Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/999,036

TENSION BAND SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 23, 2024
Examiner
NEGRELLIRODRIGUEZ, CHRISTINA
Art Unit
3773
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
909 granted / 1024 resolved
+18.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1054
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§102
59.2%
+19.2% vs TC avg
§112
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1024 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 08/10/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. The information disclosure statement filed 08/10/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tipirneni et al. (U.S. Publication No.2009/0306718 A1; hereinafter “Tipirneni”). Regarding claim 15, Tipirneni discloses a bone fixation assembly (Figure 1R) comprising: an elongate fixation member comprising: a longitudinal passageway formed through the elongate fixation member (wherein lagwire 12 resides through anchor component 2 and cap 20); a proximal portion (anchor component 2) couplable to a first bone fragment of a bone (see Figures 4A-4G); and a distal portion (cap 20) couplable to a second bone fragment of the bone to provide fixation of the second bone fragment relative to the first bone fragment (see Figures 4A-4G); a flexible tensioning element (lagwire 12 and filament 199) configured to pass through the longitudinal passageway (via lagwire 12) and form a loop that spans the first and second bone fragments to secure the elongate fixation member to the bone (see loop formed by filament 199 in Figure 1R); and a tension locking mechanism (lever clutch 300 as shown in Figure 2H) configured to lock and maintain a selected tension force applied to the flexible tensioning element (para.0101-0102), wherein: the loop spanning the first and second bone fragments spans a bone fracture intermediate the first and second bone fragments (Figures 4A-4G); and the selected tension force applied to the flexible tensioning element is locked and maintained by the tension locking mechanism to preload the bone fracture in compression to resist tensile force imparted across the bone fracture, thereby maintaining fixation of the first bone fragment relative to the second bone fragment (para.0101-0102). Regarding claim 19, Tipirneni further discloses wherein the elongated fixation member further comprises an anchor reception chamber (see head 302 of cap 20 in Figure 2H) configured to receive at least a portion of a threaded bone anchor therein (cover 70) to provide a secondary lock that maintains the selected tension force applied to the flexible tensioning element (para.0101-0102). Regarding claim 20, Tipirneni further discloses wherein the anchor reception chamber (302) is formed within the distal portion of the elongate fixation member (cap 20). PNG media_image1.png 405 721 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 496 246 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 567 443 media_image3.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 are allowed. Claims 1-14 in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest a bone fixation assembly comprising a first cortical fixation element configured to engage a first cortical surface on the first bone fragment adjacent the proximal portion of the elongate fixation member; a second cortical fixation element configured to engage a second cortical surface on the second bone fragment adjacent the distal portion of the elongate fixation member; and a flexible tensioning element configured to pass through the longitudinal passageway of the elongate fixation member and couple intermediate the first and second cortical fixation elements to provide a compression force therebetween, as required by independent claims 1 and 8. Claims 16-18 are 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. Claims 16-18 in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found to disclose, or suggest the claimed combination of limitations recited in independent claim 15. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest: wherein the tension locking mechanism comprises: a tension chamber formed within the elongate fixation member; a tension chamber locking surface positioned within the tension chamber; a taper bullet receivable within the tension chamber; and a taper bullet locking surface shaped to engage the tension chamber locking surface, wherein: a first end of the flexible tensioning element is configured to couple with the taper bullet; and a second end of the flexible tensioning element is configured to: exit the longitudinal passageway at a distal end of the elongate fixation member; wrap back around the first and second bone fragments to form the loop spanning the first and second bone fragments; enter back into the longitudinal passageway at a proximal end of the elongate fixation member; pass through the tension chamber formed within the elongate fixation member such that the flexible tensioning element becomes trapped between the tension chamber locking surface and the taper bullet locking surface; and exit the longitudinal passageway at the distal end of the elongate fixation member, as required by dependent claim 16. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vitale et al. U.S. Publication No.2020/0000505 A1 Gorsline et al. U.S. Publication No.2014/0228845 A1 Pham et al. U.S. Publication No.2011/0282346 A1 Pieske U.S. Publication No.2009/0287213 A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Negrelli whose telephone number is 571-270-7389. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, between 8:00am to 4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Robert, 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 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. /CHRISTINA NEGRELLI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593970
Medical Stroboscope System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575946
PATIENT-MATCHED MODULAR IMPLANTS AND INSTRUMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575862
SACROILIAC FUSION IMPLANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575861
LOCKING COUPLER DEVICE FOR SPINE ALIGNMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575938
SPINAL IMPLANT SYSTEM AND METHOD
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
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1024 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