Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/098,841

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROPERTY DETECTION AND ANALYSIS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 19, 2023
Examiner
AKHAVANNIK, HADI
Art Unit
2676
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Cape Analytics Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
843 granted / 980 resolved
+24.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1021
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 980 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments The arguments are persuasive. See the rejection below incorporating Boriah (20140212055) which teaches time series changes in images in pars. 70-74. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (“An automatic change detection method for monitoring newly constructed building areas using time-series multi-view high-resolution optical satellite images”) in view of Boriah (20140212055). Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a method, comprising: detecting a building within a set of measurements using an object detector (see the abstract and section 3.2, looking for building areas, distinguishing these areas from non-building areas); determining a timeseries of building representations for the detected building (sections 3.3 and 3.4); determining building parameters of each building representation based on the building detection (section 3.2 and 3.3, vertical features to delineate the NCBA’s. This is used to distinguish building areas); determining a building segment for each of the building representations, based on the building parameters, using a segmentation model (section 3.3, segmentation algorithm); and generating a timeseries of changes for the building based on the building segments for the building representations (section 3.3 and 3.4, multi temporal change detection of the NCBAs). Boriah teaches determining a relationship between each pair of consecutive building representations within the timeseries based on the building segments of the building representations (see pars. 43 and 70-74); the relationships between the pairs of consecutive representations, wherein the timeseries of changes comprises a relationship classification indicating a type of change for each pair of consecutive building representations (see pars. 43 and 70-74). It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Huang the ability to determine the relationship between consecutive timepoints as taught by Boriah. The reason is to allow the system to model changes over time. Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1. Claim(s) 2-8, 10-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Boriah in further view of Kottenstette (20170076438). Regarding claim 2, Huang uses high definition images in section 3.1, pansharpening. Kottenstette teaches segmenting the segments using the segmentation model (see pars. 95-98, 161-162). It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Huang and Boriah the ability to segment specific objects as taught by Kottenstette. The reason is to allow specific ROI extraction as taught by Kottenstette. Regarding claim 3, wherein the building parameters comprise a geographic extent, wherein the higher resolution image depicts the geographic extent (see pars. 112 and 119 of Kottenstette and section 3.1 of Huang, polygon foot print of the terrain. Regarding claim 4, section 3.1 of Huang has high resolution RGB image and prs. 34 of Kottenstette. Regarding claim 5, see section 3.2-3.3 of Huang, planar vertical bulding features. Regarding claim 6-8, see pars. 28 and 113 of Kottenstette. Regarding claims 10-16, see the rejection of claims 2-8. Regarding claim 19, see section 3.2 of Huang and pars. 30-32 of Kottenstette. Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Boriah in further view of Szegedy (20150170002). Regarding claim 17, Szegedy teaches wherein the object detector is trained on a set of bounding boxes drawn around building segments identified within training images, wherein the building segments are determined using a segmentation model (see pars. 35-48, using bounding boxes to train. The rejection of claim 1 already teaches building segmetns). It would have been obvious prior to the effective fling date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Huang and Boriah the ability train based on ROIs in bounding boxes as taught by Szegedy. The reason is to specify a region for training. Regarding claim 18, see pars. 66-78 of Szegedy, picking only the best bounding boxes. Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Boriah in further view of Kim (20070115284). Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches wherein the building component comprises a shadow, wherein the height parameter is determined based on a length of the detected shadow, the geolocation of the measurement, and a sampling time for the measurement (see pars. 21-25 and pars. 40-41). It would have been obvious prior to the effective fling date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Huang the ability to measure building height as taught by Kim. The reason is to measure building height. 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 HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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. /HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 19, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 23, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 01, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 07, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602787
PROCEDURE FOR CONTROL, PROGNOSIS AND COMPARATIVE SUPPORT RELATED TO DERMATOLOGICAL LESIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602953
GESTURE RECOGNITION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12579662
HIGH-PRECISION LOCALIZATION OF A MOVING OBJECT ON A TRAJECTORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573073
JOINT ROTATION/LOCATION FROM EGOCENTRIC IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573207
DRIVER ASSISTANCE APPARATUS AND DRIVER ASSISTANCE METHOD
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 980 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