Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/022,036

TRANSVAGINAL LIFT DEVICE FOR PROLAPSED PELVIC ORGAN

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 15, 2025
Priority
Feb 22, 2023 — continuation of 12/239,315
Examiner
DORNBUSCH, DIANNE
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Arcus Medical LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
554 granted / 752 resolved
+13.7% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
778
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
74.7%
+34.7% vs TC avg
§102
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
§112
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 752 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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on paragraph [0001] the corresponding patent number for the parent application must be added. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,315. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the structural limitation recited in the claims of the instant application are also recited in claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,315. The difference in the terminology used would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, the claimed limitations of claims 1-11 are found in claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,315, respectively. The claimed limitations of claims 12-19 are found in claims 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,315, respectively. The claimed limitations of claim 20 are found in claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,315. The claimed limitations of claims 21 and 22 are found in claims 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,315, respectively. The claimed limitations of claim 23 are found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,315. The claimed limitations of claims 24-26 are found in claims 23-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,315, respectively. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANNE DORNBUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3515. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9 am-3 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571) 272-7134. 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. /DIANNE DORNBUSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 15, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12661105
ADJUSTABLE TISSUE REPAIR SYSTEMS AND SURGICAL METHODS
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12661106
EXPANDABLE SYNTHETIC SLEEVE TO AFFIX TISSUE
2y 12m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653522
VASCULAR CLOSURE DEVICES AND METHODS
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12653658
FIXATING MEANS BETWEEN A MESH AND MESH DEPLOYMENT MEANS ESPECIALLY USEFUL FOR HERNIA REPAIR SURGERIES AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12629271
DEVICE FOR INSERTING AN INFLATABLE INTRAGASTRIC BALLOON
2y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.2%)
3y 11m (~2y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 752 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