Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/098,464

SURGICAL PORT FOR STAY SUTURES AND SYSTEM AND METHODS THEREOF

Non-Final OA §101§112§DP
Filed
Apr 02, 2025
Priority
Aug 11, 2021 — continuation of 11/712,265 +1 more
Examiner
HARVEY, JULIANNA NANCY
Art Unit
3773
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
LSI Solutions Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
964 granted / 1240 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
1294
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1240 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112 §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 . 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 1-19 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner surface of the at least one second cam pocket rib" in lines 2-3 of the paragraph beginning with “wherein the second cam base is disposed within the second cam pocket.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-19 are rejected because they depend from claim 1. In order to overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite “the at least one second cam pocket rib having an inner surface that at least partially defines a second cam pocket” (lines 1-2) of the paragraph beginning with “at least one second cam pocket rib disposed in the housing interior portion.” For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting claim 1 as including the suggested amendment. Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first rotation direction" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests amending claim 4 to recite “the first rotational direction.” For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting claim 4 as including the suggested amendment. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-19 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,712,265 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion 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

Apr 02, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12751741
ROD FOR SPINAL FIXATION IMPLEMENT AND SPINAL FIXATION IMPLEMENT PROVIDED WITH SAME
3y 2m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12751744
SURGICAL IMPLANT INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS OF USE
3y 0m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12746039
AUTOMATED MACHINE LEARNING DESIGN OF ORTHOPEDIC IMPLANTS AND METHODS FOR USING SAME
1y 8m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12733803
VAGINAL SPECULUM AND CERVICAL SCREENING KIT
3y 10m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12727919
ROD FOR SPINAL BRACE
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 08, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+19.1%)
2y 10m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1240 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