Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/384,022

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRESERVING AND MANIPULATING OF ACUTE OTOMIES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
LAUER, CHRISTINA C
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
G I Windows Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
451 granted / 659 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
714
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 659 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/26 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 and 26-44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection over Sharkawy et al. US 7938841 in view of Cole 6352543 as discussed below. 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 15 and 26-44 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 15 discloses a “hollow tubular central channel” and “hollow tubular central channel circumferentially supporting the otomy from within the otomy” in lines 3, 7-8. Examiner notes a “channel” is a passage between a tubular conduit. This language is unclear as to whether the channel is being claimed or the tubular member surrounding a channel or lumen. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 15, 34 and 36-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharkawy et al. US 7938841 in view of Cole 6352543. Regarding claim 15, Sharkawy et al. discloses an otomy control device comprising: an annular distal flange 36 and an annular proximal flange 12 separated and connected by a hollow tubular central channel (channel within tubular member 18, figure 1A, 2B, see annotated figure 2A below), with the hollow tubular central channel circumferentially supporting the otomy from within the otomy when delivered from the working channel in a fully deployed configuration (figure 2B), further comprising at least one magnet incorporated into only one of the flanges, wherein the at least one magnet is situated about the central channel (column 5, lines 62-67; Examiner notes components 38 and 40 making up distal flange 36 may comprise a magnet for attaching the components together, the distal flange and proximal flange may be connected by a magnetic force or non-magnetic force to secure flanges together, resulting in a magnet in only the distal flange). PNG media_image1.png 472 449 media_image1.png Greyscale Sharkawy et al. fails to disclose wherein the distal flange and the proximal flange are configured to compress to fit the otomy control device within a working channel of an access or delivery device in a delivery configuration. Cole teaches wherein the distal flange and the proximal flange are configured to compress to fit the otomy control device within a working channel of an access or delivery device in a delivery configuration (figure 5, column 6, lines 21-39, flange 40 is comprised of a material to be partially or completely collapsed for delivery through a small incision or port, trocar, catheter, or cannula by folding). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharkawy et al. a material to be partially or completely collapsed, as taught by Cole, for delivering the device flanges through a small incision or port, trocar, catheter, or cannula by folding. Regarding claim 34, Sharkawy et al. discloses wherein the distal flange, the proximal flange, and the channel are formed as a unitary device (figure 2B, coupled to form a single or unitary device). Regarding claims 36 and 37, Sharkawy et al. discloses wherein the at least one magnet is incorporated into the distal flange or the proximal flange (may consider either flange 12 or 36 to be the proximal or distal flange). Regarding claim 38, Sharkawy et al. discloses wherein at least one of the flanges is shaped or configured to assist with positioning of a magnetic compression anastomosis device around the otomy control device (figures 2A, 2B, may consider member 38 to be a magnetic compression anastomosis device around the device to assist with positioning between flanges 12 and flange 36, may consider just portion 40 to be the distal flange as it is still connected to the proximal flange 38 by hollow tubular central passage within 18). Regarding claim 39, Sharkawy et al. discloses the device flanges essentially as claimed as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein at least one of the flanges is tapered. Cole et al. discloses a variety of flange shapes that may be varied (for example, column 5, lines 49-65; figures 2-5), including a flange comprising a tapered leading edge for easier introduction (column 5, lines 46-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to provide a circular or oval or tapered flange, as taught by Sharkawy et al., to provide at least one flange comprising a tapered leading edge for easier introduction, or a shape that may be desirable for particular applications. Regarding claim 40, Sharkawy et al. discloses wherein the flanges have the same configuration (flange 14 annular shape placed on one side of opening 48, flange annular shape portion 40 placed on the opposite sides of the opening, placed flat; Examiner note the same configuration does not require the same size or shape). Regarding claim 41, Sharkawy et al. discloses wherein the flanges have the different configurations (flange 14 comprising a single annular portion, flange 36 has a configuration with two annular portions 38 and 40). Regarding claim 42, Sharkawy et al. discloses wherein the proximal flange is shaped or configured to mate with a proximal flange of another otomy control device (figures 2A, 2B, may consider member 38 to be a second otomy control device, and just portion 40 to be the distal flange as it is still connected to the proximal flange 38 by hollow tubular central passage within 18, Examiner further notes the flange portion 40 is also sized and shaped to be mated with another device, as it is flat surface which may be mated with another device even if not explicitly disclosed). Regarding claim 43, Sharkawy et al. discloses wherein at least one flange includes a single loop or lobe (single loop or lobe 14, figure 2A). Regarding claim 44, Sharkawy et al. discloses wherein the at least one flange includes a plurality of loops or lobes (plurality of loops or lobes 38, 42 of second flange 36, figure 2A). Claim(s) 26-28 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharkawy et al. US 7938841 in view of Cole 6352543 in view of Kopelman US 2019/0216460. Regarding claims 26-28, Sharkawy et al. in combination