Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/155,544

UNSUPERVISED PROGRAMMATIC LABELING FOR TRANSITIONAL INTERVAL IN SMART LOGISTICS

Non-Final OA §101§102§103
Filed
Jan 17, 2023
Examiner
TANK, ANDREW L
Art Unit
2141
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Dell Products L.P.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
366 granted / 538 resolved
+13.0% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
581
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.4%
-2.6% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 538 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103
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 . The following action is in response to the original filing of 01/17/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Regarding claims 1 and 11: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Claim 1. A method [statutory category of invention] Claim 11. A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations [statutory category of invention] Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): [..] collecting trajectories from each edge device in a group of edge devices; [mental processes such as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), for example a user simply observing the movement of devices in a space] extracting a respective latent space vector from each trajectory; [mental processes such as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), for example a user simply interpreting the movement as vectors in a space] evaluating the latent space vectors to identify a respective set of one or more transitional intervals corresponding to each of the latent space vectors; and [mental processes such as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), for example a user simply identifying interesting movement intervals of the devices in the space] labeling the transitional intervals. [mental processes such as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), for example a user simply recording the interesting movement intervals] Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): All limitations are part of the abstract idea above. Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: All limitations are part of the abstract idea above. Regarding claims 2 and 12: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): [..] wherein one or more of the edge devices comprises a respective mobile edge device operable to move within a domain. [represents mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05] Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: [..] wherein one or more of the edge devices comprises a respective mobile edge device operable to move within a domain. [insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/selecting a particular type of data, MPEP 2106.05(g)] Regarding claims 3 and 13: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): [..] wherein each of the trajectories comprises information about the movement of one of the edge devices. [represents mere data gathering/output at a high level of generality, MPEP 2106.05] Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: [..] wherein each of the trajectories comprises information about the movement of one of the edge devices. [insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/selecting a particular type of data, MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Regarding claims 4 and 14: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. [..] wherein the transitional intervals are labeled according to whether or not, and to what extent, the edge device, to which the transitional interval corresponds, is moving as expected within a domain of the edge device [mental processes such as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), for example a user simply evaluating an expected movement of a device] Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): All limitations are part of the abstract idea above. Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: All limitations are part of the abstract idea above. Regarding claims 5 and 15: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): [..] wherein each of the latent space vectors comprises a subset of information contained in a respective trajectory. [represents mere data gathering/output at a high level of generality, MPEP 2106.05] Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: [..] wherein each of the latent space vectors comprises a subset of information contained in a respective trajectory. [insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/selecting a particular type of data, MPEP 2106.05(g)] Regarding claims 6 and 16: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): [..] wherein an alert is transmitted when a label of one of the transitional intervals has a particular identity. [represents mere data gathering/output at a high level of generality, MPEP 2106.05] Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: [..] wherein each of the latent space vectors comprises a subset of information contained in a respective trajectory. [well-understood, routine and conventional activity of sending messages over a network, MPEP 2106.05(d)]. Regarding claims 7 and 17: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. [..] wherein a remedial action is implemented with respect to one of the edge devices when a label of one of the transitional intervals relating to that edge device has a particular identity. [mental processes such as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), for example a user announcing/correcting the movement of a device on identifying it's movement is wrong] Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): All limitations are part of the abstract idea above. Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: All limitations are part of the abstract idea above. Regarding claims 8 and 18: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): [..] wherein the transitional intervals are stored by a decision support system after the transitional intervals have been identified. [represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computing tools, MPEP 2106.05(f)] Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: [..] wherein the transitional intervals are stored by a decision support system after the transitional intervals have been identified. [well-understood, routine and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d)]. Regarding claims 9 and 19: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): [..] wherein the transitional intervals are labeled by a decision support system. [represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computing tools, MPEP 2106.05(f)] Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: [..] wherein the transitional intervals are labeled by a decision support system. [insignificant extra-solution activity as being recited at a high level of generality, MPEP 2106.05(d)]. Regarding claims 10 and 20: Step 1, MPEP 2106.03: Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a): Analysis of respective parent is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d): [..] wherein labeling the transitional intervals comprises labeling one of the transitional intervals as abnormal. [represents mere data gathering/output at a high level of generality, MPEP 2106.05] Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05: [..] wherein labeling the transitional intervals comprises labeling one of the transitional intervals as abnormal. [insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/selecting a particular type of data, MPEP 2106.05(g)] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHAI et al., US 20200068350 A1 [“CHAI”]. Regarding claim 1, CHAI discloses a method, comprising: collecting trajectories from each edge device in a group of edge