Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/815,731

BOTTOM-LOADED PIVOTAL BONE ANCHOR WITH SHANK HEAD COLLET CONTAINMENT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Aug 26, 2024
Examiner
HARVEY, JULIANNA NANCY
Art Unit
3773
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Roger P. Jackson
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
937 granted / 1199 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1199 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 9-13 and 15-18 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 "a lower collet opening" in line 6 of the paragraph beginning with “a lower housing portion.” Because claim 9 has been amended to recite “a lower opening” (see lines 3-4 of the paragraph beginning with “a lower retaining portion”), it is unclear whether “a lower collet opening” is intended to refer to the previously-recited lower opening or an additional opening. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting “a lower collet opening” as “the lower opening.” Note that claim 13 also recites “the lower collet opening” (see lines 2-3), which the Examiner is interpreting as “the lower opening.” Claims 10-13 and 15-18 depend from claim 9 and are therefore also rejected. Claims 9-13 and 15-18 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 lower collet retainer portion" in lines 1-2 of the paragraph beginning with “a load ring.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 9 has been amended to recite “a lower retaining portion” in place of “a collet retainer” (see line 1 of the paragraph beginning with “a lower retaining portion”). The limitation “the lower collet retainer portion” is also recited in the following claims: claim 9, line 2, lines 2-3, and line 6 of the paragraph beginning with “wherein after the head of the shank;” claim 11, lines 2-3; claim 12, lines 1-2; claim 13, lines 1-2; claim 15, line 3 and lines 3-4 of the first paragraph; and claim 15, line 1, lines 3-4, lines 4-5, and line 6 of the second paragraph. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting “the lower collet retainer portion” as “the lower retaining portion.” Claims 10-13 and 15-18 depend from claim 9 and are therefore also rejected. Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the receiver housing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 9 has been amended to recite “a housing portion.” For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting “the receiver housing” as “the housing portion.” Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "the receiver housing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 19 recites “a housing portion.” For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting “the receiver housing” as “the housing portion.” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-3, 6-8, 19, 20, and 22-24 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 1 and 19 recite that the load ring comprises a lower outer cylindrical surface extending downward toward a bottom surface of the load ring and an upper outer frustoconical surface extending upward toward a top surface of the load ring. Note that rejected claim 9 also includes such a limitation. As such, upon overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth above, claims 9-13, 15-18, and 21 would also be allowable. 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 JULIANNA N HARVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00am-5:00pm 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. /JULIANNA N HARVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 26, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 11, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599411
ROD FOR SPINAL BRACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599412
INTRA-OPERATIVE OPTIONS FOR SMART IMPLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582451
Active Compression Devices, Methods Of Assembly And Methods Of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569279
POP-ON-CAP ASSEMBLIES HAVING OPPOSING SPLAY-RESISTING FEATURES AND GENERALLY REACTANGULAR OPPOSING ROTATION-PREVENTING/ROTATION-RESISTING FEATURES FOR SPINAL SURGERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557977
SMARTPHONE DENTAL IMAGING ATTACHMENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+19.0%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1199 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