Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/052,532

LOCALIZED TRACKING OF A VERTEBRAL BODY OR OTHER ANATOMIC STRUCTURE

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Feb 13, 2025
Priority
May 28, 2021 — continuation of 12/251,168
Examiner
NGANGA, BONIFACE N
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Medos International Sarl
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
358 granted / 558 resolved
-5.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
600
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
77.4%
+37.4% vs TC avg
§102
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§112
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 558 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Response to Amendment This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed 04/28/2026. As directed by the amendment, the specification has been amended and claims 5-20 have been added. Thus claims 1-20 are presently pending. Election/Restrictions Newly submitted claims 12-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 12-20 are directed to a species (“species B”) of a surgical system that does not require a navigation sensor comprising one or more tines … the one or more tines configured to contact an anatomic structure and detect movement as required by previously examined species (“species A"), see e.g., [0008] as filed, navigation sensor with tines and one without tines are described as different embodiments. The species are independent or distinct because they are alternatives to each other, in addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the record. There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species because the different species would require at a minimum, employing different search queries to evaluate patentability of the unique limitations recited in one species and not the others and a prior art applicable to one of the species would likely not be applicable to the other. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,251,168. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are of a broad scope compared to the patented case and are therefore anticipated by the patented claims. Conclusion Claims 5-10 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. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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. /BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 13, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §DP
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Apr 28, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12673224
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR PULMONARY HYPERTENSION TREATMENT
6y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12672852
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR EXTRACTING QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION IN MEDICAL ULTRASOUND
1y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12672818
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-DRIVEN DYNAMIC ULTRASOUND SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING SUBACROMIAL IMPINGEMENT
1y 3m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12642505
ULTRASOUND TRANSDUCER ARRAY, ENDOSCOPE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF ULTRASOUND TRANSDUCER ARRAY
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12635926
SYNCHRONOUS ELECTROCARDIOGRAMS CREATED APPARATUS USING TWO LEAD ASYNCHRONOUS ELECTROCARDIOGRAMS
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+30.1%)
3y 7m (~2y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 558 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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