Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/265,000

INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 10, 2023
Examiner
RAHIM, MONJUR
Art Unit
2436
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Digital Arts Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
742 granted / 879 resolved
+26.4% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
916
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§103
41.7%
+1.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 879 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 . DETAILED ACTION 1. This action is in response to the amendment and argument field on 17 July 2025. 2. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 remain Pending and Rejected Responses to the Argument 3. The applicant’s arguments filed on 17 July 2025 are moot in view of new ground of rejection rendered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4. 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. Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Tyou et al. (US Publication No. 20210014225), hereinafter Tyou and in view of Nakamura Masako (JP Publication no. 2004254163) Nakamura. Regarding claim 1: An information processing system capable of performing control of devices via a network, the system comprising: a white control condition registration unit in which an appropriate control condition in each of the devices is registered in advance (Tyou, ¶68-70, 10). and a control unit that executes control of the devices by collating setting information set by the user equipment to execute the control on the devices with the appropriate control condition corresponding to setting on the devices (Tyou, ¶44, 96, 106). Tyou does not explicitly suggest, wherein the setting information includes a position information of the user equipment, and wherein the white control condition registration unit registers the appropriate control condition on a basis of the position information of the user equipment; however, in a same field endeavor Nakamura discloses this limitation (Nakamura, ¶31-32, ¶34, ¶4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining appropriate control-condition of Tyou with the position information disclosed in Nakamura to identify particular device in a location, stated by Nakamura at para.31. Regarding claim 2: wherein as the appropriate control condition registered in each of the devices, an appropriate condition is set in association with each of items set by a user to execute the control (Tyou, ¶10). Regarding claim 4: further comprising: an administrator terminal that manages the appropriate control condition corresponding to each of the devices and transmits the control condition that has been updated to the white control condition registration unit, wherein the information processing system further has an authentication unit that requests authentication information of the administrator terminal from the administrator terminal when the updated control condition is transmitted, and permits update of the updated control condition in the white control condition registration unit when the authentication information matches registered authentication information registered in advance (Tyou, ¶119). Regarding claim 5: wherein the authentication information is position information of the administrator terminal (Tyou, ¶147). Regarding claim 6: further comprising: a management mobile terminal registered corresponding to the administrator terminal, wherein the authentication unit transmits an identification code for authentication to the management mobile terminal when the updated control condition is transmitted, and permits update of the updated control condition in the white control condition registration unit when the identification code is received from the administrator terminal (Tyou, Abstract). Regarding claim 8: Tyou does not explicitly suggest, wherein the setting information includes position information of the devices, user equipment that controls the devices, and the administrator terminal, and in the white control condition registration unit, an appropriate control condition is registered in advance on a basis of the position information of any one of the devices, the user equipment that controls the devices, and the administrator terminal; however, in a same field endeavor Nakamura discloses this limitation (Nakamura, ¶31-32). Same motivation for combining the respective features of Tyou and Nakamura applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. Regarding claim 9: a step of registering an appropriate control condition in each of the devices in white control condition registration unit in advance (Tyou, ¶68-70, 10). and a step of executing control of the devices by collating setting information set by the user equipment to execute the control on the devices with the appropriate control condition corresponding to setting on the devices (Tyou, ¶44, 96, 106). Tyou does not explicitly suggest, wherein the setting information includes a position information of the user equipment, and wherein the white control condition registration unit registers the appropriate control condition on a basis of the position information of the user equipment; however, in a same field endeavor Nakamura discloses this limitation (Nakamura, ¶31-32, ¶34, ¶4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining appropriate control-condition of Tyou with the position information disclosed in Nakamura to identify particular device in a location, stated by Nakamura at para.31. 5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Tyou in view of Nakamura and in view of Matsuo et al. (JP Publication No. 2013048326), hereinafter Matsuo. Regarding claim 3: Tyou in voew of Nakamura does not explicitly suggest wherein in a case where the control of the devices is control using machine learning, the control unit executes the control of the devices by collating setting information set by a control model generated in machine learning with the appropriate control condition corresponding to setting on the devices, however, in a same field endeavor Matsuo discloses this limitation (Matsuo, page 4, para.4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining appropriate control-condition of Tyou in view of Nakamura with the machine learning modeling disclosed in Matsuo to estimate the usage probability of home appliance in various environmental condition, stated by Matsuo at para.2-3. Conclusion 6. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (See form “PTO-892 Notice of reference cited). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONJUR RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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. /Monjur Rahim/ Patent Examiner United States Patent and Trademark Office Art Unit: 2436; Phone: 571.270.3890 E-mail: monjur.rahim@uspto.gov Fax: 571.270.4890
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603913
SELECTING A TRANSMISSION PATH FOR COMMUNICATING DATA BASED ON A CLASSIFICATION FOR THE DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596807
UNIFIED EXTENSIBLE FIRMWARE INTERFACE (UEFI)-LEVEL PROCESSING OF OUT-OF-BAND COMMANDS IN HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTING PLATFORMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598458
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION WITH AND OPERATION OF AN IMPLANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580742
SECURE MEMORY SYSTEM PROGRAMMING FOR HOST DEVICE VERIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574214
DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF ENCRYPTION KEYS TO DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 879 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