Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/588,023

MICROBLADE FOR ELECTROSTIMULATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 27, 2024
Examiner
DEMIE, TIGIST S
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Agnes Medical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
322 granted / 428 resolved
+5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
462
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 428 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Borgmeier et al. (US 2016/0199118). Regarding claim 1, Borgmeier discloses a microblade for electrostimulation (fig.1; an electrosurgical electrode 130) configured to be inserted to a predetermined depth in a skin to transmit electrical energy to the skin upon receiving power (abstract), the microblade comprising: a tip portion (the distal portion of body 200) formed to be gradually reduced in outer diameter toward a tip facing the skin [0116]; and a body portion (the proximal portion of body 200) extending outward from a rear end of the tip portion (distal portion of body 200) and having a constant outer diameter (fig.1, see also [0116]) and wherein, when power is applied to the microblade (fig1, see also [0070]), an electric field is emitted in a direction (the electrical energy that passes along the longitudinal direction of the electrode 130) perpendicular to planar field emission surfaces formed on outer peripheries of the tip portion and the body portion and is transmitted to the skin (the planar field emission surface formed on outer peripheries of distal end of body 200). However, in this embodiment (fig.1), Borgmeier does not explicitly disclose wherein the tip portion comprises a first tip edge portion formed by a pair of first tip inclined surfaces, a second tip edge portion formed by a pair of second tip inclined surfaces, and a pair of tip connection surfaces, each interconnecting one of the pair of first tip inclined surfaces and one of the pair of second tip inclined surfaces adjacent to each other, wherein the body portion comprises a first body edge portion formed by a pair of first body inclined surfaces, a second body edge portion formed by a pair of second body inclined surfaces, and a pair of body connection surfaces, each interconnecting one of the pair of first body inclined surfaces and one of the pair of second body inclined surfaces adjacent to each other. Borgmeier discloses variety of cross-sectional shapes and/or configurations of the body 200. One of the cross-sectional shapes is body 200h having a body 200h having four major surfaces 230e, 230f, 230g, and 230h with side edges 260a (fig.5F). The body 200h cross section is part of the tip and body portion (proximal and distal portion of body 200 (see annotated figure below). Borgmeier explicitly discloses the sizes, shapes, configurations, transitions, and/or radii of curvatures can be modified based on the requirements of the surgeon or other user [0109]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was effectively filed to combine the first embodiment (fig.1) and the second embodiment (fig.5f) to include the cross-sectional shape and configurations as shown in the second embodiment (fig.5f) for the purpose of achieving the requirements of the surgeon for a specific treatment. PNG media_image1.png 434 544 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein each of the pair of tip connection surfaces is formed in a shape of an arc curved surface (fig.5F). Regarding claim 3, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein the tip portion comprises a pair of extension surfaces extending from the pair of body connection surfaces in a boundary area between the tip portion and the body portion so as to be connected to the pair of tip connection surfaces. The surface extending between the proximal portion and distal portion of body 200 on the side of edges 260a which are planar surface (fig.1 and fig.5f). Regarding claim 4, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 3, wherein each of the pair of extension surfaces is formed in a shape of a planar surface (the side edges 260a formed in planar surface, see fig.5f). Regarding claim 5, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein an angle between the pair of first tip inclined surfaces and an angle between the pair of second tip inclined surfaces are acute angles (the angles at the edges 260c). Regarding claim 6, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein an angle between each of the pair of first tip inclined surfaces and an adjacent one of the pair of tip connection surfaces and an angle between each of the pair of second tip inclined surfaces and an adjacent one of the pair of tip connection surfaces are obtuse angles (the angle between 230f /230h and 260a or the angle between 230e/230g and 260a). Regarding claim 7, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein a distance between a vertex of the first tip edge portion at which the pair of first tip inclined surfaces meet each other and a vertex of the second tip edge portion at which the pair of second tip inclined surfaces meet each other is longer (the distance between the top edge 260c and bottom edge 260c) than a distance between pair of tip connection surfaces facing each other (the distance between the right edge 260a and the left edge 260a). Regarding claim 8, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein each of the pair of body connection surfaces is formed in a shape of a planar surface (fig.5f). Regarding claim 9, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein an angle between the pair of first body inclined surfaces and an angle between the pair of second body inclined surfaces are acute angles (the angles at the edges 260c). Regarding claim 10, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein an angle between each of the pair of first body inclined surfaces and an adjacent one of the pair of body connection surfaces and an angle between each of the pair of second body inclined surfaces and an adjacent one of the pair of body connection surfaces are obtuse angles (the angle between 230f /230h and 260a or the angle between 230e/230g and 260a). Regarding claim 11, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein a distance between a vertex of the first body edge portion at which the pair of first body inclined surfaces meet each other and a vertex of the second body edge portion at which the pair of second body inclined surfaces meet each other is longer (the distance between the top edge 260c and bottom edge 260c) than a distance between the pair of body connection surfaces facing each other (the distance between the right edge 260a and the left edge 260a). Regarding claim 12, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein an end of the tip portion has a curved shape (fig.5f). Regarding claim 13, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein the tip portion and the body portion have a polyhedral shape with angled surfaces (fig.5f). Regarding claim 14, Borgmeier discloses the microblade according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the tip portion and the body portion have a polygonal shape in a longitudinal section (fig.5f). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIGIST S DEMIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5Pm. 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-2721213. 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. /TIGIST S DEMIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594089
MEDICAL TOOLS FOR AND METHODS OF GAINING ACCESS TO EXTRAVASCULAR SPACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594185
TREATMENT SYSTEM HAVING GENERATOR AND FLUID TRANSFER CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582465
TISSUE RESURFACING DEVICES AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582466
Ablation Assembly to Treat Target Regions of Tissue in Organs
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575851
VIBRATION TRANSMISSION MEMBER, ULTRASONIC TREATMENT INSTRUMENT, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING VIBRATION TRANSMISSION MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
75%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+21.6%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 428 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