Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/410,184

DESIGN PROCESSING METHOD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 24, 2021
Priority
Mar 18, 2021 — JP 2021-045083
Examiner
MIRABITO, MICHAEL PAUL
Art Unit
2187
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Toshiba Electronic Devices & Storage Corporation
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
4-5
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
34%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 34% of cases
34%
Career Allowance Rate
12 granted / 35 resolved
-20.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§103
87.1%
+47.1% vs TC avg
§102
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§112
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 35 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Responsive to the communication dated 07/28/2025 Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-23 are presented for examiner Information Disclosure Statement The IDS dated 08/24/2021 and 12/24/2024 have been reviewed. See attached. Specification The abstract dated 08/24/2021 has been reviewed. It has 117 words and 9 lines and no legal phraseology. It is accepted. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Finality THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action. Response to Arguments -101 Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-10, filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-23 under 101 has been withdrawn. Response to Arguments -103 The 103 rejection is withdrawn in view of the present amendments, when given their BRI in view of MPEP 2143.03(II): "When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 USC § 103 all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff’d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984)" 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 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-23 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. There does not appear to be support for the new amendment requiring “generating one or more code blocks that call the APIs corresponding to the SW representation blocks of the first block set without any changes to the designed model after the simulation process was executed on the computer” The arguments point to paragraphs 25 and 28 of the specification and figure 1 of the drawings, but none of these disclose generation specifically without changes to the model after the simulation. A further review of the specification and figures did not find support anywhere else in the disclosure. See MPEP 2173.05(I): The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure." Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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. /M.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2187 /EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 9 earlier events
Mar 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 28, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 04, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12561494
LATENCY-CAPACITY-AND ENERGY-AWARE VNF PLACEMENT IN EDGE COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS
4y 4m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12499291
Sheet metal forming and assembly simulation method
4y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12462072
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SURVEYING A MANUFACTURING ENVIRONMENT
4y 1m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12412009
System and Method for Simulation of Multiple Dynamic Systems Involving Movement Over Time
3y 11m to grant Granted Sep 09, 2025
Patent 12402989
METHOD FOR INCORPORATING PHOTOGRAPHIC FACIAL IMAGES AND OR FILMS OF A PERSON INTO THE PLANNING OF ODONTOLOGICAL AND OR COSMETIC DENTAL TREATMENTS AND OR THE PREPARATION OF RESTORATIONS FOR SAID PERSON
4y 5m 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
34%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 35 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