Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/830,263

TIME-BASED CRITICAL OPIOID BLOOD OXYGEN MONITORING

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jun 01, 2022
Priority
Jun 06, 2018 — provisional 62/681,309 +9 more
Examiner
ALTER MORSCHAUSER, ALYSSA MARGO
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Masimo Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
612 granted / 797 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
841
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
65.0%
+25.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 797 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 16, 2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed February 16, 2026 regarding the currently amended pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the claims remain rejected under Double Patenting Rejection that is previously made of record and provided below. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 11,627,919 has been found to anticipate each and every element of the present invention. For instance, both provide the monitoring of opioid overdose comprising a sensor configured to monitor one or more physiological parameters of the user and a signal processing board configured to receive raw data representing the monitored one or more physiological parameters and to provide parameter data; and a computing device (medical monitoring hub) comprising memory storing executable code, and one or more processors configured to: receive the parameter data to determine the physiological condition of the user based on the one or more monitored physiological parameters; compare the one or more monitored physiological parameters to a threshold value of a typical range of the one or more monitored physiological parameters of the user; trigger an alarm (activation signal) when the one or more monitored physiological paraments is greater than or less than the threshold value of the typical range of the one or more monitored physiological parameters of the user; and send a notification over a network to another when the alarm is triggered. As set forth above, the present invention is not viewed to be patentably distinct from US 11,627,919. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA M ALTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4939. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm. 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, David E Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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. /ALYSSA M ALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 01, 2022
Application Filed
May 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Aug 07, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Jan 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12636489
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PLACE ONE OR MORE LEADS IN TISSUE TO ELECTRICALLY STIMULATE NERVES OF PASSAGE TO TREAT PAIN
2y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12605549
ELECTRONIC IMPLANT FOR NEUROMUSCULAR STIMULATION
2y 10m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12594027
MEDIATION OF TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
2y 11m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569668
IMPELLER FOR CATHETER PUMP
2y 4m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564349
SYSTEMS FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CARDIAC INFORMATION
2y 10m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
77%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.9%)
3y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 797 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