Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/777,643

CLINICAL AND PERSONAL ELECTROMAGNETIC STIMULATOR AND IONTOPHORESIS DEVICE FOR TREATING RETINA AND OPTICAL NERVE DISEASES

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 18, 2022
Examiner
MATTHEWS, CHRISTINE HOPKINS
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BIORETINA BIYOTEKNOLOJI VE BIYOMEDIKAL SAGLIK YATIRIMLARI ANONIM SIRKETI
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
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

§112
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 10 October 2025. Claims 1-20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-20. 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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1222” has been used to designate both “magnetic field sensor;” “gas inlet hole” and “gas outlet hole” (see paragraphs [0064] and [0066] of the instant publication). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1212" and "1222" have both been used to designate “magnetic field sensor” (see paragraphs [0064] and [0072] of the instant publication). The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1222" and "1223" have both been used to designate “gas outlet hole” (see paragraph [0066] of the instant publication). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a counter is located on the electronic card and processor” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, Fig. 5 appears to show a counter (211) located in the electronic control box, however the counter is not “located on the electronic card and processor” as claimed. No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a “magnetic field sensor mounted on the electromagnetic coil” (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Currently, Fig. 3 shows “magnetic field sensors (1212)” (as described in [0072] of the instant publication) on the front cap 10a. Resolution of the correct reference characters enumerated above should resolve this objection. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: at lines 2-4 of claim 13, “the speaker included in the electronic control box and connected to the electronic control card and processor” should apparently read –the speaker--; at line 4 of claim 14, “the corresponding electromagnetic coil” should apparently read –the respective electromagnetic coil--; and at line 8 of claim 15, “whether electromagnetic coil assemblies” should apparently read -- whether the electromagnetic coil assemblies--. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-20 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. At line 8 of claim 1, it is unclear which “each electromagnetic coil assembly” is being referenced; whether those of the “front cap” or those of the “rear cap”. A suggested amendment to line 8 is -- each electromagnetic coil assembly of the rear cap--. Claim 2 at line 2 recites the limitation "the edges". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 at lines 3-4 recites the limitation "the eyeballs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 at line 7 recites the limitation "the eyeballs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 at lines 7-8 recites the limitation "the closest distance to the cornea apex that permits eyelid closure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites that the field sensors provide signals to the electronic card and processor to determine “whether the electromagnetic coil assemblies…are at a correct contact distance configured for stimulation of occipital…regions”. It is unclear what the distance is with respect to, and further what the “contact” is with respect to. At line 5 of claim 17, it is unclear if “cooling pipes” are the same as or different than “cooling pipes” recited at line 15 of claim 1. Claim 19 recites “each cooling cage covering an electromagnetic coil, and the cooling cage prevents a risk…”. This recitation seems redundant and perhaps it should read -- each cooling cage covering an electromagnetic coil prevents a risk--. Claim 19 at line 3 recites the limitation "the eyeballs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 10 October 2025 with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds are presented above in light of the amendments. Applicant’s arguments filed 10 October 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 8 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Applicant’s arguments filed 10 October 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments. Applicant’s arguments filed 10 October 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. 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 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 at (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

May 18, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 10, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
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