Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/731,922

Modular Therapeutic Device And Methods Of Use Thereof

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Apr 28, 2022
Examiner
LOUIS, LATOYA M
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
339 granted / 656 resolved
-18.3% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
690
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 656 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 7/7/2025. As directed, claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 16, and 17 have been amended, claims 2 and 15 have been canceled, and claim 21 has been added. Thus claims 1, 3-14, and 16-21 are currently 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 . Drawings The drawings were received on 7/7/2025. These drawings are acceptable. 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, 3-14, and 16-21 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 outer surface” on line 4 and “the inner surface” on line 5 lack antecedent basis. In addition, “integral channel forming an integral extension” on line 2 is unclear. How can an inner space form a protrusion or extension? Also, “the inner surface connector” on line 5 is unclear and should be recited as --the inner surface of the connector-- if that is what is intended. Regarding claims 6 and 8, “an integral extension” on lines 1-2 is unclear as an integral extension is previously claimed in claim 1. Thus it is unclear whether the same or a different extension is being claimed. Regarding claim 10, “the outer surface” on line 7 and “the inner surface” on line 8 lack antecedent basis. In addition, “integral channel forming an integral extension” on lines 3-4 is unclear. How can an inner space form a protrusion or extension? Also, “the inner surface connector” on line 8 is unclear and should be recited as --the inner surface of the connector-- if that is what is intended. Regarding claims 17 and 19, “an integral extension” on lines 1-2 is unclear as an integral extension is previously claimed in claim 10. Thus it is unclear whether the same or a different extension is being claimed. Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paget (2022/0339060). Regarding claim 1, Paget discloses in figs. 4 nd 5 two or more compression spheres (i.e. left and right spheres)(fig. 5b shows 3 spheres on the right side of fig. 5B) each having an integral channel (i.e. hollow interior for threads; fig. 4) forming a n integral extension (i.e. threads as extension protrude partially into the channel) configured to accept a hollow connector (i.e. the middle sphere and cylinder as connector which is between the left and right spheres in fig. 5B and which as shown in fig. 4 include a threaded protrusion on one end and a hollow channel to accept threads on the other end as hollow) wherein said compression spheres are transiently secured to opposing ends of said connector ([0067] lines 1-10, [0073] lines 15 disclose the modular assembly can be disassembled) with the hollow channel in contact with the outer surface (protruding portion of threads) of the connector, and the integral extension (threads of channel) in contact with the inner surface (recessed portion of threads) of the connector (as shown, the protruding portions and recessed portions of threads mate as the threaded protrusion is screwed into the threaded channel) forming a modular myofascial release device configured to perform directed, or self-directed myofascial release, deep-tissue massage, and joint mobilization ([0009] lines 1-5 disclose massaging for myofascial release which thereby is able to perform deep tissue massage and joint mobilization when applied to the joint and tissue). Regarding claim 3, Paget discloses the compression spheres comprise elastomeric compression spheres manufactured from silicone ([0064] lines 1-5, [0091] lines 1-5 disclose the spheres comprise treads from silicone). Regarding claim 4, Paget discloses in figs. 4 and 5, a joint (i.e. middle sphere) configured to secure separate halves of said connector (as shown in fig. 4, the third/left sphere is secured to the first/right sphere via the notched cylindrical connector and middle sphere/joint). Regarding claim 5, Paget discloses in figs. 4 and 5 a recessed notch (i.e. outer thread) positioned along the external surface of said connector (as show, the connector is secured with a threaded connection, the threads include notches on an outer surface thereof). Regarding claim 6, Paget discloses an integral extension (i.e. internal threads), on the distal surface of said channel and wherein said extension is configured to be mated with said recessed notch of said connector (as shown, the internal and external threads connect; [0077] lines 1-10). Regarding claim 7, Paget discloses in figs. 4 and 5 a recessed notch (i.e. inner thread) positioned along the distal surface of said channel (as show, the channel is secured with a threaded connection, the threads include notches on an outer surface thereof). Regarding claim 8, Paget discloses an integral extension (i.e. external threads), on the external surface of said connector and wherein said extension is configured to be mated with said recessed notch of said connector (as shown, the internal and external threads connect; [0077] lines 1-10). Regarding claim 9, Paget discloses a coupler (i.e. 104) configured to perform self- directed myofascial release, deep-tissue massage, and joint mobilization having: at least one catch (i.e. hook) configured to secure a compressive sphere of said therapeutic device ([0072] lines 1-15) a lock (i.e. anchor) responsive to said catch; and an attachment surface (first or second end; see [0072] lines 1-15). Regarding claim 10, Paget discloses a method of using a modular myofascial release device comprising establishing a hollow connector (i.e. fig. 4 shows threaded screw connectors); establishing a plurality of compression spheres (506) each having an integral channel (internal threaded channel; see fig. 4); securing at least two compression spheres (i.e. leftmost and rightmost 506) to