devices (¶21, ¶47: receive trace data from mobile computing devices, ¶71: receive trace data including trajectory metrics); extracting a respective latent space vector from each trajectory (¶22-24, ¶72: generate derived value vectors from the trace data); evaluating the latent space vectors to identify a respective set of one or more transitional intervals corresponding to each of the latent space vectors (¶22-25: interval sets for each derived value vector, ¶73-75: identify travel modes by comparing the values to model calculating confidence score to produce label for the transition/travel mode); and labeling the transitional intervals (¶26, ¶76: label the interval set derived value vector). Regarding claim 2, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein one or more of the edge devices comprises a respective mobile edge device operable to move within a domain (¶86: within a distance). Regarding claim 3, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the trajectories comprises information about the movement of one of the edge devices (¶7). Regarding claim 4, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the transitional intervals are labeled according to whether or not, and to what extent, the edge device, to which the transitional interval corresponds, is moving as expected within a domain of the edge device (¶10: comparing using trained model, ¶77-81: training a predictive model). Regarding claim 5, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the latent space vectors comprises a subset of information contained in a respective trajectory (¶22-24, ¶72). Regarding claim 8, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the transitional intervals are stored by a decision support system after the transitional intervals have been identified (¶26: storing t to database of system, ¶70). Regarding claim 9, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the transitional intervals are labeled by a decision support system (¶70-76). Regarding claims 11-15 and 18-19, claims 11-15 and 18-19 recite limitations similar to claims 1-5 and 8-9, respectively, and are similar rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 6-7, 10, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAI in view of SHALEV-SHWARTZ et al., US 2021/0094577 A1 [“SHALEV-SHWARTZ”]. Regarding claim 6, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an alert is transmitted when a label of one of the transitional intervals has a particular identity. SHALEV-SHWARTZ discloses methods for identifying and monitoring movement of a device to provide actions (¶5-6). In particular, SHALEV-SHWARTZ discloses providing an alert and performing a remedial action when a label of a movement has a particular abnormal identity (¶158: analyze movement and determine whether to alert a user and perform an action based on the analysis, ¶823). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having the teachings of CHAI and SHALEV-SHWARTZ before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to transmit an alert and/or perform an action when a particular identity of the analyzed movement of the device is abnormal, as taught by SHALEV-SHWARTZ, when labeling the transitional intervals of CHAI. One would have been motivated to make this transmission to increase safety for a user during autonomous driving, as suggested by SHALEV-SHWARTZ (¶3-4). Regarding claim 7, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a remedial action is implemented with respect to one of the edge devices when a label of one of the transitional intervals relating to that edge device has a particular identity. SHALEV-SHWARTZ discloses methods for identifying and monitoring movement of a device to provide actions (¶5-6). In particular, SHALEV-SHWARTZ discloses providing an alert and/or performing a remedial action when a label of a movement has a particular abnormal identity (¶158: analyze movement and determine whether to alert a user and perform an action based on the analysis, ¶823). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having the teachings of CHAI and SHALEV-SHWARTZ before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to transmit an alert and/or perform an action when a particular identity of the analyzed movement of the device is abnormal, as taught by SHALEV-SHWARTZ, when labeling the transitional intervals of CHAI. One would have been motivated to make this transmission to increase safety for a user during autonomous driving, as suggested by SHALEV-SHWARTZ (¶3-4). Regarding claim 10, CHAI discloses the method as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein labeling the transitional intervals comprises labeling one of the transitional intervals as abnormal. SHALEV-SHWARTZ discloses methods for identifying and monitoring movement of a device to provide actions (¶5-6). In particular, SHALEV-SHWARTZ discloses providing an alert and performing a remedial action when a label of a movement has a particular abnormal identity (¶158: analyze movement and determine whether to alert a user and perform an action based on the analysis, ¶823). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having the teachings of CHAI and SHALEV-SHWARTZ before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to transmit an alert and/or perform an action when a particular identity of the analyzed movement of the device is abnormal, as taught by SHALEV-SHWARTZ, when labeling the transitional intervals of CHAI. One would have been motivated to make this transmission to increase safety for a user during autonomous driving, as suggested by SHALEV-SHWARTZ (¶3-4). Regarding claims 16-17 and 20, claims 16-17 and 20 recite limitations similar to claims 6-7 and 10, respectively, and are similarly rejected. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SEN; Souvik et al. US 9733088 B2 SIGNAL SPACE BASED NAVIGATION MEINGAST; Marci et al. US 11611451 B1 MOVEMENT PATH DETECTION FOR ANOMALIES AND PATTERNS FROM SENSORS IN A HOME OR OTHER ENVIRONMENT GLICKFIELD; Sarah et al. US 20150347895 A1 DERIVING RELATIONSHIPS FROM OVERLAPPING LOCATION DATA CHEN; Xi et al. US 20210105578 A1 SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WIFI-BASED INDOOR LOCALIZATION VIA UNSUPERVISED DOMAIN ADAPTATION CHOI; Jeongsik et al. US 20220007137 A1 MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES FOR LOCATION TRACKING Wu; Chenshu et al. US 20220026519 A1 METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM FOR MOVEMENT TRACKING BUDMAN; Lucas Allen et al. US 20220382845 A1 SUPERVISED AND UNSUPERVISED TECHNIQUES FOR MOTION CLASSIFICATION Georgiou, Harris, et al. "Moving objects analytics: Survey on future location & trajectory prediction methods." arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.04639 (2018). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p. 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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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. /ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103
Mar 23, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585381
ADVANCED KEYBOARD BASED SEARCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585730
MANAGING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579479
COUNTERFACTUAL SAMPLES FOR MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN MACHINE LEARNING MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566998
SYSTEM, METHODS, AND PROCESSES FOR MODEL PERFORMANCE AGGREGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12555037
MODEL MANAGEMENT DEVICE AND MODEL MANAGING METHOD
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
68%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+23.6%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 538 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month