discloses wherein the distal flange and the proximal flange are configured to compress to fit the otomy control device within a working channel of an access or delivery device as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein each flange comprises a shape-memory material, wherein the shape-memory material includes a nitinol shape-memory material, wherein the shape-memory material includes a spring material. Kopelman discloses an otomy control device (paragraph 0067, 0068; device penetrating tissue walls to position anastomosis device) comprising: a distal flange (for example, 202 figure 2B, 406, figures, 4B, 4C, or 602, figure 6B, ) and a proximal flange (for example, 203, figure 2B, 408, figures 4B, 4C, or 603, figure 6B) separated and connected by a central channel (for example, channel between tissue portions 400, 402, figures 4A-4C, or between tissue portions 620, 622, figures 6A, 6B) wherein the distal flange and the proximal flange are configured to compress to fit the otomy control device within a working channel of an access or delivery device in a delivery configuration (paragraph 0224, compressed into a straight configuration for inserted into a delivery tube) wherein each flange comprises a shape- memory material (paragraph 0086, 0224, magnetic and/or shape memory material) the shape-memory material includes a nitinol shape-memory material or spring material (paragraph 0124, 0163, 0222, formed of an elastic material such as nitinol or other shape memory material which may be considered a spring material as it springs back to the pre-defined shape once released from the delivery tube). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharkawy et al. with a shape memory material including nitinol or a spring material, as taught by Kopelman and known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 35, Sharkawy et al. discloses a device essentially as claimed as discussed above, but fails to disclose the flanges are inflatable. Kopelman discloses an otomy control device (paragraph 0067, 0068; device penetrating tissue walls to position anastomosis device) wherein the flanges are inflatable (paragraphs 0005, 130), the flanges being controlled by inflation pressure (paragraph 0006) to create pressure or compression on the tissue (paragraph 0119, 0124). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharkawy et al. with inflatable flanges, as taught by Kopelman, to be able to control the compression or pressure on the tissue. Claim(s) 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharkawy et al. US 7938841 in view of Cole 6352543 in view of Gray et al. US 2018/0361127. Regarding claims 29-33, Sharkawy et al. in combination discloses the device essentially as claimed, but fails to disclose wherein each flange comprises an inner framework and an external covering encompassing some or all of the inner framework wherein the external covering includes a biocompatible material, wherein the external covering includes a flexible material, wherein the flexible material includes at least one of plastic, rubber, urethane, or polymer, wherein the external covering is an injection molded external covering over the inner framework. Gray et al. teaches an otomy control device 100 comprising: a distal flange 114 and a proximal flange 124 separated and connected by a central channel (figure 1, through region 128, figure 1), wherein the distal flange and the proximal flange are configured to compress to fit the otomy control device within a working channel of an access or delivery device in a delivery configuration (figures 2A, 2B) each flange comprises an inner framework and an external covering encompassing some or all of the inner framework to provide a flow passage therethrough (paragraph 0042, body formed of a woven, knitted or braided wire elements and may further include a membrane or coating), wherein the external covering includes a biocompatible material (paragraph 0042, may comprise a variety of non-degradable and biocompatible polymeric materials), wherein the external covering includes a flexible material including at least one of plastic, rubber, urethane, or polymer (paragraph 0042, may comprise silicones, rubbers, or polyethylene such that the covering may conform to the device). Gray et al. teaches wherein the external covering is over the inner framework. Although the reference does not explicitly disclose "wherein the external covering is an injection molded", it is noted that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, "although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product", In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. r.1983). See MPEP 2113.2. Therefore, Gray et al. disclosing an external covering over an inner framework meets the claim requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharkawy et al. in combination with each flange comprising an inner framework and an external covering encompassing some or all of the inner framework and proving a passage for flow therethrough, wherein the external covering includes a biocompatible material, wherein the external covering includes a flexible material including at least one of plastic, rubber, urethane, or polymer, and wherein the external covering is an injection molded external covering over the inner framework, as taught by Gray et al. since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA C LAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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. /CHRISTINA C LAUER/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 03, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 05, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 30, 2025
Interview Requested
Jul 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 10, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 21, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589488
SURGICAL ROBOT ARM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582400
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR ENDOSCOPE OR LAPAROSCOPE MAGNETIC NAVIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12533134
ANASTOMOSIS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12508031
Neurovascular Flow Diverter and Delivery Systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12502177
Systems and Methods for Customizable Flow Diverter Implants
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+14.4%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 659 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