deliver a torque to the portion of the cannulated screw 13 through the one or more protrusions 12 (by use of the wrenching flats 11). Regarding claim 2, the elongated shaft B comprises: a stop head C; and a cannulated screw engagement shaft of B configured to be inserted into the cannula 16 of the cannulated screw 13, wherein a diameter of the stop head C is larger than a diameter of the cannulated screw engagement shaft B. Regarding claim 4, the cannulated screw engagement shaft B comprises the one or more threads as seen clearly in fig. 2. Regarding claim 5, the elongated shaft B further comprises a torque delivery shaft (selecting the threaded portion of the shaft B protruding above C in figs 1 and 2) connected to the stop head C (the upper thread is seen receiving C), wherein the stop head C is disposed between the cannulated screw engagement shaft B and the torque delivery shaft. Regarding claim 6, the torque delivery shaft of B is removably coupled to the stop head C (C can be threadedly removed from B). Regarding claim 10, each of the one or more protrusions 12 comprises a tip as seen best in figs. 1 and 3. Regarding claim 11, the tip of each of the one or more protrusions 12 is sharply pointed. Regarding claim 12, the tip of each of the one or more protrusions is on the left most side of the protrusion. (the tips can be located on either side, as disclosed at p. 2, line 26-38) Regarding claim 16, Valentine teaches a cannulated screw removal collar A/C comprising: a cannula 10 extending from a distal end of the cannulated screw removal collar to a proximal end of the cannulated screw removal collar (up to down in fig. 2), wherein the cannula 10 (and including the interior passage of C) of the cannulated screw removal collar A/C is configured to receive an elongated shaft B; and one or more protrusions 12 configured to engage with at least a portion of a cannulated screw 13, wherein the one or more protrusions 12 are disposed at a distal end portion of the collar A/C, wherein the cannula 10 (and passage through C) of the cannulated screw removal collar A/C comprises: a first portion through C having a first diameter and configured to receive at least a portion of the elongated shaft B (threadedly); and a second portion 10 having a second diameter greater than the first diameter. Regarding claim 17, each of the one or more protrusions 12 comprises a tip. Regarding claim 18, the tip of each of the one or more protrusions 12 is sharply pointed (seen best in figs. 1 and 3). Regarding claim 19, the tip of each of the one or more protrusions 12 is on the left most side of the protrusion. (the tips can be located on either side, as disclosed at p. 2, line 26-38) 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) 3, 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentine. Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 2 were taught by Valentine, as above. Further, Valentine does teach the cannula 10 of the collar A comprising: a first portion (a portion of 10) having a first diameter and configured to receive at least a portion of the cannulated screw engagement shaft (threaded portion of B); and a second portion of cannula 10 existing (mentally designated). Valentine does not teach the second portion of 10 having a second diameter and configured to receive the stop head, the second diameter being greater than the first diameter. Rather, Valentine teaches the stop head C being an external component (nut) having a smaller diameter (threads being smaller than the unthreaded shaft of B) which acts upon the shaft B and abuts against an external surface of A to function as a stop head in a manner reversed to the arrangement now claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the interference structure which is external in the Valentine arrangement as an internal structure, since it has been held by the courts that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Forming an external locking/blocking mechanism as an internal structure which accomplishes locking/blocking of B and A together is considered to be a reversed arrangement which would have achieved an identical result and is considered a modification which would have been old and well known in the art. Regarding claim 8, Valentine teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above. However, Valentine does not teach the one or more threads comprise left-handed threads. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cause the threads to be reversed to a left hand arrangement. Threads are known only to exist in two arrangements – left and right hand. Both forms function identically to selectively retain and release components from one another. In an instance in which a tap was utilized with a left hand thread to form the cannula 16, it would have been obvious to utilize a left hand thread screw thread on B. Regarding claim 20, Valentine teaches the limitations of claim 16, as above, but does not teach the cannula 10 (and passage through C) of the cannulated screw removal collar A/C comprising a driver engagement recess configured to engage with a driver. Rather, Valentine teaches external driving flats 11 and external driving flats formed on C. It is old and well known in the art to have internal and external driving structures on bolts and nuts. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cause the externally formed driving structures on Valentine’s structures to be internal structures. Both forms function identically to permit attachment of a driver tool to structures to permit relative threaded advancement of the structures. One would have done so in order to permit interface of the Valentine structures with a different type of driver tool. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentine in view of Roberts (US 1,777,936). Regarding claim 9, Valentine teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not teach the one or more threads comprise one or more cutting grooves. Roberts teaches a similar structure for removing a cannulated screw, with a shaft 1 having a tip 5/6 having a tap-like structure with cutting portions thereon for tapping a cannula R formed in the screw. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a tapping structure 5/6 as taught by Roberts to the shaft B of Valentine in order to tap the cannula 16 in the screw 13 without need for use of a second tool. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 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 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

Jul 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (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