Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/314,714

INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, ROBOT CONTROL METHOD, PRODUCT MANUFACTURING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, ROBOT SYSTEM, AND RECORDING MEDIUM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 09, 2023
Priority
May 12, 2022 — JP 2022-079058 +1 more
Examiner
MANCHO, RONNIE M
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Canon Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
746 granted / 982 resolved
+24.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1030
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 982 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations, “ “each of the second number of workpieces being disposed in the container and overlapping with at least one other workpiece of the second number of workpieces, and the second number being greater than the first number; and training a machine learning model using the first image data and the second image data as input data, thereby obtaining a trained machine learning model”, emphasis added. The second pieces are not more than the first pieces according to the drawings. In addition, the claims do not agree with the drawing because in figs. 6, 7A&B the pieces appear to be different and one cannot tell which are the first or second pieces. Therefore, the drawings must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 1-17, 19-25 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 1 recites, “ obtaining first image data including an image corresponding to a first number of workpieces disposed in a container, each of the first number of workpieces being disposed on an inner bottom surface of the container without overlapping with each other; obtaining second image data including an image corresponding to a second number of workpieces disposed in the container, each of the second number of workpieces being disposed in the container and overlapping with at least one other workpiece of the second number of workpieces, and the second number being greater than the first number; and training a machine learning model using the first image data and the second image data as input data, thereby obtaining a trained machine learning model.” The above amended limitation with emphasis added have no support in the originally filed invention. Therefore, the limitations in the claim constitute new matter.’’ Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to have new matter. Applicant has no possession of the claimed limitation. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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. /RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 4 earlier events
Dec 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 24, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 20, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 20, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 17, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703251
TORQUE CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DRIVE SYSTEMS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
2y 4m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12691576
ROBOTIC GRIPPER
1y 11m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12678976
ROBOTIC APPARATUS FOR CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITES
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673442
Method and installation for producing a film or sheet from a slabstock foam, and method and system for retrofitting an installation for film or sheet production
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12672509
METHOD OF MONITORING TOOL
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+2.2%)
3y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 982 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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