Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/320,971

ENSEMBLE MACHINE-LEARNING MODELS TO DETECT RESPIRATORY SYNDROMES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Priority
Aug 03, 2020 — provisional 63/060,297 +2 more
Examiner
CHOI, PETER H
Art Unit
3681
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Covid Detection Foundation (D B A Virufy)
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
26%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 1m
Est. Remaining
45%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 26% of cases
26%
Career Allowance Rate
60 granted / 228 resolved
-25.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 2m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
310
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 228 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Objections Claims 22-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are dependent upon claim 1, claim 1 is cancelled, this appears to be a typographical error. For purposes of examination, these claims are considered to be dependent on claim 21. Appropriate correction is required. 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 21-34 and 36-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to a broader embodiment of the patent. Claims 21, 36, 40 corresponds to claim 1, claim 22 corresponds to 2, claim 23 corresponds to claim 5, claim 24 corresponds to claim 6, claim 25 corresponds to claim 7, claim 26 corresponds to claim 8, claim 27 corresponds to claim 9, claim 28 corresponds to claim 10, claim 29 corresponds to claim 11, claim 30 corresponds to claim 12, claim 31 corresponds to 13, claim 32 corresponds to claim 14, claim 33 corresponds to claim 15, claim 34 corresponds to claim 16, claim 37 corresponds to claim 23, claim 38 corresponds to claim 24. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-40 would be allowable upon overcoming the claim objections and resolution of the double patenting rejections. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0319900 to Sharma et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0398654 to Chaganti et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0327054 to Liu et al. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST. 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, Peter Choi can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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. /ELIZA A LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12769988
GENERATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORK RECOMMENDATION ENGINE
2y 4m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12763175
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REMOTE MONITORING OF NON-CRITICALLY ILL HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS
3y 9m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12633411
DATA ANALYTICS FOR PREDICTIVE MODELING OF SURGICAL OUTCOMES
4y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12536578
CONTACTLESS CHECKOUT SYSTEM WITH THEFT DETECTION
1y 10m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12530181
TRAINING AN AGENT-BASED HEALTHCARE ASSISTANT MODEL
5y 7m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
26%
Grant Probability
45%
With Interview (+18.5%)
5y 2m (~4y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 228 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