Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/651,561

ATTENTION-BASED METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY CONTROL OF WHOLE-SLIDE IMAGE PREDICTIONS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V
Art Unit
2488
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Tempus AI Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 5m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allowance Rate
159 granted / 244 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
248
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 244 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. [1] Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 18, 19, 22, 25-27, 29, 31-34 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 1, 37 and 38, the originally filed application does not have support for the following limitation (emphasis added): “generating a pass/fail indication indicating whether the prediction passes or fails quality control based on aggregated attention scores of the selected subset of image tiles and the determined biological relevance thereof”. Claims 2-4, 7, 9, 18, 19, 22, 25-27, 29, 31-34 and 36 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1. Conclusion [2] 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. [3] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATH V PERUNGAVOOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-5 pm. 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, COLLEEN FAUZ can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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. /SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 05, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 02, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602761
IMAGE ANALYSIS APPARATUS, IMAGE ANALYSIS METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 9m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599357
ULTRASOUND AUTOMATED DETECTION AND DISPLAY METHOD OF CRANIAL ABNORMAL REGIONS
2y 0m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12518345
ACTIVITY DETECTION USING VIDEO ANALYSIS
2y 8m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12519925
Method of Visualizing Calibration State of Camera, System, and Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium Storing Computer Program
2y 7m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12457328
Video Compression Using Template-Based Determination of Intra Prediction Mode
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.0%)
3y 9m (~1y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 244 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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