Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/830,360

METHODS FOR ACCURATE DOWNTIME CACULATION

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Jun 02, 2022
Examiner
ISLAM, MOHAMMAD K
Art Unit
2857
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tbcasoft Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1070 granted / 1288 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
83 currently pending
Career history
1371
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
§103
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1288 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION Final Rejection 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 Amendment Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/17/2025 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claim 1has been amended. 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Each of claims 1-26 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-26 fall within category of process. Regarding Claims 1-26 Step 2A – Prong 1 Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of filtering an input signal. The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations: A method for signal processing, comprising filtering an input signal from a system by a closing process and an opening process to generate a first smoothed signal, and generating a series of morphology event labels representing system down events or up events based on the first smoothed signal wherein: the closing process comprises a first dilation process followed by a first erosion process; and the opening process comprises a second erosion process followed by a second dilation process; and the series of morphology event labels indicating the positions of sharp downward steps and sharp upward steps of the first smoothed signal. The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. For example, the limitations “ A method for signal processing, comprising filtering an input signal from a system [..]; generating a series of morphology event labels [..]; the closing process[..];the opening process[..];the series of morphology event labels indicating the positions [..] ” are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see [0018]-[0037] and 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Step 2A – Prong 2 Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II). . Dependent Claims 2-26 Dependent claims 2-26 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-26 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For example, the limitations of Claims 2-26 are mathematical steps. Response to Argument Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 10-13. The Applicant argus that amended limitation, specifically, “generating a series of morphology event labels representing system down events or up events based on the first smoothed signal” to further reveal at least part of the technical details and “Claim 1 integrates judicial exception into practical applications ”. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the limitation, “generating a series of morphology event labels representing system down events or up events based on the first smoothed signal”, represent a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. see, [0064]-[0070]. As such 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments with respect 102/103 rejection has been considered and withdrawn. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. a) Mao et al. (US 2021/0365707) disclose a morphology engine 414 can perform morphology functions to filter the foreground pixels. The morphology functions can include erosion and dilation functions. In one example, an erosion function can be applied, followed by a series of one or more dilation functions. An erosion function can be applied to remove pixels on object boundaries. For example, the morphology engine 414 can apply an erosion function (e.g., FilterErode3×3) to a 3×3 filter window of a center pixel, which is currently being processed. The 3×3 window can be applied to each foreground pixel (as the center pixel) in the foreground mask. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that other window sizes can be used other than a 3×3 window. The erosion function can include an erosion operation that sets a current foreground pixel in the foreground mask (acting as the center pixel) to a background pixel if one or more of its neighboring pixels within the 3×3 window are background pixels. Such an erosion operation can be referred to as a strong erosion operation or a single-neighbor erosion operation. Here, the neighboring pixels of the current center pixel include the eight pixels in the 3×3 window, with the ninth pixel being the current center pixel. b) Fisher et al. (US 2019/0043003) disclose Two inputs are given to the morphological operation. The first input is the bit mask and the second input is called a structuring element or kernel. Two basic morphological operations are “erosion” and “dilation”. A kernel consists of is arranged in a rectangular matrix in a variety of sizes. Kernels of different shapes (for example, circular, elliptical or cross-shaped) are created by adding 0's at specific locations in the matrix. Kernels of different shapes are used in image morphology operations to achieve desired results in cleaning bit masks. In erosion operation, a kernel slides (or moves) over the bit mask. A pixel (either 1 or 0) in the bit mask is considered 1 if all the pixels under the kernel are 1s. Otherwise, it is eroded (changed to 0). Erosion operation is useful in removing isolated is in the bit mask. However, erosion also shrinks the clusters of is by eroding the edges. c) Dem. (US 2010/0054595) disclose filter 806 may use mathematical morphology techniques to filter an image, which will be known to persons skilled in the image processing arts. For instance, FIG. 10 shows a block diagram of image filter 806, according to an example embodiment. As shown in FIG. 10, image filter 806 includes a first erosion module 1002, a first dilation module 1004, a second dilation module 1006, and a second erosion module 1008. First and second erosion modules 1002 and 1008 may be configured to perform an erosion function according to any window size, and first and second dilation modules 1004 and 1006 may be configured to perform a dilation function according to any window/operator size. For instance, a window size of 3 by 3 pixels may be used for both of the erosion and dilation functions. Erosion and dilation functions are known to persons skilled in the relevant art(s). 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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. /MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Nov 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601849
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PLANNING SEISMIC DATA ACQUISITION WITH REDUCED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596361
FAILURE DIAGNOSIS METHOD, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING DISK DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596872
HOLISTIC EMBEDDING GENERATION FOR ENTITY MATCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596868
CREATING A DIGITAL ASSISTANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597434
CONTROL OF SPEECH PRESERVATION IN SPEECH ENHANCEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1288 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