Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/561,999

BIO-IMPLANTABLE BLADDER TREATMENT DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC WEB AND ELECTRONIC THREAD INCLUDED THEREIN

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Examiner
BERTRAM, ERIC D
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Soonchunhyang University Industry Academy Cooperation Foundation
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

§102 §103
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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 1/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 and 2/12/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (Applicant-cited NPL entitled “Expandable and implantable bioelectronic complex for analyzing and regulating real-time activity of the urinary bladder”, hereinafter Jang). The applied reference has commonly named inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Since the applicant has already perfected a foreign priority date of 11/11/2021, this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) might be overcome by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Jang discloses a bio-implantable bladder treatment system as seen in figure 1. The device includes an elastomeric electronic web having an inner ring portion, an outer ring support portion outside the inner ring portion and auxiliary support portions connecting the inner and outer portions, the web installable to cover an outer circumference of the blader, and an electronic thread inserted into the electronic web to measure a state of the bladder (pages 2 and 3 and figures 1 and 2). Regarding claim 3, as seen in figure 1B, the auxiliary portion has circular buckles with holes through which the electronic thread is inserted. Regarding claims 7-10, as seen in figures 1 and 2, the electronic thread includes a support structure with a strain sensor, a temperature sensor, an EMG sensor and therapeutic stimulus generation members in the form of LEDs attached thereto (pages 2 and 3). Claims 1, 2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagale et al. (US 2013/0090648, hereinafter Nagale). Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 10, Nagale discloses a bio-implantable bladder treatment system 100 as seen in figures 6-8. The device includes an elastomeric electronic web 110 having an inner ring portion, an outer ring support portion outside the inner ring portion and auxiliary support portions connecting the inner and outer portions, the web installable to cover an outer circumference of the blader, and an electronic thread 118 inserted into the electronic web, the device configured to measure a state of the bladder using mechanical (“strain”) or electrical (“EMG”) sensor module 122 attached to a support plate of the web (figure 6 and par. 0066-0069 and 0075). Regarding claims 5, 6 and 9, Nagale discloses a plurality of electrodes (“therapeutic stimulus generation member”) for generating electrical stimulus (par. 0070-0076). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagale. Nagale shows electronic threads attached to the electronic web, but is silent as to exactly HOW the threads are attached. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of buckles is a common and well known attachment mechanism and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to use a buckle to attach the thread to the web in order to produce the predictable outcome of creating a stable and reliable connection without changing the overall purpose or operation of the device. 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

Nov 17, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (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