Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/965,019

IDENTIFICATION METHOD, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND IDENTIFICATION DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 13, 2022
Examiner
SALEH, ZAID MUHAMMAD
Art Unit
2668
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Fujitsu Limited
OA Round
4 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
28 granted / 43 resolved
+3.1% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+48.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
73
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
§103
58.5%
+18.5% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 43 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 29, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. 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 – 19 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. Regarding claim 1, line 10, the limitation “an attribute”. It is not clear if this is referring to the same “an attribute” at line 5. Thus, this claim is indefinite. In the interest of advancing prosecution, Examiner has considered both occurrences of “an attribute” to be the same attribute of the face. Independent claims 10 and 15 are rejected for the same issue is noted in claim 1. Dependent claims 2 – 9 are rejected for inheriting this deficiency of base claim 1. Dependent claims 11 – 14 are rejected for inheriting this deficiency of base claim 10. Dependent claims 16 – 19 are rejected for inheriting this deficiency of base claim 15. Clarification is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 – 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding claim 1, the prior art references taken individually or in combination fail to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious the limitations as further recited. The applied prior arts Saito and Yamada doesn’t disclose the limitation, generating a second estimated value regarding the attribute of the face image, based on the plurality of first estimated values and the plurality of pieces of similarity information used as weights for the plurality of the first estimated values. Saito in [0014] discloses about receiving a face image and extracting, from the face image a second feature amount for estimating an attribute. Furthermore, Yamada in [0111-0114] discloses about first feature amount for classifying a capturing environment and generating a plurality of pieces of similarity information that indicates a similarity between the first feature amount and a plurality of representative features pieces of feature information respectively associated with each of a plurality of environment clusters. Lastly, Yamada in [0004] and [0010] in the combination discloses about generating each of a plurality of first estimated values regarding an attribute of the face image by inputting the second feature amount of the face image into each of a plurality of estimation models learned for each of the environment clusters. But neither of the reference Saito or Yamada in the combination discloses about similarity information of the environment used as weights for the plurality of the first estimated values. Dependent claims 2 – 9, are allowed by virtually being dependent upon claim 1. Regarding claim 10, is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponds to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is allowable for the same reason provided above for claim 1. Dependent claims 11 – 14, are allowed by virtually being dependent upon claim 10. Regarding claim 15, apparatus claim 15 corresponds to method claim 1 . Therefore, claim 15 is allowable for the same reason provided above for claim 1. Dependent claims 16 – 19, are allowed by virtually being dependent upon claim 15. 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. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET. 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, Vu Le can be reached on (571)272-7332. 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. /ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2668 03/28/2026 /VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 17, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602944
AUTHENTICATION OF DENDRITIC STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586501
DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586396
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562535
METHOD FOR DETECTING UNDESIRED CONNECTION ON PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555344
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVING VIDEO TARGET DETECTION PERFORMANCE IN SURVEILLANCE EDGE COMPUTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+48.4%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 43 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