a connector (i.e. cylindrical threaded connector between the spheres) by inserting the terminal ends of said connector into the integral channels of each of said compression spheres (fig. 4 shows the threaded connectors are inserted into the internal threaded channels of the spheres) with the hollow channel in contact with the outer surface (protruding portion of threads) of the connector, and the integral extension (threads of channel) in contact with the inner surface (recessed portion of threads) of the connector (as shown, the protruding portions and recessed portions of threads mate as the threaded protrusion is screwed into the threaded channel) forming a modular myofascial release device; positioning the compressive spheres of said modular myofascial release device against an anatomical feature ([0007] last 5 lines); applying directed, or self-directed pressure on the device generating myofascial release of the anatomical feature ([0009] lines 1-5). Regarding claim 11, Paget discloses the anatomical feature comprises an anatomical a muscle ([0009] lines 1-5). Regarding claims 12 and 13, Paget discloses the compression spheres comprise elastomeric compression spheres manufactured from silicone ([0064] lines 1-5, [0091] lines 1-5 disclose the spheres comprise treads from silicone). Regarding claim 14, Paget discloses in figs. 4 and 5, a joint (i.e. middle sphere) configured to secure separate halves of said connector (as shown in fig. 4, the third/left sphere is secured to the first/right sphere via the notched cylindrical connector and middle sphere/joint). Regarding claim 16, Paget discloses in figs. 4 and 5 a recessed notch (i.e. outer thread) positioned along the external surface of said connector (as show, the connector is secured with a threaded connection, the threads include notches on an outer surface thereof). Regarding claim 17, Paget discloses an integral extension (i.e. internal threads), on the distal surface of said channel and wherein said extension is configured to be mated with said recessed notch of said connector (as shown, the internal and external threads connect; [0077] lines 1-10). Regarding claim 18, Paget discloses in figs. 4 and 5 a recessed notch (i.e. inner thread) positioned along the distal surface of said channel (as show, the channel is secured with a threaded connection, the threads include notches on an outer surface thereof). Regarding claim 19, Paget discloses an integral extension (i.e. external threads), on the external surface of said connector and wherein said extension is configured to be mated with said recessed notch of said connector (as shown, the internal and external threads connect; [0077] lines 1-10). Regarding claim 20, Paget discloses a coupler (i.e. 104) configured to perform self- directed myofascial release, deep-tissue massage, and joint mobilization having: at least one catch (i.e. hook) configured to secure a compressive sphere of said therapeutic device ([0072] lines 1-15) a lock (i.e. anchor) responsive to said catch; and an attachment surface (first or second end; see [0072] lines 1-15). Regarding claim 21, Paget discloses detaching at least one compression sphere (506) from said connector and positioning said detached compressive sphere against an anatomical feature ([0074] lines 1-5, [0109] lines 1-5 disclose use of stand for detaching an applying a stationary roller) and further applying self-directed pressure on the sphere ([0109] lines 1-5) thereby generating myofascial release of the anatomical feature ([0009] lines 1-5) Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 7 4th paragraph that Paget does not disclose a hollow connector secured within an integral channel of the compression sphere. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paget discloses in figs. 4 nd 5 two or more compression spheres having a hollow interior for threads; fig. 4, configured to accept a hollow connector (i.e. the middle sphere and cylinder as connector which is between the left and right spheres in fig. 5B and which as shown in fig. 4 include a threaded protrusion on one end and a hollow channel to accept threads on the other end as hollow). Thus Paget teaches this limitation as claimed. Applicant argues on page 8 last paragraph that Paget cannot exhibit lateral movement of any compression elements. However Examiner notes that this limitation is not found in the language of claim 1. Thus Paget teaches the limitations as claimed. Applicant argues on page 9 lines 1-3 that the rod cannot be removed and retain the properties of an elastomeric sphere to perform myofascial relief. However Examiner notes that [0074] lines 1-5, [0109] lines 1-5 disclose use of stand for detaching an applying a stationary roller and further applying self-directed pressure on the sphere, [0109] lines 1-5, thereby able to generate myofascial release of the anatomical feature ([0009] lines 1-5). Thus Paget teaches this limitation as claimed. 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 LATOYA M LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm - 6:30 pm ET. 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, Kendra Carter can be reached on 571-272-9034. 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. /LaToya M Louis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 09, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 02, 2025
Interview Requested
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589048
ANATOMICAL SHOULDER RANGE OF MOTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582205
WALKING ASSISTANCE METHOD AND APPARATUSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569394
Reciprocating linear movement massaging apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564693
Laryngeal Mask Airway Intubation Guide and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544179
Augmented Reality Device for Providing Feedback to an Acute Care Provider
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+41.5%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 656 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month