Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 18/686,222

TRANSFER OF A PRETERM BABY FROM A NATURAL WOMB

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 23, 2024
Priority
Aug 23, 2021 — NL 2029017 +1 more
Examiner
ORKIN, ALEXANDER J
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
654 granted / 999 resolved
-4.5% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1029
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 999 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant argues in the response filed 06/09/2026 that the claim amendments overcome the claim objections. The claim objections have been withdrawn. The applicant argues the replacement figures filed 06/09/2026 would overcome the examiner’s objections. The replacement figures improve clarity on some figures, however other figures are hard to decipher all details. At least figures 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are still unclear. Further, new reference numbers 23 and 24 are not found in the specifications. Drawings objections are maintained below. The applicant argues the claim amendments would overcome the 112 rejections. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn except for the 112 rejection with respect to claim 6. Claim 6 still contains trademark and copyright names. Even if the symbol is removed, the name is still a trademark/copyright. The name is used to describe a particular material or product based on the rights of the trademark/copyright and therefore raises 112 issues. The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product, see MPEP 2173.05(u). Therefore the 112 rejections is maintained below. The examiner recommends cancelling claim 6. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference numbers 23, 24 at least shown in figures 4, 6, 8-10 are not found in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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. The drawings are objected to because of the following reasons: The drawings are unclear. The photographs are not of sufficient quality, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1) states: Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. 37 CFR 1.84(b)(l) states: Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. 37 CFR 1.84(b)(M) states: The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. The photographs, lines, and shading are not clean, well defined, and the drawings seem to have reduced legibility. At least figures 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 either do not have clean well define lines or reduced clarity where it is difficult making out all details shown. Therefore the drawings objections are applicable 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 contains the trademark/trade name “SURGISLEEVE” and copyright “ALEXIS”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe retractors and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. It is recommended claim 6 be canceled. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5, 7, 9-25 are allowed. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J ORKIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571)272-7134. 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. /ALEXANDER J ORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 09, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702400
TISSUE REPAIR DEVICES AND METHODS OF USE
2y 1m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12690861
CLIP UNIT, CLIP DELIVERY DEVICE, AND CLIP RELEASE METHOD
2y 12m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12690850
SELF-EXPANDING HEMOSTATIC DEVICES AND METHODS FOR FASCIA AND VESSEL PASSAGES
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12678149
OCCLUDER MEDICAL DEVICE
4y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678164
HEMOSTASIS CLIP SHORT SYSTEM
1y 11m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+27.1%)
3y 8m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 999 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