Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/910,812

DEVICE AND METHOD FOR RELIEVING HEADACHES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 09, 2024
Examiner
JAMIALAHMADI, MAJID
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
289 granted / 389 resolved
+4.3% vs TC avg
Strong +57% interview lift
Without
With
+56.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
411
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 389 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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 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. (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 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arcio (US Pub No. 2025/0057726). Regarding claim 1, Arcio discloses (Figures 1-25) a device (100) for applying pressure to a physiological pressure point (Paragraphs 0053-0057), comprising: a first jaw (150); a second jaw (160) that opposes the first jaw and is in a pivoting and spring biased relationship relative to the first jaw (Paragraphs 0056-0057); and a variable pressure actuator (500) that moves the first jaw toward the second jaw and retracts the first jaw from the second jaw (Paragraphs 0056-0057 and 0064); wherein the second jaw is constructed and arranged to contact a palm of a hand of a user (Paragraphs 0056-0057 and 0064), and the first jaw is constructed and arranged to contact an opposite side of the hand of the user (Paragraphs 0056-0057 and 0064), and the first jaw and the second jaw cooperate to apply pressure at a physiological pressure point of the hand (Paragraphs 0056-0057 and 0064). Regarding claim 2, further comprising a first tip (130) for concentrating pressure extending from the first jaw and toward the second jaw, and a second tip (320) for concentrating pressure extending from the second jaw and toward the first jaw, wherein the first tip and the second tip are constructed and arranged to cooperatively apply pressure at a physiological pressure point of the hand (Paragraphs 0056-0057 and 0064). Regarding claim 5, further comprising a quick release mechanism (Paragraph 0066) [Quick-release latch]. Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Labash (US Pub No. 2011/0270013). Regarding claim 1, Labash discloses (Figures 1-7) a device (10) for applying pressure to a physiological pressure point (Paragraphs 0031 and 0035-0036), comprising: a first jaw (38); a second jaw (92, 66) that opposes the first jaw and is in a pivoting and spring biased relationship relative to the first jaw (Paragraphs 0033-0034); and a variable pressure actuator (12, 126, 122, 118, 120, 124) (Figure 7) that moves the first jaw toward the second jaw and retracts the first jaw from the second jaw (Paragraphs 0040-0045); wherein the second jaw is constructed and arranged to contact a palm of a hand of a user (Paragraphs 0040-0045), and the first jaw is constructed and arranged to contact an opposite side of the hand of the user (Paragraphs 0040-0045), and the first jaw and the second jaw cooperate to apply pressure at a physiological pressure point of the hand (Paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0040-0045). Regarding claim 3, wherein the variable pressure actuator (12, 126, 122, 118, 120, 124) extends from and pivots relative to the second jaw (Extends from and pivots relative to the second jaw at pivot point 88 as shown in Figure 7) and is pivotable to contact the first jaw (As the variable pressure actuator pivots, it is in contact with the first jaw 38 at pin locations 52 and 54). Regarding claim 4, wherein the variable pressure actuator (12, 126, 122, 118, 120, 124) extends from and pivots relative to the second jaw (Extends from and pivots relative to the second jaw at pivot point 88 as shown in Figure 7) and is pivotable to contact the first jaw (As the variable pressure actuator pivots, it is in contact with the first jaw 38 at pin locations 52 and 54), and wherein the variable pressure actuator comprises a threaded member (118) and a threaded collar (124). 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 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 of this title, 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labash (US Pub No. 2011/0270013) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Black (US Pub No. 2017/0333280). Regarding claim 7, Labash discloses the invention above except for wherein the first tip and the second tip are heated. Black, in the analogous art of devices for applying pressure, teaches (Figure 14) a fitness device (1400) that includes tips (1414) that are heated (Paragraph 0065). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Labash to have the first tip and the second tip to be heated as taught by Black, in order to relax tight muscles and relieve pain. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labash (US Pub No. 2011/0270013) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tima (US Pub No. 2017/0042764). Regarding claim 8, Labash discloses the invention above except for wherein the first tip and the second tip vibrate. Tima, in the analogous art of devices for applying pressure, teaches (Figure 1) a device (10) that includes tips (26) that vibrate (Paragraph 0030). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Labash to have the first tip and the second tip to vibrate as taught by Tima, in order to improve blood circulation and provide deeper muscle relaxation. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in the dependent claims: The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the combination of features as claimed. In particular, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein moving the variable pressure actuator out of the slot moves the first jaw and second jaw apart by the spring biased relationship (claim 6). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAJID JAMIALAHMADI whose telephone number is (571) 270-0172. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Darwin Erezo can be reached on (571) 272-4695. 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. /MAJID JAMIALAHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 09, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582549
VITRECTOMY PROBE WITH MAGNETICALLY DRIVEN CUTTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575854
THROMBECTOMY DEVICES WITH CONTROL ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12539109
Vascular Closure Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12527593
JOINT ASSEMBLIES WITH CROSS-AXIS FLEXURAL PIVOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12514583
SURGICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+56.9%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 389 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month