Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/716,268

ESTIMATING A GESTATIONAL AGE OF A TARGET FETUS

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Jun 04, 2024
Priority
Dec 09, 2021 — EU 21290082.3 +2 more
Examiner
BRUTUS, JOEL F
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Koninklijke Philips N V
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
1y 5m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
931 granted / 1285 resolved
+2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1328
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
82.5%
+42.5% vs TC avg
§102
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§112
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1285 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-12, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to generating a first estimation of the gestational age of the target fetus without significantly more. The claims recite: Claim 1 obtaining head imaging data of the target fetus, containing a representation of the brain and/or head of the target fetus; obtaining a plurality of models, each model representing a structure of the brain and/or head of a fetus at a different gestational age; processing the head imaging data and the plurality of models to identify the model, amongst the plurality of models, that most closely fits to the structure of the brain and/or head of the target fetus; and generating a first estimation of the gestational age of the target fetus using the gestational age associated with the identified model. Claim 15 a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores executable instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause to processor to: obtain head imaging data of the target fetus, containing a representation of the brain and/or head of the target fetus; obtain a plurality of models, each model representing a structure of the brain and/or head of a fetus at a different gestational age; process the head imaging data and the plurality of models to identify the model, amongst the plurality of models, that most closely fits to the structure of the brain and/or head of the target fetus; generate a first estimation of the gestational age of the target fetus using the gestational age associated with the identified model; a user interface configured to provide a user-perceptible output responsive to the first estimation. Claim 19 A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores executable instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause to processor to: obtain head imaging data of the target fetus, containing a representation of the brain and/or head of the target fetus; obtain a plurality of models, each model representing a structure of the brain and/or head of a fetus at a different gestational age; process the head imaging data and the plurality of models to identify the model, amongst the plurality of models, that most closely fits to the structure of the brain and/or head of the target fetus; and generate a first estimation of the gestational age of the target fetus using the gestational age associated with the identified model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of " obtain head imaging data of the target fetus" merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element "a computer medium" limits the identified judicial exceptions "generate a first estimation of the gestational age of the target fetus using the gestational age " this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (image analysis) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Additional elements (processor); (computer readable medium); (user interface) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps (b) is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Specifically, the step recites "generate a first estimation of the gestational age of the target fetus using the gestational age associated with the identified model " which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the "generating" encompasses mental observations or evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind. Further, the microprocessor is recited at a high level of generality. The processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations (b) and (c). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 15-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 04, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101
Nov 12, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101
May 14, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12636090
MAP DEFORMATION FOR ANATOMICAL MAPPING
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12629112
MEDICAL IMAGE ACQUISITION UNIT ASSISTANCE APPARATUS
1y 10m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12611130
Self-Learning and Non-Invasive Bladder Monitoring Systems and Methods
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12607698
WIRELESS GATING SYSTEM FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
3y 11m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12599299
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTIMODAL SOFT TISSUE DIAGNOSTICS
3y 4m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+17.9%)
3y 5m (~1y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1285 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