Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/030,110

DEVICES AND METHODS FOR MULTI-FOCUS ULTRASOUND THERAPY

Final Rejection §DOUBLEPATENT§DP
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Priority
Mar 08, 2013 — provisional 61/774,785 +4 more
Examiner
COOK, CHRISTOPHER L
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ulthera, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
Est. Remaining
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allowance Rate
259 granted / 552 resolved
-23.1% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
600
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
75.8%
+35.8% vs TC avg
§102
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 552 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT §DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,478,807 because both sets of claims are directed to an aesthetic ultrasound treatment and imaging system for simultaneously creating multiple focus points from a transducer module using at least one of amplitude modulation, poling and phase shifting. Examiner notes that the aforementioned poling is considered a 2 or 3 level poling as described in the specification (column 41 of the ‘807 patent). Both claims use the treatment system for at least one of a face lift, brow lift, chin lift, eye treatment, wrinkle reduction, scar reduction, skin tightening, vein reduction, a treatment of hyperhidrosis, a fat treatment, a vaginal rejuvenation and an acne treatment. Thus, the claims are not considered to be patentably distinct. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,969,609 because both sets of claims are directed to an aesthetic ultrasound treatment and imaging system for simultaneously creating multiple focus points from a transducer module using at least one of amplitude modulation, poling and phase shifting. Examiner notes that the aforementioned poling is considered a 2 or 3 level poling as described in the specification (column 41 of the ‘609 patent). Both claims use the treatment system for at least one of a face lift, brow lift, chin lift, eye treatment, wrinkle reduction, scar reduction, skin tightening, vein reduction, a treatment of hyperhidrosis, a fat treatment, a vaginal rejuvenation and an acne treatment. Thus, the claims are not considered to be patentably distinct. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered and are persuasive to overcome the prior art of record. Double Patenting rejections remain as set forth above. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM. 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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. /CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT, §DP
Apr 17, 2026
Response Filed
May 15, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678242
IMAGE GUIDED ROBOTIC CONVERGENT ABLATION
8y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12661197
TELEOPERATED SURGICAL SYSTEM WITH PATIENT HEALTH RECORDS BASED INSTRUMENT CONTROL
1y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653498
ULTRASONIC DIAGNOSIS APPARATUS
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12636085
ELASTOGRAPHY FOR LIGAMENT CHARACTERIZATION
1y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12631705
NOISE-REDUCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE TOMOGRAPHY UNIT
2y 2m 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+27.1%)
4y 7m (~3y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 552 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