Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/388,337

MEDICAL DEVICE ANALYSIS SYSTEM, MEDICAL DEVICE ANALYSIS METHOD, AND LEARNED MODEL TO SIMULATE AREAS PRONE TO RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION IN CLEANED MEDICAL DEVICES FROM STRUCTURAL INFORMATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 29, 2021
Priority
Jan 31, 2019 — continuation of PCTJP2019003337
Examiner
TRUJILLO, JAMES K
Art Unit
2151
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Olympus Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
19%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
33%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 19% of cases
19%
Career Allowance Rate
5 granted / 26 resolved
-35.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 6m
Avg Prosecution
3 currently pending
Career history
30
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
82.7%
+42.7% vs TC avg
§102
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
§112
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 26 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with regard to 35 USC 103, see pages 12 and 13 of Remarks, filed 20 February 2026, with respect to 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. In particular, none of the prior art, in particular Duindam does not disclose or suggest division multidimensional structural information for a medical device to determine residual contamination. While multidimension information is taught by the prior art, the prior art does not teach the structural information for a medical device. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) in the previous office action is overcome by the amendment. However, the amendment introduces a new issue with regard to 35 USC 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The on lines 10 and 12, of claim 1, the term of “the one or more learned models” lacks antecedent basis. The amendment introduces the issue. Claims 2-12 do not remedy this antecedent basis and are therefore also rejected for the same reasons. It is suggested that the deleted “one or more learned models” on line 2 of the claim be re-introduced and removing the “a model”. Conclusion 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 James Trujillo whose telephone number is (571)272-3677. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30EST. 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, Dede Zecher can be reached on (571) 272-7771 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. /James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 6 earlier events
Feb 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 02, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 18, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12651153
ADVERSIAL DEEP NEURAL NETWORK FUZZING
7y 7m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12619679
METHOD FOR GENERATING A DETAILED VISUALIZATION OF MACHINE LEARNING MODEL BEHAVIOR
4y 9m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12561567
Neural Network Pruning With Cyclical Sparsity
4y 3m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent null
SIMILIARITY MEASURES FOR SHORT SEGMENTS OF TEXT
Granted
Patent null
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING INTERACTIVE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FROM INTELLIGENT MACHINES
Granted
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
19%
Grant Probability
33%
With Interview (+13.5%)
4y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 26 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