Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 18/954,938

Use of Muscle Oxygen Saturation and PH in Clinical Decision Support

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 21, 2024
Priority
Mar 27, 2013 — provisional 61/805,857 +2 more
Examiner
SHAH, JAY B
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
ZOLL Medical Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 8m
Est. Remaining
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allowance Rate
225 granted / 392 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
420
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.1%
-3.9% vs TC avg
§102
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 392 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 21-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12186108 B2 as well as claims 1-22 of US 11622726 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims overlap in scope with the patented claims, where the differences in scope are obvious variants over one another. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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. JAY SHAH Primary Examiner Art Unit 3791 /JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702279
STEERABLE SHEATH AND ADJUSTABLE SCOPE ATTACHMENT
4y 6m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12702338
FABRICS CONFORMALLY COATED WITH CONJUGATED POLYMERS, DISPOSABLE HEALTH MONITORING SENSORS USING THE SAME, AND FABRICATION METHOD THEREOF
4y 1m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12697102
Sample Collection Device and System
2y 12m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12697045
Apparatus for Detecting and Monitoring Exhaled Breath
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12690801
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINING AND USING AN INTENSITY INDEX FOR ELECTRICAL STIMULATION
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 28, 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
57%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+7.4%)
3y 5m (~1y 8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 392 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