Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/231,352

MINITUARIZED INTRAVASCULAR FLUORESCENCE-ULTRASOUND IMAGING CATHETER

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Jun 06, 2025
Priority
Jun 06, 2018 — provisional 62/681,272 +2 more
Examiner
MOHAMMED, SHAHDEEP
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
THE GENERAL HOSPITAL Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
244 granted / 474 resolved
-18.5% vs TC avg
Strong +57% interview lift
Without
With
+57.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 6m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
532
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§103
39.7%
-0.3% vs TC avg
§102
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§112
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 474 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . 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. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,199. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and U.S. Patent No. 12,343,199 are directed to an imaging probe comprising optical-transparent member extending from proximal end to distal end of the probe and terminated with an optical transceiver, electrically-conducting member that expend from the proximal end to the distal end of the imaging probe and terminated with an acoustic transducer, and the acoustic transducer and the optically-transparent member are disposed sequentially on the axis of the probe. Furthermore, the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,199 are narrower than claim 1 of current application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itoh et al. (US 2016/0206290; hereinafter Itoh). Regarding claim 1, Itoh disclose an imaging apparatus. Itoh shows an imaging probe (see abstract; 101 in fig. 1) having a probe axis (see fig. 1) and comprising: an optically-transparent member (see 274 in fig. 2 and 5; par. [0042]) extending from a proximal end of the probe to a distal end of the probe in parallel to the probe axis (see 274 in fig. 5) and terminated with an optical transceiver integrally affixed to the optically-transparent member at the distal end of the probe (see optical transceiver 512 in fig. 5; par. [0062]); and an electrically-conducting member (see 283 in fig. 2 and 5; par. [0057]) extending from the proximal end of the probe to the distal end of the probe in parallel to the optically-transparent member (see fig. 5; par. [0062]) and terminated with an acoustic transducer (see 511 in fig. 5; par. [0062], [0063]), wherein the acoustic transducer and the optical transceiver are disposed sequentially on the probe axis (see 511 and 512 in fig. 5 which are disposed sequentially). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm. 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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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. /SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12672853
METHOD AND PROBE FOR PREDICTING SPONTANEOUS PRETERM DELIVERY
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12622681
ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD OF ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, AND PROCESSOR FOR ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS
4y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12622679
Tactile ultrasound method and probe for predicting spontaneous preterm birth
2y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12594060
ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD OF ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, AND PROCESSOR FOR ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS
4y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582380
ENDOSCOPE AND DISTAL END BODY
1y 10m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
52%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+57.0%)
4y 6m (~3y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 474 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