Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/858,197

METHODS OF FLUID ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 24, 2020
Examiner
TALTY, MARIA CHRISTINA
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The General Hospital Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
75 granted / 121 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
165
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 121 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s argument on Page 8 regarding the rejection of Claims 1-11 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered. The rejection of Claims 1-11 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the argument. Applicant’s argument on Page 8 regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 7-11, 13-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cima and Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cima in view of Ababneh has been fully considered and are withdrawn. It should be noted that the Office Action dated 25 July 2025 incorrectly did not refer to Claims 13-14 in the rejection header, yet they were addressed in the rejection properly. Applicant’s argument on Page 9 regarding the rejections of Claims 2-5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cima in view of Ababneh have been fully considered and are withdrawn. Applicant’s argument on Page 9 regarding the rejections of Claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cima in view of Bashyam have been fully considered and are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claims 1 and 12-13, the applicant claims from the measured quantitative relaxation time (T2) of the muscle of the patient, a practitioner can determine the blood volume, interstitial fluid volume, and intracellular fluid volume. However, the disclosure teaches that the T2 is used as an input into a model (see Pages 22-23 of specification) to provide the output in which the practitioner can make a determination from. Claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected as depending from a rejected claim and failing to cure deficiencies of the parent claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-11 and 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Araujo is cited for teaching a method for determining a fluid volume status of a patient, (Conclusion), the method comprising: measuring a quantitative relaxation time (T2) of a muscle of the patient (Materials and Methods); and determining, from the measured quantitative relaxation time (T2) of the muscle of the patient, the fluid volume status of the patient, wherein the patient's fluid volume includes the patient's interstitial fluid volume, and intracellular fluid volume (Materials and Methods). Cima is cited for teaching wherein the fluid volume status is hypovolemic, euvolemic, or hypervolemic (Claims 16 and 19), and wherein the measuring of the quantitative relaxation time (T2) is performed with a magnetic resonance device, with a single measurement ([0096]). The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest determining, from the measured quantitative relaxation time (T2) of the muscle of the patient, the patient's blood volume, interstitial fluid volume, and intracellular fluid volume at once. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY whose telephone number is (571)272-8022. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30 EST. 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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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. /MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2020
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 01, 2022
Response Filed
Jul 28, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
Oct 26, 2022
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 26, 2022
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 01, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 29, 2022
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 29, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 20, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588889
ULTRASONIC ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582374
PERSONALIZED MOTION-GATED CORONARY CTA SCANNING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569300
SYSTEMS AND METHODS RELATED TO ELONGATE DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569125
MEDICAL IMAGING SYSTEM, MEDICAL IMAGING PROCESSING METHOD, AND MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551185
On-Screen Markers For Out-Of-Plane Needle Guidance
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+32.9%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 121 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