Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/457,034

METHODS, COMPOSITIONS, AND DEVICES FOR THE OCCLUSION OF CAVITIES AND PASSAGEWAYS

Final Rejection §102§DP
Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Examiner
IGBOKO, CHIMA U
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
319 granted / 408 resolved
+8.2% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+40.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
452
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 408 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 Amendment The Amendment filed 02/12/26 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, and claim 29 has been cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 24-28 are addressed in the following office action. NO PRIOR ART REJECTION Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-14 and 24-29 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,737,761. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are fully contained within the claim of the patent application. Claims 18/457,034 1 & 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Claims U.S. Patent No. 11,737,761 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Claims 18/457,034 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 27 28 Claims U.S. Patent No. 11,737,761 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Claims 1-14 and 24-29 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,344,313. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are fully contained within the claim of the patent application. Claims 18/457,034 1 & 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Claims U.S. Patent No. 11,344,313 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Claims 18/457,034 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 27 28 Claims U.S. Patent No. 11,344,313 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 02/12/26, with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims have been withdrawn. 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 Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, at (571) 272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 April 4, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP
Feb 12, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599499
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR CREATING A CAPSULORHEXIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569362
DELIVERY DEVICE AND METHOD OF DELIVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569332
IOL INJECTOR WITH AUTOMATIC DRIVER OR ASSISTED MANUAL DRIVE FORCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569327
INTRAVASCULAR CATHETER HAVING AN EXPANDABLE INCISING PORTION AND EMBOLIC PROTECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558096
FULL EVERSION ANASTOMOSIS JUNCTURE FORMATION AND SUTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.8%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 408 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