Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/448,566

METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE SYSTEM RESISTANCE OF A DEVICE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
VON WALD, ERIC S
Art Unit
2857
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Roche Diagnostics Operations Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
118 granted / 148 resolved
+11.7% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
185
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
§103
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
§102
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 148 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 1-9, 12-21, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,377, hereinafter referred to as the Example reference. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the parent claim anticipates claims 1 and 13 of the instant application. Instant claim 1 teaches, “generating at least one excitation voltage, applying the excitation voltage signal to a power supply, measuring a response signal of the power supply, comparing a shape and height of the excitation voltage signal with a corresponding shape and height of the response signal, determining an ohmic signal portion, and determining the system resistance of the power supply from the ohmic signal portion.” Claim 1 of the Example reference teaches “generating at least one excitation voltage signal, applying the excitation voltage signal to a power supply, measuring a response signal of the power supply, comparing a shape and height of the excitation voltage signal with a corresponding shape and height of the response signal, determining an ohmic signal portion, and determining the system resistance of the power supply from the ohmic signal portion.” The scope of claim 1 of the Example reference fully encompasses the scope of claim 1 of the Instant Application. Meaning that the Instant Application does not define a patentably distinct invention from that claimed in the Example reference. Regarding claim 2, the instant application is anticipated by claim 2 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 3, the instant application is anticipated by claim 3 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 4, the instant application is anticipated by claim 4 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 5, the instant application is anticipated by claim 5 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 6, the instant application is anticipated by claim 6 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 7, the instant application is anticipated by claim 7 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 8, the instant application is anticipated by claim 8 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 9, the instant application is anticipated by claim 9 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 12, the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of the Example reference. Further, Instant claim 13 teaches, “at least one power supply, at least one reference resistor having a predetermined or pre-defined resistance, at least one signal generator device adapted to generate at least one excitation voltage signal, at least one measurement unit adapted to measure at least one response signal, at least one evaluation device adapted to compare a shape and height of the excitation voltage signal with a corresponding shape and height of the at least one response signal, determine an ohmic signal portion, and determine a system resistance of the power supply from the ohmic signal portion.” Claim 10 of the Example reference teaches, “at least one power supply, at least one reference resistor having a predetermined or pre-defined reference resistance, at least one signal generator device adapted to generate at least one excitation voltage signal, at least one measurement unit adapted to measure at least one response signal at the reference node, at least one evaluation device adapted to compare a shape and height of the excitation voltage signal with a corresponding shape and height of the at least one response signal, determine an ohmic signal portion, and determine a system resistance of the power supply from the ohmic signal portion. The scope of claim 10 of the Example reference fully encompasses the scope of claim 13 of the Instant Application. Meaning that the Instant Application does not define a patentably distinct invention from that claimed in the Example reference. Regarding claim 14, the instant application is anticipated by claim 11 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 15, the instant application is anticipated by claim 12 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 16, the instant application is anticipated by claim 13 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 17, the instant application is anticipated by claim 14 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 18, the instant application is anticipated by claim 15 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 19, the instant application is anticipated by claim 16 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 20, the instant application is anticipated by claim 17 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 21, the instant application is anticipated by claim 18 of the Example reference. Regarding claim 24, the instant application is anticipated by claim 10 of the Example reference. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-11 and 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 2004/0128089 A1 to Barsoukov et al. relates to circuit and method for determining battery impedance increase with aging. US 2006/0001429 A1 to Huang relates to a method of monitoring motor vehicle’s electric power by comparing internal resistance of battery with a predeterminated warning resistance thereof and apparatus thereof. US 2012/0100601 A1 to Simmons et al. relates to analyte measurement devices and systems, and components and methods related thereto. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30. 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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. /E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603336
BATTERY MONITORING SYSTEM FOR MEASURING HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION TO DETECT BATTERY CELL OVERTEMPERATURE AND PREDICT THERMAL RUNAWAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12571670
Diagnostic Method for a Flow Measurement Apparatus with Effective Pressure Lines with Vibration Measurement
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562240
POLLUTION TYPE SENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12546702
Adjustable Atmospheric Corrosion Test Rack
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12523516
FLOW METER CALIBRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 148 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