Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 19/002,039

DEVICES AND METHODS FOR TREATING MOTION SICKNESS USING ELECTRICAL STIMULATION

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Dec 26, 2024
Priority
May 27, 2022 — provisional 63/346,697 +2 more
Examiner
HULBERT, AMANDA K
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Spark Biomedical Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
652 granted / 771 resolved
+24.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
803
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 771 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §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 . 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. The term “substantially adjacent” in claim 1, lines 6 and line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,068. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are simply narrower than the claims of the ‘068 patent. The ‘068 patent discloses “wherein the second series of stimulation pulses is configured to modulate one or more areas in a brain stem of the subject” while the instant application discloses “wherein the second series of stimulation pulses is configured to modulate the locus coeruleus (LC) to increase availability of central norepinephrine (NE).” Since the locus coeruleus is located in the brain stem, the instant application claims simply narrow the location that is modulated by the second series of stimulation pulses. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda K Hulbert whose telephone number is (571)270-1912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-5:00. 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, Unsu Jung can be reached on 571-272-8506. 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. /Amanda K Hulbert/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12733873
TECHNIQUES FOR MIGRAINE DETECTION USING A WEARABLE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12727808
METHOD AND SYSTEM TO MANAGE ADAPTIVE SENSING
3y 11m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12714858
MEDICAL DEVICE FOR CLOSED LOOP VAGAL NERVE STIMULATION
3y 1m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12691280
CURRENT STEERING TO ACHIEVE SPATIAL SELECTIVITY FOR HIS BUNDLE PACING
4y 2m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12691289
IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE, IMPLANT COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSFERRING DATA
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 28, 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
85%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+4.2%)
3y 1m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 771 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