Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 18/742,863

NERVE STIMULATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jun 13, 2024
Priority
Dec 20, 2018 — provisional 62/782,825 +2 more
Examiner
PATEL, NIKETA I
Art Unit
3792
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Galvani Bioelectronics Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
52%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 43% of resolved cases
43%
Career Allowance Rate
78 granted / 182 resolved
-27.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
252
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 182 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,413. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one claim of the present application is an obvious variant of at least one claim of the parent patent. For example, application clam 1 is an obvious variant of patent claims 1. Further, the wherein clause of application claim 1 is considered to have been obvious since the second stimulator does not have to activate the nerve since the first stimulator has already done so, and the action potential is near the second stimulator so the second stimulation is unnecessary. Not stimulating when not required would lower energy expenditure of the device and provide a more efficient stimulation. Re application claim 2, see patent claim 2. Re application claim 3, see patent claim 1. Re application claim 4, see patent claim 3. Re application claim 5, see patent claim 4. Re application claim 6, see patent claim 5. Re application claim 7, see patent claim 6. Re application claim 8, see patent claim 7. Re application claim 9, see patent claim 8. Re application claim 10, see patent claim 9. Re application claim 11, see patent claim 10. Re application claim 12, see patent claim 11. Re application claim 13, see patent claim 12. Re application claim 14, see patent claim 13. Re application claim 15, see patent claim 14. Re application claim 16, see patent 15. Re application claim 17, see patent claim 16. Re application claim 18, see patent claim 18. Further, see comments above re not activating the second stimulator when the action potential is near the second stimulator. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M. Getzow whose telephone number is (571)272-4946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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. /Scott M. Getzow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §DOUBLEPATENT
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12654003
ELECTRODE PLACEMENT APPARATUS AND METHODS
4y 11m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 8401637
MEDIUM VOLTAGE THERAPY APPLICATIONS IN TREATING CARDIAC ARREST
7y 3m to grant Granted Mar 19, 2013
Patent 8388546
METHOD OF LOCATING THE TIP OF A CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER
3y 10m to grant Granted Mar 05, 2013
Patent 8249722
ACTIVE FIXATION ELEMENT
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 21, 2012
Patent 7949659
RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM WITH MULTIPLE INTEGRATED RECOMMENDERS
3y 11m to grant Granted May 24, 2011
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
43%
Grant Probability
52%
With Interview (+9.5%)
3y 6m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 182 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