Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/523,719

Electronic stethoscope

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 21, 2024
Examiner
AGILEE, OMEED
Art Unit
2943
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Makoto Yonemaru
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
98%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 98% — above average
98%
Career Allow Rate
913 granted / 933 resolved
+37.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
3 currently pending
Career history
936
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§102
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§112
87.6%
+47.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 933 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 (a) & (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Some features shown in the figures (see the illustration below) are indefinite and non-enabled because there is no supporting disclosure in the instant application to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the depth and three-dimensional appearance of the features and surfaces shown therein without resorting to conjecture. In the illustrations following, the shaded areas are indefinite and non-enabled. PNG media_image1.png 203 200 media_image1.png Greyscale To overcome this part of the rejection, applicants may remove the indefinite and non-enabled features from the claim by converting them to broken lines. If applicants choose to overcome the rejection this way, the broken lines in the drawings must be described in the specification. If broken lines are included in the drawing, their use must be defined in the specification; i.e., environment, boundary, stitching, folds lines, etc. Dotted or broken lines may mean different things in different circumstances and it must be made entirely clear what they do mean. See In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 153 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1967). Therefore, the following statement should be inserted in the specification preceding the claim to describe the broken lines on the drawing (MPEP § 1503.02, subsection III): -- The broken lines depict portions of the electronic stethoscope that form no part of the claimed design. -- Corrected drawing sheets may be submitted in reply to the Office action. It is recommended to use images saved in a lossless format (e.g., TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP). It is strongly recommended that the PDF creation software does not downsample images during the PDF creation process, as this could degrade the quality of the image. For color and grayscale images, it is recommended that no compression be used; CCITT Group IV compression is recommended for bi-tonal images. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Conclusion The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112 (a) & (b). The references not relied upon are cited as cumulative prior art. Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omeed Agilee, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7681. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 8:00 AM till 5:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Stout can be reached on (408)918-7558. 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. Reply Reminder Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Discussion of the Merits of the Application All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or in person interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at: omeed.agilee@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call. Email Communications The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information. Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: Online via the USPTO's Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450 Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings) Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window For additional information regarding responding to office actions see: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov /OMEED AGILEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 21, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1120772
Bottle with dispenser
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent D1121173
Skin treatment apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent D1119590
Jerrican
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent D1118967
Lid for specimen cups for laboratory use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent D1118934
Patient transport chamber
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
98%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+0.6%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 933 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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