Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/936,762

SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR SELECTIVELY PRESENTING IMAGES CAPTURED BY CONFOCAL LASER ENDOMICROSCOPY

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Nov 04, 2024
Priority
Feb 14, 2017 — provisional 62/458,886 +3 more
Examiner
SHIN, SOO JUNG
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Dignity Health
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
540 granted / 620 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
643
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.4%
-31.6% vs TC avg
§103
38.5%
-1.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 620 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 . Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12,133,712 B2 (S/N: 18/123,760). This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Double Patenting (DP) rejections. Note that a terminal disclaimer will not overcome the DP rejections if the claims remain un-amended due to the statutory type DP rejection. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims contain the same allowable subject matter as the parent case S/N: 18/123,760 (no U.S. Patent No. US 12,133,712 B2). The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance can also be found in the Office action mailed on December 11, 2023 (see page 4) for S/N: 18/123,760. In summary, the prior art of record teaches that it was known at the time the application was filed to use a confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) device to obtain images during brain surgery and classify tumors based on the extracted features using CNN. However, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not appear to explicitly teach or suggest that the CNN is used to label the images as either diagnostic or non-diagnostic, wherein the diagnostic images contain at least a threshold level of identifiable histological features whereas the non-diagnostic images do not provide the threshold level of identifiable histological features, i.e., the non-diagnostic images cannot be used for the future classification steps. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOO J SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10-6. 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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. /Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 571-272-9753 soo.shin@uspto.gov
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 04, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705917
AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION FOR OBJECT SELECTION AND FASTER APPLICATION LOADING FOR CLUTTERED SCENARIOS
3y 1m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12705764
ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR ESTIMATING OPTICAL FLOW AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12694661
EXPLAINABLE VISUAL ATTENTION FOR DEEP LEARNING
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12694662
REINFORCEMENT LEARNING AGENT TO MEASURE ROBUSTNESS OF BLACK-BOX IMAGE CLASSIFICATION MODELS
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12688927
IMAGE FEATURE CLASSIFICATION
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 21, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.3%)
2y 2m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 620 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