Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/000,246

Portable Reading, Multi-sensory Scan and Vehicle-generated Motion Input

Final Rejection §101§112
Filed
Aug 21, 2020
Examiner
ROSARIO, NELSON M
Art Unit
2624
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
6 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
704 granted / 818 resolved
+24.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
845
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
70.9%
+30.9% vs TC avg
§102
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 818 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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s response to the last Office Action, filed on June 2, 2025 has been entered and made of record. 112 rejections and 101 rejection are maintained. Claims 14-21 are currently pending in this application. This action is final. Response to Arguments The applicant’s arguments to the claim rejections are fully considered, however they are not deemed to be persuasive. The office notes that applicant has not addressed and corrected the 112 rejections presented below as it pertains to claims 14-21. The specification and drawings fail to describe how the claims perform the functions of the claimed subject matter and the claimed subject matter lacks antecedent basis as described below. The office maintains the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Furthermore, the claim amendments do not have support in the applicant’s originally filed specification, thus a new matter rejection has been presented below. Please see MPEP 608.04: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e50812 Please note that it may be beneficial to take advantage of the free patent assistance offered through the Pro Bono patent legal services program: Pro Bono Program – Free Legal Services Please click on your state on the coverage map and it will provide your with the contact information for the pro bono law firm in your state(this link is accessible to the public): https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-program?MURL=probonopatents Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 6. 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 14 through 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 recites “a machine logic” , which is interpreted as code that is not embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium or other machine capable of carrying out the instructions of a control code. See MPEP § 2106.01. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 16-21 suffer from similar claim construction rejection of 112 and 101 as claim 14 and previously described in phone interviews and/or office actions. Claim 14 should be reviewed by applicant in conjunction with the previous sample (see office action dated March 29, 2024) to correct lack of antecedent basis, indefiniteness and 101 rejections in claims 14-21. The claimed subject matter is not defined alone or in combination with other claimed subject matter in a manner that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to understand the meaning of these term and/or the function of these terms and thus claims 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. 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. Claims 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The terms below lack a definition in the disclosure and it is not conventional, and it is unclear what is meant thus rendering the claim indefinite. PNG media_image1.png 1084 1024 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 1066 862 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 1058 866 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 1078 866 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 1104 860 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 1084 864 media_image6.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-21 would be allowable upon overcoming 112 and 101 rejections. Conclusion 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. This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial- and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal. If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees. If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier. A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance. If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE. The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON M ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1866. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm,EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached on (571)270-7230. 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. /NELSON M ROSARIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624 Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chesnais (US 20060024647 A1). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1866. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am- 5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached on (571)270-7230. 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. /NELSON M ROSARIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2020
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jan 03, 2022
Interview Requested
Jan 03, 2022
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 15, 2022
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 04, 2022
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 16, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 24, 2022
Final Rejection — §101, §112
May 30, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 01, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 01, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Aug 24, 2023
Interview Requested
Sep 09, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 04, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 29, 2024
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Aug 19, 2024
Interview Requested
Sep 04, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 11, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 28, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
May 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 02, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599503
Goggle lens
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601932
COLOR-CHANGING EYEGLASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602123
ELECTRONIC PEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601912
AUGMENTED REALITY GAMING USING VIRTUAL EYEWEAR BEAMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593977
Vision Screening Device Including Color Imaging
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+5.8%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 818 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month