Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/059,481

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE ANALYSES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Examiner
HE, AMY
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Bialume Technologies Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
425 granted / 523 resolved
+13.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
543
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 523 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (U. S. Patent 9,952,167). As for claims 1 and 8, Cox et al. discloses (see Figs. 1, 5, 7, 11) a method/system for generating recommendations based upon bioelectrical impedance analyses (using the SBIA 104), the method/system comprising: generating, by a bioelectrical impedance analyzer (104), a plurality of measurements of a specimen (108) (see col. 3, lines 1-50); generating, by the bioelectrical impedance analyzer (104), a measurement of a body composition characteristic based upon the plurality of measurements (see col. 3, lines 34—50; col. 4, lines 40-67); generating, by a computing device (106a—106n) in communication with the bioelectrical impedance analyzer (104), a model of the specimen based upon the plurality of measurements and the measurement of the body composition characteristic (i.e., generating a model of the specimen based upon the collected length, weight, species, etc. about the specimen and the plurality of measured specimen bioelectrical resistance and reactance and a number of predetermined coefficients stored in a lookup table, see col. 4, lines 1-9); generating, by the computing device (106a—106n), a certified quality number (see col. 4, lines 1-15) based upon the generated model; and displaying, by the computing device(106a—106n), a report including an identification of the plurality of measurements, an identification of the measurement of the body composition characteristic, and the certified quality number (see the report on col. 4, lines 12-15). Still referring to claims 1 and 8, Cox et al. does not specifically disclose generating and displaying /reporting a recommendation regarding whether to purchase the specimen. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cox et al. to generate and display the specific recommendation of whether to purchase the specimen based upon the obtained certified quality number, since reading the recommendation is a lot easier than identifying whether or not the certified quality number is within a desired range, and such displaying of the recommendation may be desired , for the purpose of easily interpretating the quality number into a clear decision of whether or not to purchase (or to discard or to use) the specimen based on the specific requirement of the current application. As for claims 2-3, Cox et al. discloses the method of claim 1 wherein generating the plurality of measurements further comprises generating a measurement of a weight and length (see col. 3, lines 35-48). As for claim 4, Cox et al. discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Cox et al. does not specifically disclose wherein generating the plurality of measurements further comprises generating a measurement of a rate at which an electrical current travel through the specimen. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cox et al. to measure and store a rate at which an electric current travel through the specimen, or any other desired value, as dependent upon the specific application and the particular specimen under test (see col. 3, lines 35-48). As for claim 9, Cox et al. discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the bioelectrical impedance analyzer is a handheld device (see handheld unit in Fig. 8 and col. 3, lines 63-67). As for claim 10, Cox et al. discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the bioelectrical impedance analyzer further comprises a connecting structure for connecting to a conveyor belt (802 in Fig. 13) and wherein the bioelectrical impedance analyzer generates the plurality of measurements of the specimen while the specimen (fish), on the conveyor belt (802), passes under the bioelectrical impedance analyzer (804). As for claim 11, Cox et al. discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the bioelectrical impedance analyzer (804) is embedded within a conveyor belt (802) and executes to generate the plurality of measurements of the specimen while the specimen, on the conveyor belt, passes under the bioelectrical impedance analyzer (i.e., the conveyor system 800 with an integrated bioelectrical analysis system in Fig. 13). Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (U. S. Patent 9,952,167) in view of WO2023/141633. As for claims 5-7 and 12-14, Cox et al. discloses the method and system of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. Cox et al. does not specifically disclose generating, by a camera, a photograph of the specimen and receiving and analyzing, by the computing device in communication with the bioelectrical impedance analyzer, at least one characteristic of the photograph; and wherein generating the model of the specimen further comprises generating the model based upon an output of the analyzing of the at least one characteristic of the photograph of the specimen. WO2023/141633 discloses an inline classification of biological specimen using electro impedance analyzer, wherein camera can be used to generate a photograph of the specimen and receiving and analyzing by a computing device in communication with a bioelectrical impedance analyzer, at least one characteristic of the photograph; and generating the model based upon an output of the analyzing of the at least one characteristic of the photograph of the specimen (see camera in [0078] and Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cox et al. to use a conventional camera to generate a photograph of the specimen, and receive and analyze the photograph, and generate the model of the specimen based upon the photograph, as taught by WO2023/141633, for the purpose of collecting the different images of the specimens for easily identifying and classifying the specimens. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that “The office action has not identified a teaching or suggestion in Cox (or anywhere else) of generating a model by executing the recited steps…”, the examiner asserts that Cox clearly disclose the steps of: generating, by a bioelectrical impedance analyzer (104), a plurality of measurements of a specimen and a measurement of body composition characteristic (see col. 3, lines 1-50 and col. 4, lines 40-67). Cox also clearly disclose using the electronic devices (106a-106n) to generating a model of the specimen based upon the collected length, weight, species, etc. about the specimen and the plurality of measured specimen bioelectrical resistance and reactance, and a number of predetermined coefficients stored in a lookup table, and the equation 1 in order to obtain the certified quality number (see col. 4, lines 1—col. 5, line 40). Thus, the model is referring to the model generated/used in order to obtain the certified quality number. Furthermore, after the certified quality number is obtained in Cox, adding a further step of generate and displaying a recommendation regarding whether or not to purchase (or to discard or to use) the specimen based on the quality number would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of easily interpretating the quality number into a clear decision of whether or not to purchase (or to discard or to use) the specimen based on the specific requirement of the current application. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY HE whose telephone number is (571)272-2230. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am--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 on (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. /AMY HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590916
ELECTRIC POTENTIAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR CONTINUOUSLY MEASURING THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL OF THE GROUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578383
TECHNOLOGIES FOR VERIFYING AND VALIDATING ELECTRONIC DEVICES USING ELECTROLUMINESCENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578293
A SYSTEM, DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES IN A SAMPLE WITH AN IONIC EXCHANGE MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574031
CAPACITIVE SENSOR AND METHOD FOR PLANAR RECOGNITION OF AN APPROACH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566082
CAPACITIVE ANGLE-OF-ROTATION MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADAPTING A CAPACITIVE ANGLE-OF-ROTATION MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
81%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+4.1%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 523 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