Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/461,718

INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD THEREOF, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 06, 2023
Examiner
HENNING, MATTHEW T
Art Unit
2491
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
410 granted / 577 resolved
+13.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
594
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 577 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 This office action is in response to the communication filed on 9/6/2023. Claims 1-13 have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/6/2023 and 9/25/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: Separation unit in claims 1 and 12. Generation unit in claims 1 and 12. Transmission unit in claims 1 and 12. Determination unit in claim 2. Processing unit in claims 4 and 13. Bit shift unit in claim 5. Unit in claim 8. Reception unit in claim 12. Reproduction unit in claim 12. Inference unit in claim 12. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 12 recite “each layer” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Claim limitations “separation unit configured to…”, “generation unit configured to…”, “transmission unit configured to…”, “determination unit configured to…”, “processing unit configured to…”, “bit shift unit configured to…”, “unit configured to…”, “reception unit configured to…”, “reproduction unit configured to…”, and “inference unit configured to…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide any description of the structure, material or acts of these units, and as such cannot clearly link these units to such structure, material, or acts. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims. Conclusion Claims 1-13 have been rejected. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0184037 taught an inference engine and model taught as a single file in which coefficient data of the layers in encrypted. US 11,463,417 taught the general idea of partial encryption of a file in order to reduce processing time. EP 4276624 taught a system using AI models, where the layers and the configuration parameters are stored in separate files, allowing for using the same AI model file for different runtime environments or platforms - only the configuration file has to be adapted for new conditions. US 2024/0154802 taught a system protecting an inference network model including encrypting only a portion of the model but did not teach the model being held in separate files, or specifically that the information representing layer configuration is the area that is encrypted. US 2025/0280305 taught a system using AI models, where the layers and the configuration parameters are stored in separate files. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM EST. 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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. /MATTHEW T HENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602507
Data Center Monitoring And Management Operation Including Configuration For Customer Sensitive Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596817
SECURE REMOTE CONTROLS PACKAGE FOR SEMI-AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12566868
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR BINDING A SYSTEM ON CHIP AND A MEMORY DEVICE WITH A KEY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562911
Fork Processing Method And Blockchain Node
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554895
ENCRYPTED ANALYTICAL VAULT FOR TRUSTED ACCESS
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
71%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+19.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 577 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