Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 19/085,515

SURGICAL RETRACTOR SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USE

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Priority
Aug 19, 2011 — provisional 61/525,646 +6 more
Examiner
LAWSON, MATTHEW JAMES
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
NuVasive Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 11m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
815 granted / 1105 resolved
+21.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1143
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.2%
+4.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1105 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed July 14th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claims 1 and 8, Applicant has amended their claim to recite “wherein the elongate element is unthreaded in at least a middle portion of the elongate element between the first arm and the second arm”. And argues that the prior art of Dinkler et al. fails to teach or disclose this structural feature. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Dinkler et al. teaches that the elongate element is unthreaded in the middle portion as flat 100 is unthreaded along the entire length of the elongate element. As a result, Applicant’s arguments and remarks are not found persuasive to overcome the prior art of record. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. Claims 1-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Dinkler et al. (US 5,616,117). Regarding claim 1, Dinkler et al. disclose a two-bladed retractor system comprising a first retractor blade (24); a second retractor blade (25) facing the first retractor blade; a first arm (22) extending from a proximal end (@106) of the first retractor blade and defining a first axis (see figure below); a second arm (23) extending from a proximal end (@106) of the second retractor blade and defining a second axis (see figure below); an elongate element (26) having a length (see figure below) defining a third axis (91), wherein the length is greater than a width (see figure below) and a depth (see figure below) of the elongate element and the elongate element is configured to slidingly receive the first arm and the second arm (column 4, lines 14-23), such that the first axis is parallel to the second axis and the first axis and the second axis are perpendicular to the third axis (figure 1), wherein the elongate element is unthreaded in at least a middle portion of the elongate element between the first arm and the second arm (the elongate element is unthreaded in the middle portion as flat 100 is unthreaded along the entire length of the elongate element). PNG media_image1.png 530 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Dinkler et al. disclose the first retractor blade and the second retractor blade define a surgical opening located between a first retractor blade facing surface and a second retractor blade facing surface (figure 1). Regarding claim 3, Dinkler et al. disclose the first axis does not intersect the surgical opening (figure 1). Regarding claim 4, Dinkler et al. disclose the two-bladed retractor system comprises exactly two retractor blades (figure 1). Regarding claim 5, Dinkler et al. disclose means for moving (32) the first retractor blade relative to the elongate element (column 4, lines 14-23). Regarding claim 6, Dinkler et al. disclose means for moving (33) the second retractor blade relative to the elongate element (column 4, lines 14-43). Regarding claim 7, Dinkler et al. disclose a length of the first retractor blade is orthogonal to a length of the first arm and a length of the second retractor blade is orthogonal to a length of the second arm (figure 1). Regarding claim 8, Dinkler et al. disclose a two-blade surgical retractor system comprising an elongate element (26) comprising a first end (see figure below) and a second end (see figure below) with a length (see figure below) therebetween, the elongate element defining a first axis (91) along the length thereof, a first retractor blade (24 + 22) having a first arm (22) extending from a proximal end (@106) of the first retractor blade and a first blade face (see figure below); a second retractor blade (25 + 23) having a second arm (23) extending from a proximal end (@106) of the second retractor blade and a second blade face (see figure below) that faces the first blade face, wherein the first arm and the second arm are sliding received by the elongate element (column 4, lines 14-23) and the second retractor blade defines a reference point (108) located thereon, wherein, when the second arm slides relative to the elongate element, the reference point defined by the second retractor blade moves in a linear direction parallel to the first axis along which the second retractor arm translates and orthogonal to the second retractor blade face (figure 1), wherein the elongate element is unthreaded in at least a middle portion of the elongate element between the first arm and the second arm (the elongate element is unthreaded in the middle portion as flat 100 is unthreaded along the entire length of the elongate element). PNG media_image2.png 530 752 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, Dinkler et al. disclose the first retractor blade and the second retractor blade define a surgical opening located between the first retractor blade face and the second retractor blade face (figure 1). Regarding claim 10, Dinkler et al. disclose the first axis does not intersect the surgical opening (figure 1). Regarding claim 11, Dinkler et al. disclose the two-bladed retractor system comprises exactly two retractor blades (figure 1). Regarding claim 12, Dinkler et al. disclose means for moving (32) the first retractor blade relative to the elongate element (column 4, lines 14-23). Regarding claim 13, Dinkler et al. disclose means for moving (33) the second retractor blade relative to the elongate element (column 4, lines 14-43). Regarding claim 14, Dinkler et al. disclose a length of the first retractor blade is orthogonal to a length of the first arm and a length of the second retractor blade is orthogonal to a length of the second arm (figure 1). 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 MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00. 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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. /MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 20, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Jul 14, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 27, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702569
PELVIS REGISTRATION INSTRUMENT AND METHOD
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12685649
IMPLANT BEARING REMOVAL GUIDE
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12672884
TOE IMPLANT ASSEMBLIES, KITS, SURGICAL METHODS, AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667465
ADJUSTED STIFFNESS ORTHOPAEDIC IMPLANTS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12661216
FEMORAL FIXATION
6y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.7%)
3y 4m (~1y 11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1105 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