Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 17/433,949

ACOUSTIC ENERGY TREATMENT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 25, 2021
Priority
Feb 27, 2019 — AU 2019900632 +1 more
Examiner
MOHAMMED, SHAHDEEP
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The University of Queensland
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
248 granted / 479 resolved
-18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +57% interview lift
Without
With
+56.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 6m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
537
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§103
39.8%
-0.2% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 479 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered. 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. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, 16-19, and 28 are 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “...thereby improving cognitive function in the individual without initiating physical therapy” in lines 18-19 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. The examiner notes that the specification does not recite “physical therapy”, and ultrasound treatment can be interpreted as “physical therapy”. The specification does not recite or disclose that improving cognitive function in the individual without initiating physical therapy, and therefore, it is new matter Dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 10, 16-19 and 28 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 1. 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 1-3, 7-8, 10, 16-19, and 28 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “...thereby improving cognitive function in the individual without initiating physical therapy” in lines 18-19 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “physical therapy”. Claim 1 is directed to applying acoustic energy to a plurality of discrete application sites which can be interpreted as physical therapy. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by the claim limitation of “physical therapy” and how it is different from ultrasound tissue treatment. Response to Arguments The previous prior art rejection to independent claim 1 and the dependent claims thereof has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 (“...without initiating physical therapy”). The examiner has reviewed the Affidavit filed on 07/28/2026 and Applicant’s remarks filled on 07/28/2026, the examiner agrees none of the prior art in record or combinations of prior arts record disclose “thereby improving cognitive function in the individual without initiating physical therapy”. The examiner notes that “physical therapy” is broad and can be interpreted any treatment that requires some kind of physical method, and ultrasound treatment to the brain can be interpreted as physical treatment. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2013/0296743) discloses ultrasound therapy. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm. 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. /SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 10 earlier events
Sep 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Mar 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 28, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12672853
METHOD AND PROBE FOR PREDICTING SPONTANEOUS PRETERM DELIVERY
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12622681
ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD OF ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, AND PROCESSOR FOR ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS
4y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12622679
Tactile ultrasound method and probe for predicting spontaneous preterm birth
2y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12594060
ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD OF ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, AND PROCESSOR FOR ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS
4y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582380
ENDOSCOPE AND DISTAL END BODY
1y 10m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+56.9%)
4y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 479 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