Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 19/060,703

EXPANDABLE INTERVERTEBRAL IMPLANT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 23, 2025
Examiner
HARVEY, JULIANNA NANCY
Art Unit
3773
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Elevation Spine Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
937 granted / 1199 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1199 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 24 recites that the one or more sequentially arranged cam engagement surfaces are shaped differently from each other. Such a recitation constitutes new matter. Fig. 8B shows sequentially arranged cam engagement surfaces 350, 360, and 370. However, Fig. 8B fails to show that the aforementioned surfaces are shaped differently from each other. Furthermore, the specification fails to state that cam engagement surfaces 350, 360, and 370 are shaped differently from each other. The Examiner notes, however, that Fig. 8B appears to show that cam engagement surfaces 350, 360, and 370 extend at different angles. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 25 recites that the one or more cam engagement surfaces each have a plurality of curved and straight portions. Such a recitation constitutes new matter. Fig. 8B shows arranged cam engagement surfaces 350, 360, and 370. However, Fig. 8B fails to show that the aforementioned surfaces each have a plurality of curved and straight portions. Furthermore, the specification fails to state that cam engagement surfaces 350, 360, and 370 each have a plurality of curved and straight portions. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-23 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to teach or suggest: an expandable intervertebral implant wherein the first screw urges only linear expansion of the gap, the second screw urges only angular expansion of the gap, and the first and second screw are independently engageable from the same direction (claim 1); an expandable intervertebral implant wherein the first screw is actuatable from the anterior end of the implant and the angular expansion results in the anterior end expanding more than the posterior end of the implant (claim 8); and an expandable intervertebral implant wherein the first cam is configured to translate anteriorly and superiorly following a non-linear cam engagement surface to increase the anterior height (claim 15). With regard to the non-linear cam engagement surface recited in claim 15, the Examiner is interpreting cam engagement surfaces 350, 360, and 370 in combination as the non-linear cam engagement surface (see Fig. 8B) such that the non-linear cam engagement surface is supported by Applicant’s disclosure. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JULIANNA N HARVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00am-5:00pm EST. 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, Eduardo Robert can be reached 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 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. /JULIANNA N HARVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 02, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 13, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599411
ROD FOR SPINAL BRACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599412
INTRA-OPERATIVE OPTIONS FOR SMART IMPLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582451
Active Compression Devices, Methods Of Assembly And Methods Of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569279
POP-ON-CAP ASSEMBLIES HAVING OPPOSING SPLAY-RESISTING FEATURES AND GENERALLY REACTANGULAR OPPOSING ROTATION-PREVENTING/ROTATION-RESISTING FEATURES FOR SPINAL SURGERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557977
SMARTPHONE DENTAL IMAGING ATTACHMENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+19.0%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1199 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