Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/958,382

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRANSLATING MESSAGES BETWEEN A HEALTHCARE ENTITY AND A VENDOR ENTITY

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Examiner
CHNG, JOY POH AI
Art Unit
3686
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Redox Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
373 granted / 619 resolved
+8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
641
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
§103
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 619 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 . Status of Claims This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 02/23/2026. No claims were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. 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 obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,996,664, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,242,755, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,504,619, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,302,429 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,191,011. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant pending application omit certain steps of claims 1-20 in the 9,996,664 patent, claims 1-20 in the 10,242,755 patent, claims 1-20 in the 10,504,619 patent, claims 1-18 in patent 11,862,307 and claims 1-20 in patent 12,191,011. Therefore, claims 1-20 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-20 in the 9,996,664 patent, claims 1-20 in the 10,242,755 patent, claims 1-20 in the 10,504,619 patent, claims 1-20 in the 11,302,429 patent, claims 1-18 in the 11,862,307 patent, and claims 1-20 in patent 12,191,011 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing a system and method to translate messages between a one/healthcare entity and a another/vendor entity. Conclusion 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday and every other Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Joy Chng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 25, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Feb 23, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12573496
ADVANCED DATA TIMING IN A SURGICAL COMPUTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12555649
NOVEL PREDICTION METHOD AND GENE SIGNATURES FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548649
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED VOICE-BASED HEALTHCARE PLANNING USING A SUPPLEMENTAL CLINICIAN USER INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12548642
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT AND SYMPTOM REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12537088
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING AI/ML AND TELEMEDICINE FOR INVASIVE SURGICAL TREATMENT TO DETERMINE A CARDIAC TREATMENT PLAN THAT USES AN ELECTROMECHANICAL MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 619 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