Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/754,585

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CHECKING THE COMPLIANCE OF A WORKPIECE

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Apr 06, 2022
Examiner
NGUYEN, LAM S
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
SAFRAN
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1093 granted / 1391 resolved
+10.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
1452
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1391 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because: Regarding to claims 1 and 11: The claims are simply directed to a method/device of/for checking the compliance of a workpiece by using the law of probability associated with a characteristic of the workpiece. This limitation as analyzed include concepts directed to “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas performed using mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I), such as the theory of probability. Thus, this limitation falls into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the additional step of verifying the estimated risk of non-compliance and redoing the measurement if needed is a conventional technique well known in the field of measuring and testing to obtain more data for the verification; as a result, this additional step does no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In other words, this additional step is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Abstract idea) to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to the method in claim 1: For a subject matter to be statutory, the claimed process must be limited to a practical application, and a claim is limited to a practical application when the method, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result. In addition, a statutory process is one that requires the measurements of physical objects or activities to be transformed outside of the computer (MPEP 2106 IV 2. Statutory Subject Matter). In claim 1, the method stops short at updating the law of probability without physical objects or activities transformed to produce a concrete, tangible and useful result. 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 1-4, 11-12 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Regarding to claims 1, 11: The Specification, as filed, even though discusses the estimation a risk of non-compliance of characteristic on the basis of a law of probability associated with the characteristic in theory, the Specification does not specific on how the estimation is carried in an application for a particular characteristic, such as the drill diameter and the drill position of the drill holes on the workpiece 2 (FIG. 4A), for example (Table 1, Specification). The Specification, paragraph [0063] (US 2024/0077857), simply states “the estimated risk of non-compliance TNCk is estimated on the basis of a law of probability associated with characteristic X”, but no further discusses on how the estimation is estimated associated with the drill diameter and the drill position of the drill holes. Applicant’s Remark dated 10/31/2025 states “The Specification expressly defines the law of probability as the probability distribution associated with a measurable characteristic X”, but no explanation on the probability distribution regards to a particular characteristic, such as the drill diameter and the drill position of the drill holes, for a practical application. In addition, regrading to the risk of non-compliance estimation TNCk (FIG. 1, step 14), the Specification does not have an explanation on how such estimation, takes in the characteristic, such as the drill diameter and the drill position of the drill holes, as an input and applies them to the law of probability, to output a quantity or number for further comparing it to the fixed threshold Fα and the threshold Vk,α in the verification step. The Specification, regarding to the criterion decision in the verification step, defines the criterion decision as the fixed threshold Fα and the threshold Vk,α, wherein Fα = m x α and Vk,α = m’ x k x α, while m/m’ seems to be a random number (as suggested in the Specification as “where m is a suitably chosen actual number”), the meaning of α is also unclear. Furthermore, regarding to the measurement a value of the characteristic (FIG. 1, step 20), wherein such measurement is further used for updating the law of probability (FIG. 1, step 24), the Specification, even though in TABLE 2 shows the measurement operations including measurement of drill holes, measurement of cylinder B, and measurement of plane A, does not specify how a value of each measurement is used for updating the law of probability in practice. Applicant’s Remark, dated 10/31/2025, even though explains the updating mathematically, but not in practice of how apply to each value of the measurement of drill holes, the measurement of cylinder B, and the measurement of plane A. In conclusion, the description of the Specification and Applicant’s Remark (10/31/25) are mainly theory and mathematic, with no clear instruction on how to implement for a practical application. Claims 2-4 and 12 are rejected because they depend on claim 1. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the 112 rejection addressed above for explanation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151. 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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. 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. /LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 06, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Oct 31, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599155
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF NON-LINEAR COOK TIME ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590890
SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS DEVICE, SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR SAMPLE GAS ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589490
CAPABILITIES FOR ERROR CATEGORIZATION, REPORTING AND INTROSPECTION OF A TECHNICAL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579661
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND STORAGE MEDIUMS FOR FLOW VELOCITY DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578394
BATTERY MANAGEMENT APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+0.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1391 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