Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/335,121

WRIST-WORN NERVE STIMULATOR AND USE METHOD THEREFOR

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 14, 2023
Examiner
ALTER MORSCHAUSER, ALYSSA MARGO
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Fasikl Incorporated
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
605 granted / 786 resolved
+7.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
837
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§102
32.2%
-7.8% vs TC avg
§112
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 786 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 with respect to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 now recites a “plurality of first conductive components”. While the specification provides support for a “first conductive component”, there is no support in the specification for multiple or a “plurality of first conductive components”. Additionally, claim 1 now recites “the output end of the electrical stimulation part has a split structure, and comprises a plurality of conduction plates arranged on an inner surface of the second strap and constitute a circuit, and a plurality of first conductive components installed on the first strap”. Thus, as indicated by the current claim 1, “the output end of the electrical stimulation part” has “a plurality of first conductive components” and therefore the output end includes a conductive component. However, this is in direct conflict with the specification as recited in previously presented claim 2, “wherein the output end of the electrical stimulation part has a split structure, and a first conductive component separated from the output end thereof”. Thus the specification provides support for having a first conductive component separated from the output end and but not “the output end of the electrical stimulation part” having “a plurality of first conductive components”. Still further, claim 1 recites “a plurality of conduction plates arranged on an inner surface of the second strap and constitute a circuit”. However the specification recites in paragraph 42 of US 20230321430 A1, “At least one of the conduction plates 100 is used to form a circuit to ensure that the stimulated current can pass through the body part to be treated, and the conduction plate 100 is arranged on the back of the wrist”. Additionally, originally filed claim 6 recited “at least one conduction plate… constitute a circuit". While there is support for “at least one of the conduction plate is used to form a circuit”, there is no support for the limitation that requires “a plurality of conduction plates” to “constitute a circuit”. 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 ALYSSA M ALTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4939. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm. 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 E 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. /ALYSSA M ALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594027
MEDIATION OF TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569668
IMPELLER FOR CATHETER PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564349
SYSTEMS FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CARDIAC INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553452
PUMP ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544008
SMART WATCH
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
77%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.8%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 786 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