Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/587,633

System and Method for Timely Notification of Treatment

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Feb 26, 2024
Examiner
HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E
Art Unit
3992
Tech Center
3900
Assignee
Iqvia Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
70 granted / 83 resolved
+24.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
103
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 83 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 . For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Reissue Applications The instant application is a broadening reissue of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,812, issued on 25 August 2020, having claims 1-18. It is also a continuation reissue of U.S. Patent No. RE49,853 to Cai et al., issued on 27 February 2024. In response to the previous office action, claims 19, 27, and 35 are amended. Claims 19-35 have been examined. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,755,812 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04. Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01. Consent of Assignee The person Consent of Assignee filed on 24 November 2025 is acceptable. Oath/Declaration The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to specifically identify by number any defective claims in the original patent or claims in the instant application that would cure those defects. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 Claims 19-35 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action. 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 19-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-25, 27-34, 36, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,853 (hereinafter the ‘853 reissue). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 19-35 are fully anticipated by claims 19-25, 27-34, 36, and 37, respectively, of the ‘853 reissue. The claims of the instant application only differ from those of the ‘853 reissue in that the claims of the instant application are directed to a “numerical parameter of a decay function;” however, this is not patentably distinct from the claims of the ‘853 reissue, which recite a “set a coefficients for a decay function.”. 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 MATTHEW E HENEGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571)270-1367. 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. /MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Conferees: /Ovidio Escalante/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Nov 04, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 13, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent RE50791
BASE STATION, WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND METHODS FOR OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent RE50794
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING DROPPED AGGREGATED TRAFFIC METADATA PACKETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent RE50771
INDICATING OPTICAL PARAMETER GROUPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent RE50758
Method and Apparatus for Configuring Sounding Signals in a Wireless Communication Network
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent RE50723
BUFFER STATE REPORT TRANSMISSION METHOD AND DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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
84%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+6.6%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 83 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