Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/716,989

DEVICE FOR REVERSIBLY BLOCKING ACTIVITIES OF TARGET REGION AND APPLICATIONS OF SAME

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Examiner
CLARK, RYAN T
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Washington University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
131 granted / 263 resolved
-20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
299
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 263 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION A complete action on the merits of pending claims 3-21 appears below. 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 . 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 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. Election/Restrictions Claims 52-28, 60-61, and 63-66 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method and method of fabrication, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/15/26. Applicant's election with traverse of a device in the reply filed on 1/15/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of all claims would not pose an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the applicant has not made any arguments just an assertion that there would be no burden. The applicant has the ability to state the claim sets are obvious over one another which would prove there is no burden but the applicant has failed to do so. This is the only way to overcome this Restriction Requirement since it is not a normal restriction it is a Unity of Invention restriction. Thus, it cannot be overcome by an assertion that there is no search burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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. Claims 7-20 are 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 7 states “wherein the microfluidic system further comprises transcutaneous colinear interconnects that deliver the fluid to the at least one fluidic chamber in a completely sealed system that provides fluidic access at the ends”. The examiner is unclear what this claim is trying to say. Transcutaneous usually has something to do with the skin. Colinear is in the same line but in the same line with what? If it is that the applicant is positively reciting skin of a patient that would be a 101 issue. Further, what interconnects that delivers fluid. Additionally, “at the ends” lacks antecedent basis. Further, how is there fluid access to the ends if it is completely sealed? The examiner is not able to make an educated guess on how to interpret this claim. Therefore, an art rejection is not given. Claims 8-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 3-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Monazami US 20210123641. Regarding claim 3, Monazami teaches a microfluidic system configured to route a fluid around the target region to change a local temperature of the target region so as to reversibly block activities of the target region (par. [0006]), wherein the microfluidic system is operably in communication with the target region (par. [0002] cooling and heating of material such as tissue); and wherein the microfluidic system utilizes a liquid to gas phase transition as a cooling mechanism to change the local temperature of the target region (par. [0004]). Regarding claim 4, Monazami teaches wherein the microfluidic system comprises at least one fluidic chamber formed in a microfluidic layer (Fig. 1C chambers 150a-c). Regarding claim 5, Monazami teaches wherein the at least one fluidic chamber has a length, a footprint and a volume, wherein the length defines a coverage angle of the microfluidic system when wrapping around the target region (Fig. 1C chambers 150a-c with microchannels 153). Regarding claim 6, Monazami teaches wherein a cooled area in the target region is confined predominately to a surface directly associated with the at least one fluidic chamber (Fig. 1A). Regarding claim 21, Monazami teaches being configured such that a phase change prompts a temperature of the device in a planar (par. [0163]), uncurled configuration to drop to about -20°C within about 2 min or less after initializing flow in ambient, room temperature conditions (par. [0057]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN T. CLARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7606. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM MT. 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on (571)272-4764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /R.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12558158
ELECTROSURGICAL INSTRUMENT WITH NON-LIQUID THERMAL TRANSFER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12558141
ENERGIZABLE INSTRUMENT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551266
ENDOSCOPIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551226
ENDOSCOPIC SURGICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551267
Cutting Instrument
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
50%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+19.5%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 263 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