Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/019,037

HYPOXIC OR ANOXIC NEUROLOGICAL INJURY DETECTION WITH EAR-WEARABLE DEVICES AND SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 31, 2023
Examiner
GETZOW, SCOTT M
Art Unit
3792
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Starkey Laboratories, INC.
OA Round
3 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
864 granted / 1073 resolved
+10.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1114
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
49.9%
+9.9% vs TC avg
§102
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
§112
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1073 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 filed 12/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Re amended claim 56, applicant argues that the applied art does not teach calculating a speech delay time. However, as mentioned in the previous office action speech delay is a symptom of aphasia due to stroke, as set forth in the cited American Stroke Association publication. Additional evidence of speech delay associated with aphasia due to stroke can be found in at least ¶6, and 82-91 of newly cited Webb (2019/0304329). One of ordinary skill in the art is considered to appreciate that speech delay is a symptom of brain damage due to stroke. Further, ‘calculating a speech delay time’, as suggested in the previous office action, is considered to be done in the physician’s head. The physician is expected to know what is considered to be an excessively long delay in speech and which is not. Automating such calculation is obvious over the manual activity of thinking about the delay of the stroke victim’s speech; see MPEP 2144.04. Further, at least ¶72,84-88 of Kostic teaches comparison of baseline speech samples with subsequent samples of speech to see if there is a difference beyond a threshold. As suggested in the previous office action, baseline speech delay time would be compared with subsequent speech to see if the patient had a stroke. Further, as mentioned in the previous office action, time of stroke detection is stored, which is considered to be ‘logging an occurrence’ is taught in at least ¶129 of Tran. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (2008/0001735) and American Stroke Association publication, and further in view of Kostic et al (2017/0007167). 56. (Currently Amended) A method of monitoring an ear-wearable device wearer for an occurrence of an anoxic or hypoxic neurological injury comprising: gathering signals from one or more of a microphone, a motion sensor, or another sensor of an ear-wearable device; (see at least ¶290,252 of Tran) and monitoring the signals to detect a pattern or patterns indicative of an occurrence of an anoxic or hypoxic neurological injury, the pattern comprising long delays in speech: (see at least ¶252 of Tran which teaches detecting stroke by a patient’s troubled speaking. As mentioned in the previous office action, stroke can cause aphasia which can result in delayed speech, see American Stroke Association publication cite previously, and the Webb reference, ¶6,82-91 mentioned supra.) calculating a baseline speech delay time; detecting a speech delay that is over the baseline speech delay time by a predetermined amount; and logging an occurrence of an anoxic or hypoxic neurological injury. (‘calculating a speech delay time’, as suggested in the previous office action, is considered to be done in the physician’s head. The physician is expected to know what is considered to be an excessively long delay in speech and which is not. See comments supra, re American Stroke Association publication and Webb. Automating such calculation is obvious over the manual activity of thinking about the delay of the stroke victim’s speech; see MPEP 2144.04. Further, at least ¶72,84-88 of Kostic teaches comparison of baseline speech samples with subsequent samples of speech to see if there is a difference beyond a threshold. As suggested in the previous office action, baseline speech delay time would be compared with subsequent speech to see if the patient had a stroke. It would have been obvious have been obvious to use the comparison with baseline step of Kostic with the device of Tran since it would enable the physician to quickly determine if the patient is has experiences brain damage from a stroke in a predictable manner. Further, as mentioned in the previous office action, time of stroke detection is stored, which is considered to be ‘logging an occurrence’ is taught in at least ¶129 of Tran.) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1,3-9,16,17,26,28,29,31,88,89,91 are allowed. 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 Scott M. Getzow whose telephone number is (571)272-4946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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. /Scott M. Getzow/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 21, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582817
USE OF ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE MATERIALS FOR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582823
FLEXIBLE STIMULATION PATTERNING FRAMEWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569188
DEEP SOUND STIMULATION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SLEEP REGULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569397
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LASER TREATMENT OF A DERMATOLOGIC CONDITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569161
METHODS FOR LONG-DISTANCE RESPIRATION RATE MEASUREMENT USING NOISY AND IRREGULARLY SAMPLED SENSOR SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+0.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1073 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