Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/588,821

CLINICAL FITTING ASSISTANCE USING SOFTWARE ANALYSIS OF STIMULI

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Feb 27, 2024
Priority
May 31, 2013 — continuation of 10/758,177 +1 more
Examiner
IP, JASON M
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Cochlear Limited
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allowance Rate
376 granted / 690 resolved
-15.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
716
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
94.5%
+54.5% vs TC avg
§102
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§112
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 690 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. 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. Claim(s) 21-27, 29-32, 34-39, and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they amount to an abstract idea related to: MPEP 2106 - Patent Subject Matter Eligibility requires the following test in section III. Summary of Analysis and Flowchart: Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Step 2A1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Step 2A2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? With regards to the Applicant’s claims, the Examiner addresses each of the corresponding points outlined above: Step 1: yes, a process and machine Step 2A1: an abstract idea Step 2A2: yes: video camera, memory, processor Step 2B: no, because the steps recited in claims 21, 31, and 36 can be performed with the mind and eyes alongside pencil and paper. A person can view the inputs captured by a video camera and determine using the mind, determine a feedback event is warranted after viewing, and respond by adjusting the hearing device using one’s body. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim(s) 21-27, 29-32, 34-39, and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 21, 31, and 36, the generic recitation of “a machine learning algorithm” fails to comply with the written description requirement because it does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill that the applicant had possession. The Specification does not disclose any details on the specific type of machine learning algorithm nor does it disclose how one would even use such an algorithm to analyze the claimed inputs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST. 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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. /JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 4 earlier events
Oct 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112
Feb 03, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112
Apr 21, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 21, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 05, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12635904
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MONITORING SUBJECTS
2y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12635923
System and Method for Patient Monitoring
1y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12629101
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS
1y 6m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12611113
TECHNIQUES FOR IDENTIFYING REPRESENTATIVE PPG PULSES
3y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12605145
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELECTION AND DISPLAYING OF IMAGES USING AN INTRAVASCULAR ULTRASOUND IMAGING SYSTEM
6y 4m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+25.7%)
3y 10m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 690 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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