Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/292,286

DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DISTINGUISHING AND COUNTING PERSONS AND OBJECTS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 07, 2021
Examiner
BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Dilax Intelcom GmbH
OA Round
4 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
759 granted / 971 resolved
+26.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
85 currently pending
Career history
1056
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 971 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Drawings 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. Claims 1-32 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Limitation “Comparing the detected light patterns with the generated fight pattern in order to detect a shift of the detected light patterns relative to the generated light pattern; following the shift with regard to a direction of movement of the detected light patterns” is unclear. If correctly understood by the Examiner the pattern is set of points. Not Claim 1 requires comparison of the generated set of points to the detected set of point but it is unclear what is the shift . For example Invention generates 4 points distributed in vertex of the square but due to the object reflectivity detects only three points in three vertices , it is unclear what will be called “a shift”. Further it is unclear how that shift is related to the direction of movement of detected light patterns and why do the light patterns move. According to claim radiation source generate only single “light pattern” according to BRI. As it is single light pattern we have complete uniqueness of it. Single pattern can illuminate scene only once and therefore no movement is present. Examiner also wants to note that second limitation limitation of claims 1 has only one patentable feature “ detecting the radiation patters with an element for deflecting radiation”, the rest of the limitation is intended use and has no patentable weight. Also last limitation of claim 1 is conditional and has no patentable weight. Conclusion Applicant also added the reference by Wilmer which teaches generating different unique patterns and comparing them to reference pattern. 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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm. 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 5712726970. 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. /HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 07, 2021
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 27, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 11, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 21, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 09, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 09, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 20, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591059
OPTICAL RANGING DEVICE AND OPTICAL RANGING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591047
OPTICAL SYSTEM FOR LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585000
RECEIVING DEVICE FOR AN OPTICAL MEASUREMENT APPARATUS FOR CAPTURING OBJECTS, LIGHT SIGNAL REDIRECTION DEVICE, MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A RECEIVING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569880
CMOS ULTRASONIC TRANSDUCERS AND RELATED APPARATUS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560721
SPAD LIDAR SYSTEM WITH BINNED PIXELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 971 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