Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/980,468

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROCESSING A DIGITIAL MEDICAL IMAGE TO PERFORM A DIAGNOSTIC MEASUREMENT

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Dec 13, 2024
Examiner
SAINI, AMANDEEP SINGH
Art Unit
2662
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
MARS Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
541 granted / 603 resolved
+27.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
616
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.5%
+12.5% vs TC avg
§102
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 603 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mathematical concepts and mental processes without significantly more. Claims 2-13 and 15 – 19 do not recite more than an abstract idea and are also rejected for similar reasons noted. The claim(s) recite(s) features such as “determining a first score of the digital medical image based on the detected centers of the first and second landmarks, the first score representing a degree of laxity between the first landmark and the second landmark”; “determining a composite score based on the first score and the second score”; “comparing the composite score to an image selection threshold”; “determining, based on the comparing of the composite score to the image selection threshold, the digital medical image is an optimal medical image for diagnosis”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of these processes can be done mathematically or mentally. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as claimed, “applying a first machine learning system” and “applying a first classifier” are recited at a high level of generality without specifying a particular architecture or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Claims 2-13 and 15 – 19 do not recite more than an abstract idea and are also rejected for similar reasons noted above. 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "”detecting the first region of interest in the digital medical further includes…" and it appears the word “image” is missing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: Claims 1, 14, 20 recites “determining… the digital medical image is an optimal medical image for diagnosis”. The term “optimal” could be considered a relative/subjective term, however, the specification defines “optimal” in context as a composite score meeting or exceeding a threshold (¶[0091]), providing an objective standard. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amandeep Saini whose telephone number is (571)272-3382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8AM-4PM). 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. 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. /AMANDEEP SAINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 13, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705781
EFFICIENT LOCAL NORMALIZATION FOR DFS
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12700244
METHOD FOR PROCESSING MAP, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
3y 5m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12693383
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR STATIC DETECTION BASED AMODALIZATION PLACEMENT
3y 8m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12670723
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR RECOGNIZING AN OBJECT
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12573055
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 10m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
90%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 1m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 603 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