Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/042,783

PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTATION AND METHODS FOR ANKLE ARTHROPLASTY

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 31, 2025
Examiner
RAMANA, ANURADHA
Art Unit
3775
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Orthosoft Ulc
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1022 granted / 1237 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1274
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1237 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “potion” should be - - portion - - to correct a minor typographical error. 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. 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 2-11 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. In claim 2, the recitation “confirming position of the talus trialing component” renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is incomplete. It is unclear how the position of the talus trialing component is confirmed. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll et al. (US 9566075) in view of Dogue et al. (US 11399949). Carroll et al. disclose a method for performing a total-ankle arthroplasty, the method including the steps of: attaching a size-specific (sized to fit the talus 124) talus cutting block (200, Fig. 28) to a custom manufactured or patient-specific talus guide body (122, Figs. 21 and 30); attaching the patient-specific talus guide body to a superior (or upper portion of the talus, Figs. 21 and 28) portion of a talus (Fig. 31); resecting a superior portion of the talus; attaching a size-specific tibia cutting block to a patient-specific tibia guide body (150, Fig. 23); attaching the patient-specific tibia guide body to an inferior (lower tibia) portion of a tibia (120, Fig. 23); and resecting an inferior portion of the tibia. Carroll et al. disclose a method of making accurate and precise bone resections of the tibia and the talus in ankle replacement surgery. Carroll et al. disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for prosthetic ankle components that are attached to the resected talus and the resected tibia. It is well known to provide a total ankle replacement prosthesis placed into prepared tibial-talar space during total ankle arthroplasty, as evidenced by Dogue et al. (Figs. 1A and 1b, col. 1, lines 32-67 and col. 2, lines 1-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an ankle prosthesis, as taught by Dogue et al., after performing total ankle arthroplasty according to the method of Carroll et al., to replace a defective ankle joint. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 12-19 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. The closest prior art cited in the attached PTO-892 and in the parent applications cite some features of Applicant’s claimed invention, either singly or in combination, for e.g. Carroll et al. (US 9566075) and Dogue et al. (US 11399949). However, no references or a reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose all the elements of Applicant’s claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anu Ramana whose telephone number is (571)272-4718. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-5:00 pm. 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. March 2, 2026 /Anu Ramana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599414
RECEIVING PART FOR RECEIVING A ROD FOR COUPLING THE ROD TO A BONE ANCHORING ELEMENT AND A BONE ANCHORING DEVICE WITH SUCH A RECEIVING PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594102
SURGICAL SUTURE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594083
UNIVERSAL BROACH SYSTEM FOR HUMERAL IMPLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594095
LAPAROSCOPIC WORKSPACE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589007
INTRADISCAL FIXATION SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.6%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1237 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