Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/524,344

MAGNETIC DEVICE FOR TREATING LIVING TISSUES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 11, 2021
Examiner
MATTHEWS, CHRISTINE HOPKINS
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Epitech Mag Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
753 granted / 1049 resolved
+1.8% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
1108
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1049 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 October 2025 has been entered. Claim 25 is now pending. 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 § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0165226) in view of Becker (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0298624) and further in view of Ghiron et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0224808). Regarding claim 25, Simon et al. (hereinafter Simon) teaches a device for treating a living tissue with magnetic fields ([0027]-[0030]), the device comprising: a coil applicator having a face (Figs. 3A-3D and 5) and a stimulating coil 35 (Figs. 3A-4F) housed therein ([0095]-[0097], [0103]-[0104]), a reflector plate (interface of the housing 30 which is positioned adjacent patient’s skin [0098] and Fig. 6) adjacent to the stimulating coil (Figs. 3A-3D and [0045]-[0049], [0098]), and a generator 38 configured to drive the stimulating coil (Fig. 5 and [0103], wherein the device is configured to provide a magnetic field in a range of 0.1T to 3T [0030] at a distance of 20mm or less from the face of the coil applicator [0027]; and wherein the device is sized to fit within an orbit of a human eye (Figs. 5-7 demonstrate the entire device is of dimensions which could fit in the orbit of a human eye) and is configured to induce a circular electric field ([0075] - circumscribing of regions). However, Simon fails to disclose explicitly that the reflector plate is ferromagnetic. Becker discloses a device for generating electromagnetic fields to be used in healing, as likewise disclosed by Simon, wherein a reflector plate is adjacent the coil and likewise will be placed adjacent a user, as suggested by Simon, wherein the reflector plate is ferromagnetic ([(0116] and [0117] and Fig. 10A-C of Becker). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a reflector plate held between a stimulating coil and a user as taught by Simon, of a ferromagnetic material as suggested by Becker, as Simon recognizes the need to focus a magnetic field on a given treatment surface ([0003] and [0078]) and Becker discloses that a ferromagnetic plate wraps the magnetic field around to a given treatment surface, thereby enhancing the field gradient in the tissues being treated [0116]. However, the combination of Simon and Becker fails to disclose that the device further comprises a heat sink. Ghiron et al. (hereinafter Ghiron) teaches a magnetic stimulator for positioning adjacent the tissue of a patient 52 (Figs. 5-6 and [0047]), wherein the device further comprises a heat sink in the event that heating should take place during operation over longer periods of time ([0040]-[0042] and [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a heat skin as suggested by Ghiron, into the device for applying magnetic stimulation as taught by Simon and Becker as Simon recognizes that reduction of heat in the device may be appropriate for longer time periods of use [0020] and Ghiron teaches that overheating may occur ([0004]-[0005]) and incorporating a heat exchange/cooling mechanism in the device would prevent overheating when the device is used for longer periods of time ([0040]-[0042] and [0004]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 10 October 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. However, new grounds of rejection are presented above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of such amendments. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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. /CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 11, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 18, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 21, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 27, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 16, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 03, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599776
MAGNETIC STIMULATION COILS AND FERROMAGNETIC COMPONENTS FOR TREATMENT AND DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576003
DEVICE FOR STIMULATING A HUMAN EROGENOUS ZONE USING A VARIABLE PRESSURE FIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558560
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING DELIVERY OF THERAPEUTICS TO THE SPINAL CORD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12515064
WIRELESS NEURAL STIMULATOR WITH INJECTABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12508446
MACHINE LEARNING BASED DOSE GUIDED REAL-TIME ADAPTIVE RADIOTHERAPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1049 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