Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/485,446

SUBSTANCE DELIVERY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Oct 12, 2023
Examiner
ARBLE, JESSICA R
Art Unit
3781
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tg Medwise Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
256 granted / 390 resolved
-4.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
438
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 390 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon (US 6349232). Regarding Claim 1, Gordon discloses a delivery device (Figs. 1, 5, and 7) comprising: a collar device (20, Fig. 1) for wearing on an animal (Col. 6 lines 19-28) comprising a dosing chamber (portion of conduit 224 shown as filled with substance 230, Fig. 7; Col. 8 lines 11-25 indicate the pump of Fig. 7 can be used with the collar of Figs. 1/5) for delivering a substance (230, Fig. 7) therefrom (Col. 8 lines 11-25); a substance-delivery apparatus (rotor 220, Fig. 7) configured to impart a pushing force against said substance (230, Fig. 7) within said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7) to cause at least a portion of said substance (230, Fig. 7) to be delivered from said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7; Col. 8 lines 11-25; when the rotor turns, the substance within tube 224 is pushed out to deliver to the animal); an electrical energy source (battery 174, Fig. 5) configured to impart an electrically-created pulse or cycle to said substance (230, Fig. 7; Col. 7 lines 40-44, Col. 8 lines 11-25; the controller electrically actuates the rotor to impart an electronically-created pulse by the electrical signal moving the rotor and therefore moving the substance); and a controller (162, Fig. 5) in communication with said electrical energy source (174, Fig. 5) for controlling delivery of at least a portion of said substance (230, Fig. 7) from said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7), wherein said pulse or cycle delivers a dose (Col. 7 lines 40-44, Col. 8 lines 11-25; the amount of fluid held between two rollers 222 can be considered a dose). Regarding Claim 2, Gordon discloses said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7) comprises a tube (224, Fig. 7; Col. 8 lines 11-25). Regarding Claim 3, Gordon discloses multiple dosing cycles are controlled by said controller (162, Fig. 5) so that sequences of pulses impart sequences of doses (Col. 6 lines 28-42; each time the rotor spins, the dose held within chamber 224 between rollers 222 will be expelled and another dose will be pulled into the chamber, and therefore the controller sending multiple signals to spin the rotor will deliver a sequence of doses). Regarding Claim 4, Gordon discloses said controller (162, Fig. 5) is operative to control dosage in a closed control loop (Col. 6 lines 51-55; the controller can operate in response to one or more inputs from a sensor 169). Regarding Claim 5, Gordon discloses said controller (162, Fig. 5) is operative to control dosage in an open control loop (Col. 6 lines 51-55; the controller “may” operate in response to inputs from sensors 169, and therefore is also capable of operating without the inputs from the sensors and using for example a timing program rather than sensor signals to determine when to dispense a dose). Regarding Claim 6, Gordon discloses said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7) is at least partially filled for application of a subsequent dose (Col. 6 lines 28-42; each time the rotor spins, the dose held within chamber 224 between rollers 222 will be expelled and another dose will be pulled into the chamber and ready for application of the next dose). Regarding Claim 7, Gordon discloses after delivery of a dosage of said substance (230, Fig. 7), said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7) is ready for delivery of another dosage of said substance (Col. 6 lines 28-42; each time the rotor spins, the dose held within chamber 224 between rollers 222 will be expelled and another dose will be pulled into the chamber and ready for application of the next dose). Regarding Claim 8, Gordon discloses a delivery device (Figs. 1, 5, and 7) comprising: a collar device (20, Fig. 1) for wearing on an animal (Col. 6 lines 19-28), said collar device (20, Fig. 1) comprising a dosing chamber (portion of conduit 224 shown as filled with substance 230, Fig. 7; Col. 8 lines 11-25 indicate the pump of Fig. 7 can be used with the collar of Figs. 1/5) for delivering a substance (230, Fig. 7) therefrom (Col. 8 lines 11-25); a substance-delivery apparatus (rotor 220, Fig. 7) configured to impart a pushing force against said substance (230, Fig. 7) within said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7) to cause at least a portion of said substance (230, Fig. 7) to be delivered from said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7; Col. 8 lines 11-25; when the rotor turns, the substance within tube 224 is pushed out to deliver to the animal); an electrical energy source (battery 174, Fig. 5) configured to impart an electrically-created pulse or cycle to said substance (230, Fig. 7; Col. 7 lines 40-44, Col. 8 lines 11-25; the controller electrically actuates the rotor to impart an electronically-created pulse by the electrical signal moving the rotor and therefore moving the substance); and a controller (162, Fig. 5) in communication with said electrical energy source (174, Fig. 5) for controlling delivery of at least a portion of said substance (230, Fig. 7) from said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7), wherein said pulse or cycle delivers a dose (Col. 7 lines 40-44, Col. 8 lines 11-25; the amount of fluid held between two rollers 222 can be considered a dose), and said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7) is in fluid communication with a substance reservoir (supply module 227, Fig. 7). Regarding Claim 9, Gordon discloses said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7) is at least partially filled for application of a subsequent dose (Col. 6 lines 28-42; each time the rotor spins, the dose held within chamber 224 between rollers 222 will be expelled and another dose will be pulled into the chamber and ready for application of the next dose). Regarding Claim 10, Gordon discloses after delivery of a dosage of said substance (230, Fig. 7), said dosing chamber (224, Fig. 7) is ready for delivery of another dosage of said substance (Col. 6 lines 28-42; each time the rotor spins, the dose held within chamber 224 between rollers 222 will be expelled and another dose will be pulled into the chamber and ready for application of the next dose). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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. /JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 12, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599504
WOUND DRESSING WITH FLUID MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582762
REDUCED PRESSURE THERAPY APPARATUSES AND METHODS OF USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569377
ABSORBENT ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558524
PREOPERATIVE SKIN PREPARATION APPLICATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12544555
PUMP DEVICE FOR PUMPING BLOOD
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+26.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 390 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