Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/027,485

EXPANDABLE VERTEBRAL PROSTHESIS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Examiner
HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA
Art Unit
3773
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Globus Medical Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
799 granted / 1025 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1058
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1025 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species Z, Figs. 47-52 in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,173,747 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences amount to minor changes in the arrangement and phraseology of the claim limitations. The claims of both the issued patent and the present application are directed to substantially the same invention. Where differences exist, the claims of the issued patent include more elements and are more specific. Thus, the invention of the patent claims are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the application claims are anticipated by the patent claims, they are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. The claims of the present application and the issued patent are mapped as follows: Appl. 19/027,485 Pat. 10,524,930 1 8 2 15 3 8 4 5 5 6 6 5 7 6 8 2 9 13 10 1 11 16 12 15 13 16 14 17 15 14 16 17 17 14 18 9 19 13 20 16 Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims 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, a method for stabilizing spinal elements, as recited in claims 1 and 11, comprising a gear positioned coaxially to a first body and second body, and axially fixed to the second body and rotatable with respect to the second body, wherein the gear threadedly engages the circumferential threading of the first body, the gear configured with a plurality of notches, and a locking having a self-locking biased switch movable between a locked position and an unlocked position, the switch attached to the second body and biased to the locked position. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-3819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4 PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo C. 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. /ELLEN C HAMMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599409
HINGEAPPARATUS FOR EXTERNAL BONE FIXATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599410
MULTI-CLAMP APPARATUS FOR EXTERNAL BONE FIXATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582393
RETRACTOR FOR SPINAL SURGERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575940
INTERVERTEBRAL IMPLANTS, INSTRUMENTS, AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569282
Tissue Retraction And Vertebral Displacement Devices, Systems, And Methods For Posterior Spinal Fusion
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
78%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1025 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