Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/371,825

BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION DEVICE, BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Priority
Jul 07, 2022 — JP 2022-109664 +1 more
Examiner
SHUI, MING
Art Unit
2663
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allowance Rate
189 granted / 325 resolved
-3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
346
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
§103
71.8%
+31.8% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 325 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 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. DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments The statutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments in the ‘709 application. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is maintained and with the allowance of the ‘709 application will mature into a non-provisional rejection when the ‘709 application issues as a patent. Note that this will prevent a notice of allowance being issued in this application until either a terminal disclaimer is filed, the claims are amended such that a double patenting rejection would no longer apply, or the ‘709 application is abandoned. With respect to the art rejection, applicant has amended the claims with allowable claim 5. Therefore the art rejections are withdrawn. 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. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/371,709 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the ‘709 application would infringe claim 1 of the present application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ming Shui whose telephone number is (303)297-4247. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5 Pacific Time, M-Th. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Greg Morse can be reached on 571-272-38383838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Ming Shui/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12622636
BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION DEVICE, BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM
2y 10m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12616370
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING ATHEROSCLEROTIC PATHOLOGICAL TISSUE TYPES IN A CORONARY ARTERY OCT IMAGE USING TRAINED ENGINES
3y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12614385
REMOTE SENSING AND SOCIAL SENSING FOR FLOOD MAPPING
2y 11m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611729
METHOD FOR LASER PROCESSING AND LASER PROCESSING SYSTEM
2y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12602781
AI-BASED CELL CLASSIFICATION METHOD AND SYSTEM
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.2%)
3y 5m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 325 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