Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/895,035

INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR OUTPUTING A VALUE OF A TRANSITION TIME DURING WHICH THE APPARATUS TRANSIITIONS FROM A NON-POWER SAVING MODE TO A POWER SAVING MODE

Final Rejection §101§112
Filed
Aug 24, 2022
Examiner
HARRINGTON, CHERI L.
Art Unit
2176
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Fujifilm Business Innovation Corp.
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
210 granted / 307 resolved
+13.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
333
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 307 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 . Claims 1, 4-8, and 11-16 are pending. 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, 4-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. At Step 1: The claims 1 and 15-16 is directed to an "information processing apparatus", “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium causing a computer to execute a process, and “a method”, respectively and thus directed to a statutory category. At Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea: • " the set value of the transition time is obtained based on a first history of a time interval between a return point in time at which the apparatus returns from the power saving mode to the non-power saving mode and an end point in time at which execution of a job by the apparatus is ended, and a history of the time interval is obtained for each predetermined period" as drafted, this recites a mental process, such as measuring a time when a person turns on and off a printer where turning on the printer includes starting a print job. That is, nothing in the claimed elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or with pen and paper. • "change a value of the transition time " as drafted, this recites a mental process. That is, nothing in the claimed elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or with pen and paper. • "calculate, as first relationship …" as drafted, this recites a mathematical relationship • "specify the set value of the transition time with which the target value is achieved …" as drafted, this recites a mental process of choosing a set value based on a calculation. That is, nothing in the claimed elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or with pen and paper. At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: • That the apparatus includes a processor through which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. • mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. • "output a set value … and a target value of a return time” recites insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: • The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer and merely linking to a field of use are carried over and does not provide significantly more. • With respect to the "output" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated is well-understood, routine, and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) for Berkheimer support as in "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google… (computer receives and sends information over a network)." Claims 4-7 covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components then it falls within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible. 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, 4-8, and 11-16 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 and 15-16 recite “a set value of a transition time” and “a value of the transition time”. It is unclear if the “set value of a transition time” and the “value of the transition time” are the same or different and if they are different how to distinguish the difference in meaning. Claim 1 and 15-16 recite “a target value of a return time” and “the target value”. It is unclear if the “a target value of a return time” and the “the target value” are the same or different. For examination purposes, “the target value” will be read as “the target value of the return time”. Claim 1 and 15-16 recites “a value of the transition time” and “for each value of a transition time”. It is unclear how “a value of the transition time” can have multiple different values of transition times. Claims 4-8 and 11-14 are also rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of the claims that they are dependent upon. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-8, and 11-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 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 CHERI L. HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 7:30a-4p. 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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. /CHERI L HARRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2176 November 14, 2025 /JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 24, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 24, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
May 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jul 13, 2025
Interview Requested
Jul 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 12, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591293
OUT-OF-BAND MANAGEMENT FOR WAKING OF INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS IN LOW POWER MODES IN A HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTING PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12572193
ENHANCED ELECTRICITY LIMITATION ENFORCEMENT DURING APPLICATION RUNTIME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560958
CLOCK DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12547235
DYNAMIC VECTOR LANE BROADCASTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12530464
SECURE BOOTING SYSTEM AND OPERATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
68%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+27.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 307 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