Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/750,347

Distributed Impedance Measurement System

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Jun 21, 2024
Examiner
ASTACIO-OQUENDO, GIOVANNI
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Dynexus Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
632 granted / 714 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
731
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 714 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . Claims 1, 2, 7 – 12, 15 – 18, 23 – 27, 46 – 48, and 51 – 54 are pending. Claim Objections Claims 1, 47, and 52 objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 1, the claim should recite: lines 5, “a supervisor controller communicatively coupled to said cloud program code…”, line 16, “plurality of devices under test from said supervisor controller”, line 20, “send said response signal to said supervisor controller”. Regarding Claim 47, the claim should recite: line 2, “the cloud program code and the supervisor controller”. Regarding Claim 52, the claim should recite: line 3, “said cloud program code”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 18, 23 – 27, and 48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "said impedance measurements instructions" in line 7, 9, 12, 15, and 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2, 7 – 12, 15 – 18, 23 – 27, 46 – 48, and 51 – 54 are also rejected for depending on claim 1. Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites “a non-transitory computer readable media…”. It is unclear by the claim and the original written description if this limitation is referred back to the related limitation in lines 2 – 3 of claim 1 or if it is a new limitation. Clarification and amendment are kindly requested. Claim 23 – 27 are also rejected for depending on claim 18. Claim 23 recites the limitation "said device under test" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 24 recites the limitation "said device under test" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 recites the limitation "said device under test" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 recites the limitation "said device under test" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding Claim 48, the claim recites “a non-transitory computer readable media…”. It is unclear by the claim and the original written description if this limitation is referred back to the related limitation in lines 2 – 3 of claim 1 or if it is a new limitation. Clarification and amendment are kindly requested. 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 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program or storage media comprising instructions typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media or storage media, particularly when the specification is silent. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cloud program code…”, which covers both transitory and non-transitory limitation, the limitation “cloud program code” is considered as an abstract idea, because the cloud program code is not physical “things” and/or are not “acts” being performed, thus “cloud program code” is non-statutory subject matter. Claim 46 recites the limitation “firmware…” and “boot code”, which cover both transitory and non-transitory limitation, the limitations “firmware…” and “boot code” are considered an abstract idea, because the “firmware…” and “boot code” are not physical “things” and/or are not “acts” being performed, thus “firmware…” and “boot code” are non-statutory subject matter. Comments The prior art of record found as a result of the search, does not teach alone or in combination all of the elements recited in claim 1. Therefore, no prior art rejection for claim 1 and the dependent claims is presented in this action. However, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 18, 23 – 27, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Morrison (US 11,709,219 B2) teaches an impedance measurement apparatus, comprising: a current driver configured to generate an excitation current signal to be applied to a device; a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable media containing a program code, said program code executed under control of said processor to: excite said device using said excitation signal including a root mean squared current or a root mean squared voltage having a plurality of frequencies in a frequency range; record a response time record of said device excited using said excitation signal (see claim 1). Gullapalli et al. (US 2022/0091062 A1) discloses a method to monitor a battery, the method comprising: receiving a first impedance measurement from the battery in response to a first multi-frequency sweep; receiving a second impedance measurement from the battery in response to a second multi-frequency sweep; and based on the first and second impedance measurements, determining an estimated capacity of the battery using a regression model (see claim 1). Christophersen (US 11,519,969 B2) suggests a method for screening cells, comprising: conducting a first impedance measurement on each of a plurality of cells; generating a first impedance spectrum of said first impedance measurement on each of said plurality of cells; resting each of said plurality of cells for a period of time; conducting a second impedance measurement of each of said plurality of cells after resting each of said plurality of cells for said period of time (see claim 1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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. /GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 2/21/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601781
BUILT-IN SELT-TEST CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR DEADTIME TRIMMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596158
DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE FOR POWER SUPPLY DEVICE FOR ELECTRIC DISCHARGE MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591005
TESTING ELEMENTS FOR BONDED STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584725
Continuous Rotation Angle Detection Sensor 360 DEG SMD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578371
Remote Calculation of Earth Connection Impedance
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 714 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