Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/376,097

METHOD FOR EVALUATING A TRANSMISSION LINE THROUGH AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF A REFLECTOGRAM

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Oct 03, 2023
Examiner
ALUNKAL, THOMAS D
Art Unit
2686
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
COMMISSARIAT À L'ÉNERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ÉNERGIES ALTERNATIVES
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
757 granted / 1054 resolved
+9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1083
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§102
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1054 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 11 is drawn to a “computer program", per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not: A process, or A machine, or A manufacture, or A composition of matter. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 and 12 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a method for evaluating a transmission line through reflectometry, comprising the following steps: obtaining a measurement of the temporal impulse response of a reference signal propagated in the line from a point of injection and then backpropagated to a point of measurement, the temporal measurement, called a reflectogram, comprising a plurality of amplitude peaks each corresponding to an impedance discontinuity, searching for a set of local extrema in the reflectogram, determining a total reconstruction of the reflectogram as the sum of pulses each having the shape of the reference signal and the position and the amplitude of said local extrema, for each pair of successive local extrema of indices j and j+1, comparing the total reconstruction with, respectively, a first partial reconstruction of the reflectogram for the local extrema of indices 0 to j and a second partial reconstruction of the reflectogram for the local extrema of indices j+1 to N-1, N being the number of local extrema, to determine whether or not the pulses of indices j and j+1 of the reflectogram have a mutual influence on one another, for a group of pulses of the reflectogram that have a mutual influence on one another, determining an optimized reconstruction of the group of pulses from a partial reconstruction of the pulses of the group so as to modify the abscissas of the pulses of the partial reconstruction in order to minimize an error criterion between the optimized partial reconstruction and the measured reflectogram, comparing the difference between the optimized partial reconstruction and the measured reflectogram with a first error threshold and, if the difference is less than the first error threshold, classifying the impedance discontinuity associated with each pulse of the group of pulses according to its position and its amplitude into the following classes: a soft fault, a short circuit, an open circuit, a load matched to the load of the transmission line, an impedance mismatch between the measurement port and the transmission line. Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a processor-readable recording medium on which there is recorded a program comprising instructions for carrying out the method according to claim 1 when the program is executed by a processor. Dependent claims 2-10 are allowed with their base claims. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM. 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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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. /THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598504
Asset Management and IOT Device for Refrigerated Appliances
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589713
FLEET-CONNECTED VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586430
OPERATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, OPERATION MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, OPERATION MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585319
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ADAPTIVE TRANSMITTER FOR AN OBJECT DETECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570239
SECURITY SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+15.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1054 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