Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/578,834

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATING DEMENTIA LEVELS IN AN INDIVIDUAL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Examiner
ROZANSKI, MICHAEL T
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
623 granted / 898 resolved
-0.6% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
939
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 898 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because they contain handwritten labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, line 5, ‘the’ should be inserted before “ECG”. In claim 5, line 3, the first “a” should be ‘the’. In claim 7, line 3, the first and second “a” should be ‘the’. In claim 8, line 3, ‘select’ should be ‘selected’. In claim 10, line 2, the first ‘a’ should be ‘the’. In claim 12, line 2, ‘a’ should be ‘the’. In claim 13, line 2, ‘a’ should be ‘the’. In line 3, the first and second ‘a’ should be ‘the’. In claim 18, line 2, the first ‘a’ should be ‘the’. In claim 19, line 2, ‘a’ should be ‘the’. In claim 20, line 2, ‘a’ should be ‘the’. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of claim 13 is already present in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halperin et al (US Pub 2015/0164433 -cited by applicant) in view of Yamakawa (US Pub 2020/0268269 -cited by applicant). Re claims 1, 4, 13: Halperin discloses a system and method for estimating patient condition levels in a test individual [0005, 0121-0125, 0649-0660; see the onset/progression of a condition with a sensor 30 for measurement of data to be used to predict and monitor chronic disease], said method comprising: using an electrocardiogram, obtaining a dataset of ECG measurements captured from the test individual [0121-0125, 0667; see the electrocardiogram and sensor data analysis used for prediction and monitoring of chronic disease]; using a computer based system/processor that is programmed with computer code converting the dataset of ECG measurements captured from the test individual to a frequency domain [0121-0125, 0667; see the acquiring of motion time domain signals and conversion to frequency domain]; and using the computer based system/processor, comparing the dataset of ECG measurements in the frequency domain of the test individual with a reference dataset of ECG measurements in the frequency domain of a reference individual in order to estimate a condition level of the test individual [0028-0033, 0650-0660, 0667; see the signal pattern compared to predetermined reference patterns to determine a patient condition wherein an alert is generated if the evaluation indicates treatment is necessary; see the ECG where the system analyzes a motion signal of the subject in the frequency domain and identifies peaks in the frequency domain signal corresponding to respiration rate and heart rate]. Halperin discloses all features except that dementia level is determined. However, Yamakawa teaches estimating dementia level based on ECG measurements (see Abstract, see the ECG for early diagnosis of dementia). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Halperin, to add the early diagnosis of dementia as taught by Yamakawa, as it allows use without specialized knowledge and allows detection with improved precision. Re claims 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 19, 20: Halperin discloses said comparing being at a plurality of harmonic ranges within the frequency domain, and wherein said comparing comprises scaling a difference in amplitudes in frequency domains to estimate the condition level based upon the difference in amplitudes, including a first domain of 10-20 harmonics, a second domain of 20-30 harmonics, and a third domain of 30-40 harmonics [0650-0660; the peaks in the frequency domain signal corresponding to respiration and heart rate are identified along with their corresponding harmonics, wherein the comparison with a predetermined reference pattern represents a difference in amplitudes]. Halperin discloses all features except that dementia level is determined. However, Yamakawa teaches estimating dementia level based on ECG measurements (see Abstract, see the ECG for early diagnosis of dementia). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Halperin, to add the early diagnosis of dementia as taught by Yamakawa, as it allows use without specialized knowledge and allows detection with improved precision. Re claims 3, 6, 8, 14, 15: Halperin disclsoes the reference individual is an individual that is substantially free of the condition, thereby being least likely to show signals of the condition [0649-0660; see the reference for tracking of pathophysiological deviations from normal patterns]. Halperin discloses all features except that dementia level is determined. However, Yamakawa teaches estimating dementia level based on ECG measurements (see Abstract, see the ECG for early diagnosis of dementia). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Halperin, to add the early diagnosis of dementia as taught by Yamakawa, as it allows use without specialized knowledge and allows detection with improved precision. Re claims 9, 10, 16-18: Halperion discloses the dataset of ECG measurements captured from the test individual comprises a plurality of ECG measurements, and wherein the plurality of ECG measurements is averaged and/or normalized to a common value, and the processor is operable to convert the dataset of ECG measurements captured from the test individual to a frequency domain by performing a frequency analysis using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) [0603; see the computing of the Fourier transform and see the averaging performed on the signal]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00. 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 at 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. /MICHAEL T ROZANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564331
SENSOR LOCALIZATION IN A MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY (MEG) SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558059
BODY CAVITY INSERTION-TYPE ULTRASOUND PROBE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ACOUSTIC MATCHING LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551295
CAMERA TRACKING SYSTEM IDENTIFYING PHANTOM MARKERS DURING COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY NAVIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12533177
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR REAL-TIME PLANNING AND MONITORING OF ABLATION NEEDLE DEPLOYMENT IN TISSUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533111
SPREAD SPECTRUM CODED WAVEFORMS IN ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
69%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+28.0%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 898 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month