Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/189,847

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANALYZING AND SEGMENTING AUTOMATION SEQUENCES

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Mar 02, 2021
Examiner
HONORE, EVEL NMN
Art Unit
2142
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Nice Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allowance Rate
10 granted / 22 resolved
-9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
57
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§103
85.8%
+45.8% vs TC avg
§102
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 22 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . DETAILED ACTION This Action is responsive to the Application filed on 01/27/2026. Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 and 21 are currently amended. Claims 4, 11 and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. 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 1 and similar claims in structure are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. The limitation “dividing the series … the trained neural network… by the neural network” renders the claim indefinite. The claim recites an “Unsupervised Neural Network” or “Trained Neural Network”, hence it is unclear which Neural Network is measuring the difference between the neural network output and the ground truth. Furthermore, to expedite prosecution, the difference between "the neural network" with the understanding of the specification is treated as the "trained NN" (or "unsupervised NN"), which should fit based on measuring the difference between the neural network output and the ground truth. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered, and in part are persuasive. Pertaining to rejection under 101 Rejections for claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-21 are withdrawn under 35 USC § 101 Pertaining to rejection under 103 Rejections for claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-21 are withdrawn under 35 USC § 103 Examiners Note The examiner tried contacting the attorney on record to clarify certain issues. However, the examiner was told the applicant is no longer with the company filing their case. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 EVEL HONORE whose telephone number is (703)756-1179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5:30 p.m. 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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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. EVEL HONORE Examiner Art Unit 2142 /HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 7 earlier events
May 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Jan 21, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 22, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 27, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 20, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12566942
System and Method For Generating Parametric Activation Functions
4y 6m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12547946
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FIELD EXTRACTION FROM UNLABELED DATA
4y 4m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547906
METHOD, DEVICE, AND PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR TRAINING MODEL
3y 11m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12536156
UPDATING METADATA ASSOCIATED WITH HISTORIC DATA
4y 11m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12406483
ONLINE CLASS-INCREMENTAL CONTINUAL LEARNING WITH ADVERSARIAL SHAPLEY VALUE
4y 3m to grant Granted Sep 02, 2025
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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+18.8%)
4y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 22 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