Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/929,897

Contextual Image Recognition Producing Notifications based on Knowledge Corpus Information

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Sep 06, 2022
Examiner
DULANEY, KATHLEEN YUAN
Art Unit
2666
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
504 granted / 653 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
685
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 653 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. The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 22 November 2005), Annex IV, reads as follows: In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as frequency, voltage, or strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are nonstatutory natural phenomena. O’Reilly, 56 I.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in Sec. 101. …a signal does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of Sec 101. …signal claims are ineligible for patent protection because they do not fall within any of the four statutory classes of Sec. 101. Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 14-20 are drawn to functional descriptive material recorded on one or more computer readable media/ computer program product. A computer readable medium can be defined as encompassing statutory medium, but it also encompasses non-statutory subject matter such as a signal or carrier wave. A “signal” embodying functional descriptive material is neither a process nor a product (i.e., a tangible “thing”) and therefore does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of §101. Rather, “signal” is a form of energy, in the absence of any physical structure of tangible material. Because the full scope of the claim encompasses non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is non-statutory. The examiner suggests amending the claim to "a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program.” Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure. It is noted that claims 1-13 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims were considered an abstract idea, the claims provide limitations regarding a practical application, i.e. notifications and data sharing between users. 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 7, 8 and 20 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 7and 20 recite “those” twice in each claim. IT is unclear as to what “those” refers to. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the electronic calendar” in line 4. It is unclear as to which electronic calendar the applicant is referring to since the applicant previously claims multiple “a electronic calendar”s. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are allowed. Claims 7, 8, 14-20 would be allowable if they overcome the above rejections. Claims 1, 9 and 14 contain allowable subject matter regarding the automatic generation of the notification containing the insight corresponding to the user activity in real time, the user activity being listed in an entry of an electronic calendar corresponding to the user on the date the claimed image was captured, from the claimed insight which provides proactive assistance to the user to generate the notification, and the insight identifying a set of interested parties corresponding to the user who are to be notified, the insight generated corresponding to the user activity listed in the electronic calendar, based on the claimed comparison of the context of the current environment of the user captured in the image, (the context being determined based on the claimed analysis of the image, wherein the context is one of the claimed set), against the known information which is contained in a set of previous messages corresponding to the user stored in the knowledge corpus, and wherein the analysis of the image uses a set of machine learning models. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm. 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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. /KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 10/21/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 04, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602801
IMAGE PROCESSING CIRCUITRY AND IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD FOR DEPTH ESTIMATION IN A TIME-OF-FLIGHT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602930
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTINUOUSLY TRACKING HUMANS IN AN AREA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593019
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS USING PARALLAX IN IMAGES CAPTURED FROM A PLURALITY OF DIRECTIONS, METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586242
Method, System, And Computer Program For Recognizing Position And Attitude Of Object Imaged By Camera
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586165
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTING IMAGE USING MOTION DEBLURRING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 653 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