Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/988,011

Optimization of Process for Exiting Machines from Test Environments

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Nov 16, 2022
Examiner
GAVIA, NYLA EMANI ANN
Art Unit
2857
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
61 granted / 74 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
94
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 74 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION This action is filed in response to the amendment filed on 11/16/2022. 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 Acknowledgement is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed on 11/16/2022. These IDS has been considered. 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 11-19 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 11-19 present "a computer program product". The descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed a non-transitory 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. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions. As currently claimed, the language a computer program product does not specify if the computer readable medium is "transitory" or "non-transitory" and therefore claims 11-19 are -considered to be non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2). In order to overcome this rejection, the following language is suggested: Regarding Independent Claim 11:“ (Currently amended) A non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program product for …” Regarding dependent claims 12-19: “(currently amended) The non-transitory computer readable medium as in claim 11 further includes: …” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10, and 20 are allowed. Additionally there are no prior art rejections for Claims 11-19. The following is a statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20 Examiner notes the closest prior art to be, Higashi (DE602004007498T2), ANONYMOUS, "Intelligent Maintenance Scheduler Based on Contextual Analysis", IP.com Prior Art Database Technical Disclosure, IP.com Number: IPCOM000266230D, June 24, 2021, 11 pages, Bowman-Amuah (US6256773B1), and Gerber (US7657789B1). Examiner notes Higashi discloses generating, in response to generating, in response to installing a machine under test (MUT) in a test environment, a MUT data structure in a MUT database that stores machine detail data corresponding to the MUT (e.g. see [pg. 13 paragraph 2] “The pattern generator emulation section 430 emulates the pattern generator of the test module 170 , That is, the pattern generator emulation section 430 receives the test program and test data stored in the machine word database 420 are stored by the control function processing section 410 by, for example, the function call”); monitoring execution of a testing process of the MUT within the testing environment to detect occurrence of the testing process nearing completion (e.g. see [pg. 17 paragraph 7] “In addition, the scheduler section directs 275 when testing through the majority of test module emulation sections 270 is completed, the timings of each of the operations of the test module emulation sections 270 in chronological order and makes the process.”), Examiner notes none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a method, device, or non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed comprising: “a computer-implemented method, executed in a data processing system, for assigning at least one operator to a break team to break a machine from a test environment, the computer-implemented method comprising: process nearing completion; and in response to detecting that the execution of the testing process is nearing completion: executing a first computer model on the MUT data structure to prioritize breaking of the MUT from the test environment; executing a second computer model on operator data in an operator database to identify eligibility of one or more operators to be part of a break team to perform a break out operation on the MUT to break the MUT from the test environment; and generating an output specifying the break team in association with the MUT and a priority for breaking the MUT from the test environment based on results of the execution of the first computer model and the second computer model.” Examiner notes the prior art is largely silent on the process of breaking a machine under test out of a testing environment. The cited non patent literature teaches intelligent scheduling for patience type activities but does not disclose assembling a team based on availability and expertise. Claims 2-10 are allowed based on their dependence on Claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYLA GAVIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1592. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30pm. 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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. /NYLA GAVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2863 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595731
USING MICROBIAL DNA IN WELL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591965
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING, IDENTIFYING, LOCALIZING, AND DETERMINING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FIELD ELEMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL FIELDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12566165
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING EFFLUENT AMMONIA NITROGEN (NH4-N) AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558826
ELECTRICAL ASSEMBLY HAVING A CONDUCTIVE AND MAGNETIC MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560639
TRACKING OF HEALTH AND RESILIENCE OF PHYSICAL EQUIPMENT AND RELATED SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 74 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