Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/212,950

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONSISTENT AND SCALABLE DATA ANNOTATION IN GLOBAL FACTORY NETWORKS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 22, 2023
Examiner
BOYCE, ANDRE D
Art Unit
3623
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hitachi, Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Final)
36%
Grant Probability
At Risk
6-7
OA Rounds
4y 7m
To Grant
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 36% of cases
36%
Career Allow Rate
224 granted / 620 resolved
-15.9% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 7m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
661
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§103
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 620 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered. Claim 11 has been amended. Claims 21-30 have been added. Claims 11-13 and 15-30 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Regarding the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejection, the claims as a whole, recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice analysis. Specifically, amended independent claim 11 recites “querying the knowledge graph using the data profile of the target factory to identify a templatized data profile based on comparisons that comprise at least one of a lexical similarity of field names, a count of unique values, or detection of Boolean fields together with the factory description metadata; in response to identifying the templatized data profile, by an automated data quality checker outputting a quality check indicating a vouch for the target factory and invoking an automated business logic configurator to apply corresponding templatized business terms and invoking an automated business data configurator to apply corresponding templatized business data configurator logics to generate business data with business tags that align the target factory's IT data with the templatized business terms, thereby transforming a structure and semantics of a data catalogue of the target factory; and in response to failing to identify the templatized data profile, by the automated data quality checker outputting a quality check indicating an anomaly of the target factory”. Claim Objections Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “an anomaly of the target factory”, however paragraph 0059 of the specification recites “However, if an appropriate template t was not found in Step 2003-4, then the flow sets Automated Data Quality Checker 20033 output as 'Bad Quality'. This means that the data profile is inconsistent with what had been observed earlier and hence is an anomaly”. As a result, the anomaly seems to be related to the data profile. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 11-13 and 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 11 recites “generate business data with business tags that align the target factory's IT data with the templatized business terms, thereby transforming a structure and semantics of a data catalogue of the target factory”. As an initial point, the specification fails to mention “transforming”, ”semantics” or “transforming a structure and semantics”. Additionally, paragraph 0051 of the specification recites “To understand this, consider the corresponding business data shown in FIG. 12. Note that it has added business tags on the IT data based on the information from the business terms and the configuration logic is in how the tags are placed. Depending on the exact nature and the degree of generalizability of this logic (for e.g., always assign the term with the greatest number of unique occurrences in the IT data profile term to the business term 'Serial Number'), business logic can thereby be clustered.” Following, the specification merely discloses adding business tags, thereby clustering the business logic. Here, the mere addition of a business tag does not equate to “transforming” a structure and semantics. Clarification is required. Dependent claims 12, 13 and 15-30 are rejected based upon the same rationale. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p. 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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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. /ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 April 4, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 22, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 07, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 09, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 09, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 31, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12524722
ISSUE TRACKING METHODS FOR QUEUE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12488363
TREND PREDICTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12475421
METHODS AND INTERNET OF THINGS SYSTEMS FOR PROCESSING WORK ORDERS OF GAS PLATFORMS BASED ON SMART GAS OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12423719
TREND PREDICTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12423637
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING DIAGNOSTICS FOR A SUPPLY CHAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
36%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+19.8%)
4y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 620 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