Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/019,331

MULTIPLE SPINAL SURGICAL PATHWAYS SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 13, 2025
Examiner
WAGGLE, JR, LARRY E
Art Unit
3775
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
652 granted / 812 resolved
+10.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
853
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 812 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to the preliminary amendments received on 24 March 2025. Claims 21-42 are currently pending. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Drawings The drawings received on 27 March 2024 are accepted by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informality: It appears that a period should be added at the end of the claim. Claim 32 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 25. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim (see MPEP § 608.01(m)). Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informality: In lines 3-4, it appears that the phrase “a second plane oriented in a cranial-caudal direction along a mid-longitudinal axis of the third bone screw” should read “a second plane oriented in a cranial-caudal direction extends in a direction along a mid-longitudinal axis of the third bone screw” for clarity (i.e. similar to the language in lines 1-3 of claim 41). Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the contact" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 41 and 42 are dependent upon claim 40, they contain the same issue. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the spinal implant" in lines 26 and 27 (i.e. two separate instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 41 and 42 are dependent upon claim 40, they contain the same issue. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the disc space" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 41 and 42 are dependent upon claim 40, they contain the same issue. Note: It appears that amending lines 26-27 of claim 40 to read “wherein contact of the first tip and the second tip to the first bone screw serves to increase loading on the vertebral body” would overcome this rejection and render the claim clear (see numbered page 35 of the current specification for support). For examination purposes, claim 40 will be treated as such. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-31 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Claims 21-31 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, in combination with the underlined limitations below, a method for surgically treating a spine of a patient, the method comprising positioning a patient on a surgical table for surgery; accessing a first portion of the spine of the patient via a first incision on a first lateral portion of the patient located on a first side of the sagittal plane; accessing a second portion of the spine of the patient via a second incision on a first posterior portion of the patient on the first side of the sagittal plane; accessing a third portion of the spine of the patient via a third incision on a second posterior portion of the patient on an opposite second side of the sagittal plane; inserting a spinal implant into a disc between an upper first vertebrae and a lower second vertebrae at the first portion of the spine via access through the first incision; inserting a first bone screw into and through portions of the upper first vertebrae at the first posterior portion of the spine via access through the second incision so that the first bone screw follows an inferior-anterior trajectory to position a first tip of the first bone screw adjacent a first anterior portion of the spinal implant; and inserting a second bone screw into and through portions of the lower second vertebrae at the second posterior portion of the spine via access through the third incision so that the second bone screw follows a superior-anterior trajectory to position a second tip of the second bone screw adjacent a second anterior portion of the spinal implant. Claim 32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action. Claims 33-39 are allowed. Claims 32-39 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, in combination with the underlined limitations below, a method for surgically treating a spine of a patient, the method comprising positioning a patient on a surgical table for surgery; accessing a first portion of the spine of the patient via a first incision on a first lateral portion of the patient located on a first side of the sagittal plane; accessing a second portion of the spine of the patient via a second incision on a first posterior portion of the patient on the first side of the sagittal plane; accessing a third portion of the spine of the patient via a third incision on a second posterior portion of the patient on an opposite second side of the sagittal plane; inserting a spinal implant into a disc between an upper first vertebrae and a lower second vertebrae at the first portion of the spine via access through the first incision; inserting a first bone screw into and through portions of the upper first vertebrae at the first posterior portion of the spine via access through the second incision so that the first bone screw follows an inferior-anterior trajectory to contact a first tip of the first bone screw to a first anterior portion of the spinal implant; and inserting a second bone screw into and through portions of the lower second vertebrae at the second posterior portion of the spine via access through the third incision so that the second bone screw follows a superior-anterior trajectory to contact a second tip of the second bone screw to a second anterior portion of the spinal implant; wherein the contact of the first tip and the second tip to the spinal implant serves in maintaining the spinal implant in position within the disc space. Claim 40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Claims 41 and 42 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Claims 40-42 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, in combination with the underlined limitations below, a method for surgically treating a spine of a patient, the method comprising positioning a patient on a surgical table for surgery, and supporting the patient on the surgical table so that the coronal plane of the patient is oriented at an acute angle relative to horizonal; accessing a first portion of the spine of the patient via a first incision on a first lateral portion of the patient located on a first side of the sagittal plane; accessing a second portion of the spine of the patient via a second incision on a first posterior portion of the patient on the first side of the sagittal plane; accessing a third portion of the spine of the patient via a third incision on a second posterior portion of the patient on an opposite second side of the sagittal plane; inserting a first bone screw into a vertebral body of a vertebrae in a lateral direction at the first portion of the spine via access through the first incision; inserting a second bone screw into and through portions of the vertebrae at the first posterior portion of the spine via access through the second incision so that the first bone screw follows an at least in part anterior trajectory to position a first tip of the second bone screw adjacent a first portion of the first bone screw; and inserting a third bone screw into and through portions of the vertebrae at the second posterior portion of the spine via access through the third incision so that the second bone screw follows an at least in part anterior trajectory to position a second tip of the third bone screw adjacent a second portion of the first bone screw; wherein contact of the first tip and the second tip to the first bone screw serves to increase loading on the vertebral body. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY E WAGGLE, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7110. The examiner can normally be reached TEAP: Monday - Friday (7:45am - 3:45pm). 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. /LARRY E WAGGLE, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 13, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599420
SURGICAL INSTRUMENT, MEDICAL TOOL SET, AND MOVEMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599405
Intraosseous Device Including a Sensing Obturator
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599419
Beveled Screw
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582421
INTRAOPERATIVE ADJUSTABLE GUIDES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569306
ROBOTIC REVISION KNEE ARTHROPLASTY VIRTUAL RECONSTRUCTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
80%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+17.6%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 812 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