Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/918,543

INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, PROGRAM, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND CALCULATION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Oct 12, 2022
Examiner
MUTREJA, JYOTI NAGPAUL
Art Unit
1798
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
740 granted / 913 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
945
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§102
50.6%
+10.6% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 913 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/mental process/data gathering without significantly more. With regards to claims 1 and 20, The claim(s) recite(s) “a calculation processing unit” and “an assignment output unit”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompass the mental process (concept performed in a human mind including observation, evaluation, forming a judgment, or opinion) of calculating an objective function regarding a combination of a molecule and an output information on assignment of the labeling phosphors to respective biomolecules, which practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. Additionally, the information being generated amount no more than mere data gathering and applying with a general purpose computer. These elements, individually and in combination, are well understood, routing, conventional activity. Therefore, the claim is ineligible. The analysis of claims 2-17 is similar to the analysis of claim 1 and are also not considered patent eligible. With regards to claims 18 and 19, The claim(s) recite(s) “a calculation processing step” and “an output step”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompass the mental process (concept performed in a human mind including observation, evaluation, forming a judgment, or opinion) of calculating an objective function regarding a combination of a molecule and an output information on assignment of the labeling phosphors to respective biomolecules, which practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. Additionally, the information being generated amount no more than mere data gathering and applying with a general purpose computer. These elements, individually and in combination, are well understood, routing, conventional activity. Therefore, the claim is ineligible. With regards to claim 21, The claim(s) recite(s) “a combinatorial optimization processing unit”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompass the mental process (concept performed in a human mind including observation, evaluation, forming a judgment, or opinion) of using coefficients of an objective function, which practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. Additionally, the information being generated amount no more than mere data gathering and applying with a general purpose computer. These elements, individually and in combination, are well understood, routing, conventional activity. Therefore, the claim is ineligible. The analysis of claims 22-23 is similar to the analysis of claim 21 and are also not considered patent eligible. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, EST. 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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. /JYOTI Mutreja/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 12, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596059
Automated Tissue Sectioning and Storage System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584827
FULL-AUTOMATIC PREPARATION METHOD OF CAST-OFF CELL SMEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578325
A staining method for live-cell imaging
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569595
BIOPROSTHETIC TISSUE PREPARATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570949
SYSTEMS AND DEVICES FOR WOUND THERAPY AND RELATED METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+3.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 913 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