Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/397,218

3D PARTICLE IMAGING IN PHARMACEUTICAL CONTAINERS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Examiner
MCCULLEY, RYAN D
Art Unit
2611
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Amgen, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
344 granted / 493 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
524
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 493 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 . 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein the optical axis of a tilted camera of the plurality of cameras is inclined or declined at a first angle relative to the horizontal plane, the first angle being greater than or equal to zero degrees.” It appears to be contradictory that the camera is labeled as a “tilted” camera that is “inclined or declined” but can have an angle equal to zero degrees, meaning the camera would not be tilted (or inclined or declined), and therefore it is unclear if the scope of the claim requires the camera to be tilted relative to the horizontal plane. Additionally, the claim later recites using “modified versions of expected edge locations” for images captured with the “tilted camera,” but if the “tilted camera” actually has no tilt, then it is unclear how it would work to use modified versions of the edge locations rather than the unmodified versions of the edge locations used for other, non-tilted cameras. Because of these discrepancies, the scope of the claim is unclear. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “wherein the optical axis of a tilted camera of the plurality of cameras is inclined or declined at a first angle relative to the horizontal plane, the first angle being greater than Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, and the remaining claims depend on one of the rejected independent claims but fail to cure the cited deficiencies. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the known prior art does not disclose, in the context of the remaining limitations, wherein measuring at least the respective vertical position and the respective horizontal position of the 2D calibration image captured by the tilted camera includes using modified versions of expected edge locations or reference image edge locations to compute offsets. This feature is not necessarily allowable in a broader claim, but when considered in light of the claimed 3D imaging of a sample in a vessel including capturing a plurality of backlit calibration images of the vessel from positions around the vessel by a plurality of cameras and a tilted camera, measuring respective vertical and horizontal positions and rotations of the calibration images, generating the claimed calibration data, capturing sample images, and digitally resampling the captured sample images based on the calibration data to correct for vertical offset, horizontal offset, and rotational offset, the claim would not have been obvious over the known prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm. 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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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. /RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 12, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 25, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602859
INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, RAY TRACE METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR RADIO WAVE PROPAGATION SIMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586290
TEMPORALLY COHERENT VOLUMETRIC VIDEO
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12555335
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING AND DEVELOPING ACCIDENT SCENE VISUALIZATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548241
HIGH-FIDELITY THREE-DIMENSIONAL ASSET ENCODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12541904
ELECTRONIC DEVICE, METHOD FOR PROMPTING FUNCTION SETTING OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR PLAYING PROMPT FILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 493 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