Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 25, 2026
Application No. 18/741,500

INTRAGASTRIC MAGNETIC DEVICE AND EXTERNAL STIMULATOR

Non-Final OA §101§102§103§112
Filed
Jun 12, 2024
Priority
Sep 30, 2021 — CIP of 12/016,791
Examiner
BALLER, KELSEY E
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Appetec Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
132 granted / 212 resolved
+2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +60% interview lift
Without
With
+59.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
236
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
49.9%
+9.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 212 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103 §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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "vest" in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. 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: 5, 6, 706, and 800. 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. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6, lines 1-2 "a magnet than interacts" is suggested to be changed to --a magnet that interacts-- to correct a typo. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1- 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 1 recites the limitation "the" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the deflated structure" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 recites the limitation "the one or more magnets" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 2, it is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim a system including a vibration device and an internal device or just the vibration device. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base claim. 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. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). In claims 1 and 5, lines 3 and 3-4, respectively, applicant appears to be claiming a structure of the body with the limitation "sends controlled vibrations through the walls of the stomach". Examiner suggests including one of --adapted to--, --for--, or --adapted for-- to avoid positively claiming the human body. All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency of a rejected base claim 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. Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Augarten (2011/0301408). With respect to claim 5, Augarten discloses a method (see [0014 and 49-50]), comprising providing a shaft (165, fig 1) containing a vibrating transmitter (170, fig 1); sending, via the vibrating transmitter, controlled vibrations through the walls of the stomach to an internal device (100, fig 1), wherein the internal device further comprises a balloon (103, fig 1) with a proximate end (end opposite 107 in fig 1) and a distal end (end near 107 in fig 1); and expanding a deflated structure of the balloon device to an inflated shape by magnetic attraction to one or more magnets at the distal end (see [0032-33 and 49-50]). With respect to claim 6, Augarten discloses the vibrating transmitter further comprises a magnet (170, fig 1) that interacts magnetically with the internal device (see [0031-32 and 49]). 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. 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augarten (2011/0301408) in view of Sedghi (2017/0231791). With respect to claim 1, Augarten discloses a vibration device, comprising a casing (150, fig 1), a shaft (165, fig 1) containing a vibrating transmitter (170, fig 1) which sends controlled vibrations through the walls of the stomach to an internal device (100, fig 1 and [0049]), wherein the internal device further comprises a balloon (103, fig 1) with a proximate end (end near 107 in fig 1) and a distal end (end opposite 107 in fig 1); and a magnet (115, fig 1) on the proximate end configured to expand the deflated structure to its inflated shape by magnetic attraction to the one or more magnets at the distal end (see [0049]) but lacks a shock absorber with a plastic casing. However, Sedghi teaches a vibration device (56, fig 3A) comprising a shock absorber with a plastic casing (shell; 62, fig 3A and [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibration device of Augarten to include a shell as taught by Sedghi so as to prevent interference with other devices and maintain a desirable magnetic field (see [0067] of Sedghi). Allowable Subject Matter As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 PM. 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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. /KELSEY E BALLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /TU A VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 12, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734317
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF AEROSOL DELIVERY WITH AIRFLOW REGULATION
4y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734281
Improved Cupping Device, System, and Features
3y 7m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734095
MASSAGE DEVICE
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12690703
NECK PILLOW
4y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12648889
PORTABLE UPPER LIMB REHABILITATION MECHANICAL ARM WITH GRADING ADJUSTMENT TRAINING FUNCTION
3y 10m to grant Granted Jun 09, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+59.8%)
3y 1m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 212 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