Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/472,714

RECORDING MEDIUM AND ELECTROSTIMULATION DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Priority
Mar 29, 2021 — JP 2021-055149 +1 more
Examiner
TEHRANI, DANIEL
Art Unit
3792
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Mtg Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allowance Rate
33 granted / 55 resolved
-10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
92
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§103
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
§102
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§112
37.4%
-2.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 55 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 2. This action is responsive to the amendments filed 2/25/2026. Claims 1, 4, and 7 have been amended. No claims were newly added. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 have been canceled. Response to Arguments 3. Applicant’s response with respect to the art rejections 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 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, 4, and 7-8 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. Regarding claim 1, the term "the first cycle" in line 14 has been used without first introducing "a first cycle". Additionally, it is unclear which one of the plurality of first cycles the claimed "the first cycle" refers to. It is also unclear whether each of the first cycles includes a plurality of second cycles. It is further unclear if the term "a plurality of pulse waveform groups" in line 23 refers to the previously introduced plurality of pulse waveform groups or if it is introducing another plurality of pulse waveform groups. Consequently, all subsequent mentions of "the plurality of pulse waveform groups" are indefinite because it is unclear to which "a plurality of pulse waveform groups" the terms are referring to. Regarding claim 1, lines 14-15 recite “wherein the first cycle includes a plurality of second cycles, which are shorter than each of the plurality of first cycles”. It is unclear how the first and second cycles can overlap if they belong to the same treatment application period. For the purposes of examination, the "second cycle" will be interpreted as being a subset of the "first cycle". 6. Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected at least because they depend from a claim(s) which is indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushita et al. (US Pub.: 2017/0036019 A1). Regarding claim 1, Matsushita discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing muscle electrostimulation program for giving electrostimulation to a muscle (e.g. Fig. 6 – memory 405a; paragraph 0084), the muscle electrostimulation program comprising: a module implemented by a computer (e.g. Fig. 6 – controller 40) of an electrostimulation device (e.g. Fig. 6 – muscle electrostimulation device 1) provided with a signal application unit (e.g. Fig. 6 – output adjuster 401) that applies a voltage signal to an electrode group (e.g. Fig. 6 – electrode unit 30), the module being: a module configured to repeatedly apply a plurality of pulse waveform groups to the electrode group as the voltage signal by controlling the signal application unit (e.g. paragraphs 0034, 0083), wherein the plurality of pulse waveform groups (e.g. paragraphs 0083, 0096) include: a first pulse waveform group (e.g. paragraphs 0104-0107 – fifth burst wave (B5)) applied intermittently in each of a plurality of first cycles (e.g. Fig. 9 – second output mode (first + second + third + fourth statuses) is construed as a plurality of first cycles; paragraph 0103) corresponding to a frequency of 15 Hz to 25 Hz (e.g. paragraph 0104-0107 – fifth burst wave (B5) is 20 Hz) and a second pulse waveform group (e.g. paragraphs 0104-0107 – second burst wave (B2)) applied outside an application period of the first pulse waveform group in each of the plurality of first cycles (e.g. paragraph 0109), wherein the first cycle includes a plurality of second cycles (e.g. Fig. 9; paragraph 0090, – each burst wave comprises a pulse group output period P of 1ms), which are shorter than each of the plurality of first cycles (e.g. paragraph 0090), each of the plurality of pulse waveform groups is repeatedly applied in each of the plurality of second cycles (e.g. paragraphs 0090, 0096), a part for one of the plurality of second cycles in the first cycle serves as an application period for the first pulse waveform group (e.g. paragraphs 0090, 0095 – fifth burst wave (B5) has a pulse group output period P of 1ms), a pulse output time of the first pulse waveform group is longer than a pulse output time of the second pulse waveform group, or pulse voltage of the first pulse waveform group is higher than pulse voltage of the second pulse waveform group (e.g. paragraphs 0104-0107, – fifth burst wave is applied for 5 seconds, second burst wave is applied for 2 seconds), the module, which is configured to repeatedly apply a plurality of pulse waveform groups to the electrode group (e.g. paragraphs 0034, 0083), applies the plurality of pulse waveform groups repeatedly to the electrode group in each of a plurality of consecutive block periods by controlling the signal application unit (e.g. paragraphs 0083-0084), and each of the plurality of block periods is different in at least one of the pulse waveform of the pulse waveform group or the duration of the block period (e.g. paragraphs 0084; 0103). Regarding claim 4, Matsushita discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsushita further teaches wherein pulse output time of the first pulse waveform group is longer than pulse output time of the second pulse waveform group (e.g. paragraph 0104), and pulse voltage of the first pulse waveform group is higher than pulse voltage of the second pulse waveform group (e.g. paragraphs 0088, 0108). Regarding claim 7, Matsushita discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsushita further teaches wherein the module that repeatedly applies a plurality of pulse waveform groups to the electrode group alternately applies (e.g. paragraphs 0090, 0096), as the voltage signal, a left leg electric muscle stimulation (EMS) waveform group for giving electrostimulation to a left leg (e.g. paragraph 0155) and a right leg EMS waveform group for giving electrostimulation to a right leg (e.g. paragraph 0155) to the electrode group by controlling the signal application unit (e.g. paragraphs 0096, 0155), and the EMS waveform group is a repetition of the plurality of pulse waveform groups (e.g. paragraphs 0096, 0134). Regarding claim 8, Matsushita discloses an electrostimulation device comprising: an electrode group that gives electrostimulation to a user (e.g. Fig. 6 – electrode unit 30; paragraph 0061); a signal application unit that applies a voltage signal to the electrode group (e.g. Fig. 6 – output adjuster 401; paragraph 0083); and a control unit (e.g. Fig. 6 – operation unit 50) that executes the muscle electrostimulation program according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). 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 DANIEL TEHRANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm. 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. /D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112
Feb 25, 2026
Response Filed
May 04, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12661522
TRANSDUCER APPARATUSES WITH ELECTRODE ELEMENT SPACING TO REDUCE EDGE EFFECT IN DELIVERING TUMOR TREATING FIELDS TO A SUBJECT'S BODY
3y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12623070
TRANSCUTANEOUS ELECTRICAL SPINAL CORD NEUROMODULATOR AND USES THEREOF
4y 5m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12623082
STIMULATION PATTERNS FOR DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION
3y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12599764
HEADER ASSEMBLY HAVING CONTROLLED THERAPEUTIC AGENT RELEASE
4y 3m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12558546
DORSAL ROOT GANGLION STIMULATION IN INFLUENCING ORGAN FUNCTION
4y 7m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.3%)
3y 7m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 55 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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