Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/141,628

MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS CONFIGURED TO GENERATE LABELED TIME SERIES DATASETS FOR MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
May 01, 2023
Examiner
KABIR, SAAD M
Art Unit
2119
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
3M Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
229 granted / 331 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
361
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 331 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea) without significantly more. As per the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance, claim(s) 1-20 are eligible as per the Step 1 (statutory) analysis. However, as per the Step 2A Prong One (abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon) analysis, the claimed invention in claim(s) 1-20 is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea); this is because independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite receiving data and making a trained model using the received data, thereby manipulating the received data, all of which fall under a sub-category of abstract ideas, namely mental processes. Further, claims 2 and 12 receive further details regarding training the model, and thus is still restricted to mental processes. Further, claims 3 and 13 receive further details regarding training the model, and thus is still restricted to mental processes. Further, claims 4 and 14 receive further details regarding training the model, and thus is still restricted to mental processes. Further, claims 5 and 15 receive further details regarding training the model, and thus is still restricted to mental processes. Further, claims 6 and 16 receive further details regarding training the model, and thus is still restricted to mental processes. Further, claims 7 and 17 receive further details regarding training the model, and thus is still restricted to mental processes. Further, claims 8 and 18 receive further details regarding training the model, and thus is still restricted to mental processes. Further, claims 10 and 19 receive further details regarding training the model, and thus is still restricted to mental processes. As per the Step 2A Prong Two (practical application) analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim(s) 1-20 simply recite data gathering and manipulation which are not incorporated into any such practical application which applies the gathered and manipulated data, i.e. each of claim 1-20 simply recite training a model. As per the Step 2B (significantly more) analysis, claim(s) 1-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recite functional units where the functions (of gather and manipulating data) are related to one another, without the recitation of any non-generic hardware that incorporates such data gathering and manipulation. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SAAD M KABIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119 /MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 01, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590770
Liquid cooling system automated additive control
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564301
VACUUM CLEANER AND CONTROL METHOD FOR THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561649
Method, Device and Storage Medium for Constructing Requirement Behavior Tree
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554233
METHODS, APPARATUSES, AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMING PRODUCTS IMPLEMENTING A MULTI-VARIABLE, CLOSED LOOP APPROACH FOR DETERMINING AN OPTIMIZATION PATHWAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553929
MEASURING DISSIPATED ELECTRICAL POWER ON A POWER RAIL
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 331 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