Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/453,189

NON-INVASIVE CERVICAL DILATION MONITORING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 21, 2023
Examiner
IP, JASON M
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Regents of the University of California
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
370 granted / 683 resolved
-15.8% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
713
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 683 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/25/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of the teachings of Weitzner (US 10993606) as described below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-13, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogade (US 2008/0009732, of record) in view of “Transurethral light delivery for prostate photoacoustic imaging” by M.A. Bell et al. J Biomed Optics. 20(3) 2015 (Bell, of record) in view of Meduri (US 2020/0337683, of record) in view of Weitzner (US 10993606). Regarding claims 1 and 8, Sogade discloses a system and method for monitoring progression of labor ([0001]: “measuring dilation of the human cervix and the descent of the presenting part of the fetus during labor”), the system comprising: a) a urinary catheter that is inserted into a urethra of a pregnant female during labor for obtaining physiological measurements of a cervical region and a uterus region of the pregnant female, and performing real-time 3D imaging in an intra-urinary bladder catheter to image a cervical/uterus region to monitor progression of labor through the use of ultrasound imaging ([0013]: “measuring the dilation of cervix…descent of the fetal presenting part…intra-urinary bladder catheter ultrasound applications”). Sogade does not explicitly disclose, b) a working channel attached to the urinary catheter, the working channel having a lumen, a proximal end, and a distal end; and c) an ultrasound transceiver device, disposed in the lumen of the working channel. However, Bell teaches a working channel attached to a urinary catheter, the working channel having a lumen, proximal and distal end, and an ultrasound transceiver disposed in the lumen of the working channel (Fig. 1a). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the urinary catheter of Bell to the ultrasound monitoring of Sogade, as to provide a photoacoustic means of monitoring labor. Neither Sogade nor Bell explicitly disclose a cap attached to the distal end of the working channel that is configured to maintain sterility of the ultrasound transceiver device within the lumen of the working channel. Meduri teaches a plug that maintains the sterility of a catheter lumen ([0033]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the plug of Meduri to the catheter system of Sogade and Bell, as to provide robust sterility for the lumen of a catheter. Neither Sogade, Bell, nor Meduri explicitly disclose that there’s a working channel that’s attached to and extending along a portion of a catheter. However, Weitzner teaches peripheral channels attached to a main body of a catheter system (Figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the working channel of Weitzner to the urinary catheter of Sogade, Bell, and Meduri, as to provide robust catheter functionality and tool access. Regarding claim 2, Sogade discloses that the working channel is temporarily or permanently attached to the urinary catheter (temporary and permanently cover all forms of attachment, thus the catheter of Sogade would satisfy the claim limitation). Regarding claim 3, while Sogade does not explicitly disclose that the working channel is detachable from the urinary catheter, if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of a device (in the instant case, accessing the working channel for maintenance or storage) which an enclosing structure is applied, it would be obvious to make the enclosing structure removable for such a purpose (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)). Regarding claim 4, while Sogade does not explicitly disclose a detachable cap, if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of a device (in the instant case, accessing the working channel for maintenance or storage) which an enclosing structure is applied, it would be obvious to make the enclosing structure removable for such a purpose (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)). Regarding claims 5 and 9, Sogade does not explicitly disclose that an ultrasound transceiver control module operably connected to the ultrasound transceiver device, however Bell teaches this very limitation (Fig. 1: “X-ducers” would have a control module connected). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the urinary catheter of Bell to the monitoring of Sogade, as to provide a photoacoustic means of monitoring labor. Regarding claim 6, Sogade does not explicitly disclose that an end of the ultrasound transceiver device is at or near a distal end of the working channel, however Bell teaches this very limitation (Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the urinary catheter of Bell to the monitoring of Sogade, as to provide a photoacoustic means of monitoring labor. Regarding claim 7, Sogade does not explicitly disclose that the ultrasound transceiver device is configured to be inserted into the working channel (Fig. 1). Regarding claims 10 and 11, while neither Sogade nor Bell explicitly disclose that the ultrasound transceiver transmits ultrasound signals between 7-25 MHZ at a depth of 9cm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photoacoustic imaging that the frequency of ultrasound waves and the depth of penetration of said ultrasound are conventional, well-known, and well-controlled parameters of acoustic imaging. Regarding claim 12, while Sogade does not explicitly disclose creating a 3D ultrasound image using the ultrasound transceiver device (130), Sogade does teach real-time 3D imaging in an intra-urinary bladder catheter with ultrasound applications ([0010]: “three-dimensional ultrasound imaging device using a catheter”; [0013]: “three-dimensional imaging). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply 3D ultrasound imaging, as to provide robust visualization. Regarding claims 13, 15, and 16, Sogade does not explicitly disclose that the light source inserted into the lumen of the working channel is a light emitting optical fiber carrying photoacoustic excitation light and that the ultrasound transceiver device receives photoacoustic signals generated by the excitation light, wherein the excitation light is absorbed by tissue chromophores (oxyhemoglobin, deoxyhemoglobin, or both) upon irradiation. However, Bell teaches a photoacoustic imaging catheter with fiber optics (Fig. 1a: “Optical fiber”, “X-ducers”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the photoacoustic catheter of Bell to the monitoring of Sogade, as to provide a photoacoustic means of monitoring labor. Regarding claim 20, Sogade discloses that physiological measurements comprise cervical dilation ([0013]: “measuring dilation of the cervix”). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogade (US 2008/0009732, of record) in view of “Transurethral light delivery for prostate photoacoustic imaging” by M.A. Bell et al. J Biomed Optics. 20(3) 2015 (Bell, of record) in view of Meduri (US 2020/0337683, of record) in view of Weitzner (US 10993606), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sulek (US 5487740, of record). Regarding claim 4, neither Sogade, Bell, Meduri, nor Weitzner, explicitly disclose a cap attached to a distal end of the working channel wherein the cap is detachable. However, Sulek teaches a catheter with a detachable cap (7:26-48). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the detachable cap of Sulek to the catheter of Sogade, Bell, Meduri, and Weitzner, as to provide a modular end section. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST. 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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. /JASON M IP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 19, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 25, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599440
ADJUSTABLE MARKER REFERENCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601806
IMAGING DEVICE OF ELIMINATING ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE AND IMAGING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575712
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED ENDOSCOPIC DIAGNOSIS AID SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569144
ACOUSTIC IMAGING AND MEASUREMENTS USING WINDOWED NONLINEAR FREQUENCY MODULATION CHIRP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551281
Individualizing Generic Reference Models For Operations On The Basis Of Intraoperative State Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
54%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+25.7%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 683 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