Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/553,776

INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 03, 2023
Examiner
SCHMITT, BENJAMIN R
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ns Solutions Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1030 granted / 1218 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1258
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1218 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Objections Claims 1, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a predetermined housing” should be merely “a housing” since subsequent recitations of this limitation do not include the word “predetermined.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konagai et al. (JP 2020-183921 – listed on Applicant’s IDS, translation provided by Applicant). Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Konagai discloses (Figs. 1-4) an information processing device 90 (see par. [0031] – re. claim 11: including a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable instructions: see pars. [0043]-[0045] and [0051]) comprising: a first obtainer 32 [0060] configured to obtain first information relating to an absolute position (reference position: [0061]) and posture (see pars. [0057] and [0062]) in a real space [0060]-[0062] of a predetermined housing 10 (i.e. mobile terminal: [0050]); a second obtainer 32 [0060] configured to sequentially obtain second information (current position: [0060]) corresponding to a change in relative position of the housing in chronological order [0060]-[0061]; and an estimator 32 [0060] configured to estimate the absolute position in the real space of the housing 10 [0060]-[0061] at a time point at which the change in relative position of the housing 10 indicated by the second information has been detected [0061] with the absolute position and posture of the housing corresponding to the first information as a reference [0061]. The apparatus of Konagai, as applied above in the rejection of claim 1, would perform the method and meet the limitations of claims 10 and 11. Regarding claim 2, Konagai discloses (Figs. 1-4) the first information is calculated based on information relating to an absolute position and posture in a real space of a reference point [0061], the information being obtained from the reference point as a result of the housing 10 approaching the reference point disposed in the real space [0061]. Regarding claim 3, Konagai discloses (Figs. 1-4) the information relating to the absolute position and posture in the real space of the reference point [0061] is obtained from the reference point based on contactless communication between the housing 10 and the reference point (i.e. based on communication with the NFC unit 22: [0061]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konagai et al. (JP 2020-183921) in view of Hashimoto et al. (WO 2019/234936 – listed on Applicant’s IDS, full translation attached). Regarding claim 4, Konagai is applied as above, and discloses the first information is obtained with a relative posture of the housing 10 (see pars. [0057] and [0062]) with respect to the reference point satisfying a predetermined condition (horizontal: [0062]). Konagai does not disclose the reference point is disposed such that a surface configured to detect the approach of the housing extends along a vertical direction. Hashimoto discloses (Figs. 21 and 29) the reference point 241 (middle p. 24) is disposed such that a surface configured to detect the approach of the housing (middle p. 24) extends along a vertical direction (as shown in Fig. 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Konagai’s device so that the reference point is disposed such that a surface configured to detect the approach of the housing extends along a vertical direction, as taught by Hashimoto. Such a modification would be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(A). Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konagai et al. (JP 2020-183921) in view of Hashimoto et al. (WO 2019/234936), and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0161224). Regarding claims 5-6 and 8, Konagai is applied as above, but does not disclose the first obtainer is configured to evaluate whether a posture of the housing approaching the reference point satisfies the predetermined condition or not, and obtain the first information according to the evaluation result; and the first obtainer is configured to evaluate whether the posture of the housing approaching the reference point satisfies the predetermined condition or not, based on a detection result by a detector configured to detect the approach of the housing with respect to the surface; and the first obtainer is configured to obtain the first information when a variation of the changes in relative posture of the housing approaching the reference point detected by a predetermined detector falls within a predetermined range. Lee discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) the first obtainer is configured to evaluate whether a posture (orientation: [0025]) of the housing approaching the reference point satisfies the predetermined condition or not (distance to the point: [0026]), and obtain the first information according to the evaluation result (corrects absolute position/orientation: [0027]); and the first obtainer is configured to evaluate whether the posture (orientation: [0025]) of the housing approaching the reference point satisfies the predetermined condition or not (distance to the point: [0026]), based on a detection result by a detector 100 [0026] configured to detect the approach of the housing with respect to the surface [0026]; and the first obtainer is configured to obtain the first information [0026]-[0027] when a variation of the changes in relative posture of the housing approaching the reference point detected by a predetermined detector 100 falls within a predetermined range (in a specific distance: [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Konagai’s device so that the first obtainer is configured to evaluate whether a posture of the housing approaching the reference point satisfies the predetermined condition or not, and obtain the first information according to the evaluation result; and the first obtainer is configured to evaluate whether the posture of the housing approaching the reference point satisfies the predetermined condition or not, based on a detection result by a detector configured to detect the approach of the housing with respect to the surface; and the first obtainer is configured to obtain the first information when a variation of the changes in relative posture of the housing approaching the reference point detected by a predetermined detector falls within a predetermined range, as taught by Lee. Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konagai et al. (JP 2020-183921) in view of Hori et al. (JP H11-230772 – full translation attached). Regarding claim 9, Konagai is applied as above, but does not disclose the estimator is configured to estimate an absolute position in the real space of the housing at a time point at which the change in relative position of the housing indicated by the second information has been detected based on the second information and the first information obtained at a time point closer to the time point. Hori discloses (Figs. 2 and 3) the estimator is configured to estimate an absolute position in the real space of the housing at a time point (middle-bottom p. 4) at which the change in relative position of the housing indicated by the second information has been detected (middle-bottom p. 4) based on the second information and the first information obtained at a time point closer to the time point (i.e. at the most recent time that the absolute position A is updated: see bottom p. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Konagai’s device so that the estimator is configured to estimate an absolute position in the real space of the housing at a time point at which the change in relative position of the housing indicated by the second information has been detected based on the second information and the first information obtained at a time point closer to the time point, as taught by Hori. Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00. 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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. /BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 07, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596085
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SIMULTANEOUSLY MEASURING AIR CONTAINED HYDROGEN AND WATER VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS VIA A SINGLE MEMS THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596004
SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING POSITION OF SERVICE PIN WITHIN PINHOLE OF WORK MACHINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588946
CATHETER DISTAL FORCE SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578322
METHODS AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS FOR DETECTING A METABOLITE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560437
Estimating Floor Numbers and Floor Labels in a Structure
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1218 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month