Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 17/811,640

Tissue Load Sensor with Reduced Calibration Requirements

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Jul 11, 2022
Priority
Aug 10, 2021 — provisional 63/231,566
Examiner
WARSI, YASMEEN S
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allowance Rate
206 granted / 343 resolved
-9.9% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
358
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 343 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . 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. Claim 1-9, 18-19 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. Claim 1 recites: a stimulator probe including an electrically actuated movable element having a skin contacting portion…”. The specification does not describe this element to show that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. 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 1-9 and 18-19 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first motion sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the multiple measured shear wave electrical signals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the electronic processor", “the first motion sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-9, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a device for in-vivo measurement of absolute loads in tissue. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine/apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception: "…detecting transverse motion of the tissue at a predetermined second location… receiving the measured shear wave electrical signal…outputting an absolute load value…”. These limitations describe a mathematical calculation. Furthermore, the limitations also describe a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper. Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application. For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered: " a stimulator/monitor…a stimulator probe including an electrically actuated movable element having a skin contacting portion…at least one electronic motion sensor…an electrical circuit…first motion sensor…”. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the identified judicial exception do not integrate the claims into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional limitations also do not add significantly more to the identified judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality. Moreover, Examiner takes official notice that "a stimulator/monitor…a stimulator probe including an electrically actuated movable element having a skin contacting portion...at least one electronic motion sensor detecting transverse motion…an electrical circuit applying the actuation electrical signal…". is widely- understood, routine, and conventional. Dependent claims 2-9, 18-19 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above. Therefore, claims 1-9, 18-19 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new rejections. An updated 101 rejection is made in this action. The examiner broadly interpreted the stimulator probe including an electrically actuated movable element as the examiner was unclear based on the specification what the element entails. Depending on the details provided regarding the element, this element could potentially overcome the 101 rejection. Examiner also notes that claims 18-19 need to be drawn up into claim 1 for allowability purposes. Examiner also notes that claims 10-17 need to either be amended to contain all of the allowable subject matter contained in claim 1 or cancelled for allowance purposes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASMEEN S WARSI whose telephone number is (571)272-9942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am to 5 pm. 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. /YASMEEN S WARSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Mar 23, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112
Jun 11, 2026
Interview Requested
Jun 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 31, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 22, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12740743
SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER-ACCESSIBLE MEDIUM FOR ANESTHESIA MONITORING USING ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHIC MONITORING
4y 5m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741067
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING BLOOD DONATIONS
4y 1m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740734
Blood Draw Device
3y 7m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12733896
DIGESTIVE CANAL SCANNING DEVICE, BODY SCANNING DEVICE, BODY SCANNING METHOD AND ACOUSTIC-BASED DIGESTIVE ORGAN MONITORING SYSTEM
4y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12685844
GUIDEWIRE WITH ELASTICALLY ARTICULATABLE TIP
4y 3m to grant Granted Jul 21, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+37.4%)
3y 10m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 343 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