Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/642,062

ELECTRICAL STIMULATION OF TISSUE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 10, 2022
Examiner
LEVICKY, WILLIAM J
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Esqure Advanced Medical Devices Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
397 granted / 572 resolved
-0.6% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
628
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
§103
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 572 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102/103 rejections has been withdrawn. 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 67 and 71 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 67 requires the second series of pulses having an energy value of 1-20 microjoules; this is unclear because claim 1, from which it depends, requires the second series of pulses having an energy value of 0.005-7 microjoules; it is unclear if this is limiting the energy value to 1-7 or if this is broadening the energy value. Claim 67 requires the second series having a duration between 0.5ms and 1ms; this is unclear because claim 1 requires the duration of the second series to be between 0.05ms and .25ms; therefore claim 1 prevents a duration of 0.5ms to 1ms making claim 67 unclear on how both conditions can be met at the same time. Claim 67 requires the second series having an average energy value between 2-10 microjoules; this is unclear because claim 1 requires the average energy value of the second series to be between 0.02-1 microjoule; therefore claim 1 prevents an average energy value of greater than 1 microjoule, making claim 67 unclear on how both conditions can be met at the same time. Claim 71 has the same rejections as identified above in claim 67 with regards to the limitations of parent claim 22. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 67 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 67 and 71 fail to include the limitations of the claim from which they depend. For example claims 67 and 71 require an energy value of 1-20 microjoules, which claim 1 and 22 limit to 0.05-7 microjoules; therefore the range includes values prohibited by the independent claim and is broadening the claim. Additionally, claims 6 and 71 require a duration of between 0.5ms and 1ms, while the independent claim limit the duration to 0.05ms ad 0.25ms; therefore the dependent claims are broadening the claim by adding a duration that the independent claims limited out. Lastly, claims 67 and 71 require an average energy value of 2-10 microjoules, while the independent claim require the average energy value to be 0.02-1 microjoules. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1,3, 11-13, 18, 22, 24, 34-36, and 41 are allowed. 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 William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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. /William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 10, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 03, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 12, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589241
Dual Sensor Electrodes for Providing Enhanced Resuscitation Feedback
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569690
CARDIAC CONTRACTILITY MODULATION FOR ATRIAL ARRHYTHMIA PATIENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569686
CHRONICALLY IMPLANTABLE SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AFFECTING CARDIAC CONTRACTILITY AND/OR RELAXATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558557
DISCRIMINATION OF SUPRAVENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIAS IN COMBINED CCM-ICD DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12544580
DETACHABLE LEADLESS PACEMAKER SYSTEM FOR CARDIAC CONDUCTION BUNDLE PACING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+29.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 572 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