Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/954,171

SURGICAL SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Priority
Jul 06, 2015 — provisional 62/189,008 +1 more
Examiner
HOUGH, JESSANDRA F
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Hermes Innovations LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allowance Rate
134 granted / 300 resolved
-15.3% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
345
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
§103
84.4%
+44.4% vs TC avg
§102
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§112
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 300 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 Amendment This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on April 16, 2025. As directed by the amendment: no claim(s) have been amended, claim(s) 1 have been cancelled, and claim(s) 2-16 have been added. Thus, claims 2-16 are currently pending in the application. 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 2-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,178,504 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the method of US Patent 12,178,504 B2 requires the particulars of system details in the pending application which includes introducing a probe into an organ/uterus that comprises an inner sleeve, an outer sleeve, and a working end with a cutting member located at the working end of the probe on the inner sleeve and exposed through a window in the outer sleeve and a sensor system comprising an electrical component configured for detecting conductive material around an exterior of the organ and implement the method as described. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mersch (US 5,776,129) discloses a endometrial ablation apparatus and method that utilizes a web of optically conductive material within the uterus for ablation (e.g. col 1 lines 50-65). Savage (US 6,032,673) discloses a method and device for tissue removal utilizing a probe having an outer and inner sleeve with a working end having a cutting member (e.g. col 11 lines 3-35 Fig 2a and 2b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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. Jessandra Hough June 24, 2026 /J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678617
NEURAL SLEEVE FOR NEUROMUSCULAR STIMULATION, SENSING AND RECORDING
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12667725
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRAINING A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL FOR USE BY A PROCESSING UNIT IN A COCHLEAR IMPLANT SYSTEM
4y 6m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12667265
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD OF ESTIMATING SKIN SURFACE TEMPERATURE USING THE SAME
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12622588
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SCS THERAPY OPTIMIZATION
3y 5m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12551710
STIMULATION APPARATUS
4y 7m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
45%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+36.7%)
3y 11m (~2y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 300 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