Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/594,594

GUIDEWIRE WITH INTERNAL PRESSURE SENSOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 22, 2021
Examiner
ROBERTS, ANNA L
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Opsens Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
81 granted / 147 resolved
-14.9% vs TC avg
Strong +43% interview lift
Without
With
+43.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
194
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 147 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 February 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 16 January 2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 applied in the office action dated 20 November 2025. An objection to claim 19 and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) were previously missed and are applied below. Claim Objections Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: "being less" in line 2 should be --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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, 3-20, and 55-60 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. Claims 1 and 60 recite the limitation “wherein the proximal inside surface at the junction comprises a first diameter and the middle section inside surface at the junction comprises a second diameter” in lines 21-22 and 20-21, respectively. It is not clear how the proximal inside surface and middle section inside surface can have specific diameters “at the junction” when the junction relates to the coupling of the two elements and may thus have its own separate diameter or may encompass more than one diameter of each element such as if the junction comprises a sleeve which couples the two elements together. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the proximal inside surface at the second annular face having a first diameter and the middle section inside surface at the first annular face having a second diameter. Claims 3-20 and 55-59 are additionally rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence on claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3-20, and 55-60 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of the record fails to teach and/or fairly suggest, in combination with all other recited limitations, “a first annular face at the proximal end of the middle section being coupled to a second annular face at the distal end of the proximal section at a junction, wherein the first annular face and the second annular face contact each other at the junction” and “wherein the proximal inside surface at the junction comprises a first diameter and the middle section inside surface at the junction comprises a second diameter, the first diameter being less than the second diameter” of claims 1 and 60 and “a coupling zone of the connection is offset from a central axis of the sensor housing section” of claim 60. While the most pertinent prior art of the record Belleville (US 201302118032—previously cited) and Nishigishi (US 20140066789 A1—previously cited) in combination discloses a pressure guidewire comprising: a shaft tube assembly comprising: a proximal section comprising a first tubular body comprising a proximal end, a distal end, a proximal outside surface and a proximal inside surface, the proximal inside surface enclosing a proximal portion of a central lumen, the proximal outside surface comprising an outer surface of the pressure guidewire; a middle section comprising a second tubular body separate from the first tubular body and comprising a proximal end, a middle section outside surface, a middle section inside surface, the middle section inside surface disposed about a space within the pressure guidewire, where the proximal end of the middle section is coupled to the distal end of the proximal section at a junction and wherein the proximal inside surface comprises a first diameter and the middle section inside surface comprises a second diameter, the first diameter being less than the second diameter; a sensor housing section extending distally relative to the middle section; a hypotube comprising a proximal end portion and a distal end portion, the hypotube extending through the space about which the middle section inside surface is disposed, the proximal end portion of the hypotube coupled with the distal end of the proximal section and the distal end portion of the hypotube being coupled to the sensor housing section; and a tip pressure sensor positioned in the sensor housing section, the references fail to teach or suggest the limitations above. As Belleville does not disclose the middle section comprising a second tubular body separate from the first tubular body where the proximal end of the middle section is coupled to the distal end of the proximal section at a junction, it cannot be relied upon to teach or suggest a first annular face and a second annular face contact each other at said junction. Belleville is similarly silent as to wherein the proximal inside surface comprises a first diameter and the middle section inside surface comprises a second diameter, the first diameter being less than the second diameter. While Nishigishi provides for a middle section comprising a second tubular body separate from the first tubular body where the proximal end of the middle section is coupled to the distal end of the proximal section at a junction and wherein there is a first annular face at the proximal end of the middle section and a second annular face at the distal end of the proximal section, these annular faces do not contact one another at all and no motivation is present to make such a modification. Furthermore, such a modification would alter the functioning of Nishigishi as it would prevent the “nesting” fit of the two tubes. Furthermore, neither reference discloses a coupling zone of the connection is offset from a central axis of the sensor housing section and instead each teaches only mechanisms of connection which are formed circumferentially about a central axis with no fair suggestion or reason to prompt such a modification. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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. /ANNA ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 22, 2021
Application Filed
Aug 07, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 07, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 17, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 13, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 03, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594013
ANALYTE SENSORS AND SENSING METHODS FEATURING DUAL DETECTION OF GLUCOSE AND KETONES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594014
ANALYTE SENSORS AND SENSING METHODS FEATURING DUAL DETECTION OF GLUCOSE AND KETONES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589227
GUIDE WIRES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588844
ANALYTE SENSORS AND SENSING METHODS FEATURING DUAL DETECTION OF GLUCOSE AND KETONES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569646
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING TISSUE BIOPSY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
55%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+43.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 147 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