Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/845,108

METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF PAVLOVIAN SLEEP INDUCTION

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 21, 2022
Examiner
COX, THADDEUS B
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Remmedy Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
859 granted / 1112 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
74 currently pending
Career history
1186
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§103
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1112 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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 24 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 6, 7, 10-13, and 18-20. Claim Objections Claims 1, 12, 13, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 16: “the compartment;” should apparently read --the compartment; and--. In claim 1, line 17: the limitation beginning with “a shutter” should apparently be indented (as it was in the previous claim set) to indicate that it is part of the automatically activated scent diffuser. In claim 12, lines 4-5: “the user’s predicted time of entry” should apparently read --the predicted user’s time of entry--. In claim 13, line 21: “a linear actuator” should apparently be indented (as it was in the previous claim set) to indicate that it is part of the scent diffuser. In claim 18, line 8: “uthe” should apparently read --the--. 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "a linear actuator is configured to move the shutter between the first position and the second position" in lines 21-22. It is not clear if this is intending to positively recite the linear actuator as part of the automatically activated scent diffuser or merely that the shutter could be moved between the first and second positions by such a component. If the former is intended, the limitation should apparently read --wherein the automatically activated scent diffuser further comprises a linear actuator that is configured to move the shutter between the first position and the second position--. If the latter is intended, the limitation should apparently read --the shutter is configured to be moved by a linear actuator between the first position and the second position--. Claim 6 recites the limitation “a container is a bottle” in lines 3-4. While this amendment has obviated the previous rejection for lack of antecedent basis, this limitation is still not clear. A container has not been previously recited so it is not clear if the container/bottle is being recited as part of the claimed system. Claim 11 recites the limitation "a hypnagogic state" in line 3. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the previously recited hypnagogic state or to a separate hypnagogic state. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the hypnagogic state--. Claim 12 recites the limitation "a hypnagogic state" in line 3 and again in line 5. It is not clear if these are intended to refer to the previously recited hypnagogic state or to a separate hypnagogic state. If the former is intended, the limitations should read --the hypnagogic state--. Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation “a manually activated scent diffuser” in line 10. While this amendment has obviated the previous rejection for lack of antecedent basis, this limitation is still not clear. A manually activated scent diffuser has not been previously recited; further, an automatically activated scent diffuser has been previously recited. It is not clear if these scent diffusers are intended to be the same; this seemingly cannot be the case, based upon automatically activated vs. manually activated being separate. Further, as this is a method claim, the mere recitation of a manually activated scent diffuser and its components do not impart any actively practiced steps toward the method. Finally, the claim recites that the automatically activated scent diffuser receives the electronic activation signal, yet the claim then recites that the shutter of the manually activated scent diffuser is moved by the linear actuator of the manually activated scent diffuser in response to receiving the electronic activation signal. All of this would be obviated by amending “a manually activated scent diffuser” to --the automatically activated scent diffuser--. Claims 14-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 13. 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as indicated in the previous Office action, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such an automatically activated scent diffuser (or method of using) comprising a compartment containing a scent-diffusing material, a diffusing vent aperture on the housing that is in communication with the compartment, a shutter rotatably mounted to the housing that has a first position that opens the aperture and a second position that closes the aperture, and a linear actuator that moves the shutter between the first and second positions in response to receiving the electronic activation signal, in combination with the other recited components/steps.. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections and rejections have been fully considered and are mostly persuasive in light of the amendments. Many of the objections and rejections have been withdrawn; however, as detailed supra, several persist. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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. /THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599767
Method and System for Use of Hearing Prosthesis for Linguistic Evaluation
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594291
Intratumoral Alpha-Emitter Radiation and Activation of Cytoplasmatic Sensors for Intracellular Pathogen
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593924
MOTORIZED FURNITURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589021
APPARATUS AND METHOD OF TREATING AN APPROACHING PHYSIOLOGICAL EVENT AND INCREASING AN INTENSITY OF THE EVENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588929
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR EVERTING CATHETER FOR EMBRYO TRANSFER USING TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
77%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+18.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1112 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