Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/081,947

INTERVENTIONAL DEVICE WITH ADJUSTABLE CONFIGURATION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 17, 2025
Priority
Nov 07, 2017 — provisional 62/582,559 +3 more
Examiner
NEAL, TIMOTHY JAY
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Children`S Medical Center Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
632 granted / 812 resolved
+17.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
837
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.3%
+7.3% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 812 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 45-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,251,525. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent anticipates the application with respect to claim 1. Claim 1 of the patent includes the features of the application’s claim 45 with additional features related to inflation. Claims 46-50 are related to particular cardiac locations. Because the patent is also directed to a cardiac procedure, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find using the device in these particular locations obvious. Claim 51 is directed to making the incision. The patent includes a subxiphoidal incision in claim 1. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know that such incisions are made during the procedure. Claims 52-55 and 57 include features about inflation. The patent’s claims 1 and 4 have details about inflation and inflatable members reading on the claim. Claim 56 can also be found in claim 1 of the patent. Claims 58-59 relate to the nature of the ablation. The patent includes ablation in claim 1 and indicates that this is performed on the beating heart in claim 11. Adjusting the length or making certain shapes during the procedure would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to address the condition being treated. Allowable Subject Matter The Examiner notes that upon further review of the parent application, the combination of references required to reject a claim like claim 45 does not establish the claim as properly rejected when looking at the preponderance of the evidence. Yeung, for example, is directed to colonoscopy, not cardiac procedure. As far as a device is concerned, the Examiner thinks Yeung is relevant, but not so for the method. A practitioner would not use a device designed for the GI system on the heart, even if it is capable of being used there. For at least these reasons, the obviousness rejection is not being applied to this application. Assuming a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed, the application would be allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY JAY NEAL whose telephone number is (313)446-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30. 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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. /TIMOTHY J NEAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 17, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12745900
ILLUMINATION SOURCES FOR MULTICORE FIBER ENDOSCOPES
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12740691
DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING SEALABLE ACCESS TO A WORKING CHANNEL
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12733796
BIOPSY CAP FOR USE WITH ENDOSCOPE
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12727740
AN ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12714295
OVERTUBE FOR ENDOSCOPE
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 25, 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
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.5%)
2y 9m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 812 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