Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/469,231

Process Monitoring System and Method for Operating the Process Monitoring System

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 08, 2021
Priority
Sep 09, 2020 — EU 20195292
Examiner
QUELER, ADAM M
Art Unit
2186
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Siemens Aktiengensellschaft
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allowance Rate
115 granted / 201 resolved
+2.2% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 8m
Avg Prosecution
2 currently pending
Career history
208
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
86.1%
+46.1% vs TC avg
§102
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§112
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 201 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, claims 1-18 include the following indefinite language “visualization service”, “variable household”, “process image”, and “alarm household”, or depend from a claim including the said indefinite language. The evidence provided by Applicant is extrinsic evidence which does not appear within the specification, and does not establish that the terms are well-known and understood in the art as argued by Applicant, because Applicant is only pointing to Siemens’s own art. 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 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, independent claims 1 and 11 include the following indefinite language “visualization service”, “variable household”, “process image”, and “alarm household”. The specification does not provide an explicit and specific definition for these terms. Furthermore, the evidence provided by Applicant is extrinsic evidence which does not appear within the specification, and does not establish that the terms are well-known and understood in the art as argued by Applicant, because Applicant is only pointing to Siemens’s own art. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to reasonably ascertain the scope of these claims. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18, are also rendered indefinite by their dependence on claim 1 or 11, and by the inclusion of similar indefinite language for at least the reasons given, above. Conclusion 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 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 RENEE D CHAVEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1104. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, David Wiley can be reached at (571) 272-4150. 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. /RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 14 earlier events
May 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 18, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Nov 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12508953
SEAT CONTROL DEVICE AND SEAT CONTROL METHOD
2y 11m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12468876
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISSEMINATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT TO OPERATORS PERFORMING PROCEDURES WITHIN A FACILITY
2y 2m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12460939
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VACANT PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND DISPLAY
3y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12462101
CONTEXT-BASED NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING
2y 10m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12417107
ENTERPRISE APPLICATION RUNTIME CUSTOMIZATION AND RELEASE MANAGEMENT
3y 7m to grant Granted Sep 16, 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
57%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+15.1%)
5y 8m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 201 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