Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/556,345

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPLANTABLE ELECTRICAL STIMULATION

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Oct 19, 2023
Examiner
BERTRAM, ERIC D
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Northeastern University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1026 granted / 1266 resolved
+11.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1305
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1266 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/8/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search and/or examination burden as required by MPEP 808. However, this is a 371 application, which is governed by the Unity of Invention rules, and not US Restriction practice. Therefore MPEP 808 is irrelevant and the applicant’s arguments are meritless. Unity of Invention has no serious search/burden requirement. See MPEP Chapters 823 and 1800. Claims 9-21 remain withdrawn. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 6 recites that each pedicle screw “is coupled” to a veterbra of the spine. This positively recites the human body as a structural limitation of the claim. Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is rejected by its association. 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hua (US 2014/0194720). The claims are directed to apparatus claims, whose interpretation is governed using the following principles of law: "To anticipate a claim, a reference must disclose every element of thechallenged claim and enable one skilled in the art to make the anticipatingsubject matter." PPG Indus. Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp, 75 F.3d 1558,1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996). "[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends onthe claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." CatalinaMktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801,809 (Fed. Cir.2002). "It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an oldproduct does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In reSchreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Regarding claim 1, Hua discloses a system comprising a plurality of screws that can be considered pedicle screws and are configured to engage a spine of a patient, if so desired by a user (par. 0032, 0040, 0081). Each screw implant includes a plurality of electrodes and each screw implant is connected to a power source and a controller such that current can be steered in varying directions by activating different electrodes at different times (par. 0039-0041). Regarding claims 2-7, Hua discloses an embodiment with at least nine screws (figure 7 and par. 0057) and each screw is configured to be placed in any vertebra and/or any perispinal region (par. 0032, 0081), such that the controller is configured to selectively supply power to the screws (par. 0040). The current steered from one screw to another will then be caused to be directed across the associated vertebra and/or perispinal region in which they are configured to be implanted. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. IN this case, any screw is configured to be placed in any vertebra or perispinal location. Regarding claim 8, since the entirety of the screw is conductive, one can designate any smooth surface extending across no more than 90 degrees of the screw as the first electrode, as seen in the annotated figure below: PNG media_image1.png 186 366 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time. 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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. /Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 19, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599769
BALLOON-TYPE RETINAL STIMULATION DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589255
METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR DETECTING AND RESPONDING TO CHANGES IN A SUBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582828
PACING DEVICE AND METHOD OF OPERATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576281
DEFIBRILLATOR DESIGNED FOR HIGH-RELIABILITY OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569696
WEARABLE MEDICAL SYSTEM (WMS) IMPLEMENTING WEARABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATOR (WCD) CAPTURING, RECORDING AND REPORTING AMBIENT SOUNDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
81%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+12.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1266 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