Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/554,982

Methods and Apparatus for Improved Measurement of Compound Action Potentials

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Oct 11, 2023
Examiner
STICE, PAULA J
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Saluda Medical Pty Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1104 granted / 1351 resolved
+11.7% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1393
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1351 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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 1-5 and 28-32 have been elected without traverse in a reply received on 1/5/2026. Accordingly, claims 6-27 and 33-54 have been withdrawn. Information Disclosure Statement The office requires that all foreign patents include the Name of Patentee or Applicant, which has not been provided for several foreign documents submitted in the IDS dated 2/23/2024. The Patentee has been added to this IDS, it is requested that this is reviewed for any potential misinformation/errors. Drawings The drawings are objected to because in figure 25a figure number 6 points to the amplifier in the amplifier module 5. The specification however recites “measurement electrode 6” in paragraphs 0038-0039 and “amplifier 6” in paragraphs 0134-0136, this appears to be the same figure number which is used for different parts. Paragraph 0125 also recites “signal 17” no figure number 17 is found in the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses “means” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: impedance compensation means in claims 1-5 and 28-32. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-5 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Single US 2019/0357788. Regarding claim 1: Single discloses a device for recording evoked neural responses (abstract) the device comprising: one or more stimulation electrodes (paragraph 0015 “one or more stimulus nominal electrodes”) and a first and second sense electrode (paragraph 0015 “one or more nominal sense electrodes”) a stimulus source (paragraph 0016) for providing the stimulus to the stimulus electrodes to excite a neural pathway to evoke a compound action potential (paragraphs 0011-0016); measurement circuitry (“measurement amplifier”, paragraph 0017) for processing a signal sensed at the first sense electrode and second sense electrode, the sensed signal comprising an eCAP (paragraphs 0013, 0017, 0045); and impedance compensation means configured to compensate for an impedance difference, the impedance difference being a difference between an impedance associated with the first sense electrode and an impedance associated with the second sense electrode (paragraph 0017, 0021 “differential voltage arising between the sense electrode and the reference electrode in response to the stimulus.”). Regarding claim 2: Single discloses that the impedance compensating means comprises two compensating impedances connected so as to compensate for the impedance difference (figure 4 demonstrates the amplifier with two inputs, one from each sense electrode, also paragraphs 0046-47, 0050). Regarding claims 3-4: Single discloses that the compensating impedances can be fixed (paragraphs 00417-48) or configurable (paragraph 0050). Regarding claim 5: Single discloses that the configurable impedance values are configurable under a feedback loop (paragraphs 0003, 0028, 0030, 0058 and claim 11). Regarding claim 28: Single discloses a method for recording evoked neural responses (abstract) the method comprising: delivering, via a stimulation source (paragraph 0016), a stimulus via stimulus electrodes to a neural pathway to evoke a compound action potential (paragraphs 0011-0016); processing, with measurement circuitry (“measurement amplifier”, paragraph 0017), a signal sensed at a first sense electrode and a second sense electrode, the sensed signal comprising the eCAP (paragraphs 0013, 0017, 0045); and compensating for an impedance difference, the impedance difference being a difference between an impedance associates with the first sense electrode and an impedance associated with the second sense electrode (paragraph 0017, 0021 “differential voltage arising between the sense electrode and the reference electrode in response to the stimulus.”). Regarding claim 29: Single discloses that the impedance compensating means comprises two compensating impedances connected so as to compensate for the impedance difference (figure 4 demonstrates the amplifier with two inputs, one from each sense electrode, also paragraphs 0046-47, 0050). Regarding claims 30-31: Single discloses that the compensating impedances can be fixed (paragraphs 00417-48) or configurable (paragraph 0050). Regarding claim 32: Single discloses that the configurable impedance values are configurable under a feedback loop (paragraphs 0003, 0028, 0030, 0058 and claim 11). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST. 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, Carl H Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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. PAULA J. STICE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3796 /PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593979
Wearable Vital Sign Monitor Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589247
Power Efficient Stimulators
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576279
HEADER FOR A NEUROSTIMULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576274
TREATING STROKE USING ELECTRICAL STIMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558016
PREMATURE BEAT DETECTION METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MEDIUM
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1351 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