Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/586,231

CORRECTED QUADTREE BACK-PROJECTION FOR LARGE TARGET NEAR-FIELD IMAGING

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 23, 2024
Examiner
LE, SARAH
Art Unit
2614
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
172 granted / 258 resolved
+4.7% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
280
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
§103
59.2%
+19.2% vs TC avg
§102
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 258 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 Claim Objections Claim 3, 10, 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “ the sub-images” in line 4. It should be “ the multiple sub-images”. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the data” in line 1. It should be “ the radar data”. Claim 15 recites “each data section” in line 2. It should be “the each data section”. Claim 19 recites the limitation “the radar system” in line 3. It should be “the mmWave radar system”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-20 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “radar data” in line 3. It is unclear if “radar data” refers to “radar data” in line 1 or something else. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the centre" in 8, “the total” in line 12, “the shifting” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the end” in line 4, “the next” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 and claim 5 recite “performed iteratively until...” in line 1. It is unclear if claims refer back to “segmenting the image, generating shifted data, generating reduced data and shifting the reduced data are performed iteratively” in claim 3 or something else. If the claims refer back to step in claim 3, it needs to recite “wherein segmenting the image, generating shifted data, generating reduced data and shifting the reduced data are performed iteratively until…”. Claims 4-6 are rejected based on rejection of claim 3. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the radar”. It is unclear if the radar refers to the radar data or something else. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the target’ in line 1, and “the radar system” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 also recites “approximately ” in line 2. The term “approximately” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-11 rejected based on the rejected of claim 1. Claim 12 recites the limitation “radar data” in line 3. It is unclear if “radar data” refers to “radar data” in line 1 or something else. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the data segment” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites “ “the target” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 also recites “approximately ” in line 2. The term “approximately” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 13-19 rejected based on the rejected of claim 12. Claim 20 recites the limitation “radar data” in line 3. It is unclear if “radar data” refers to “radar data” in line 1 or something else. Claim 20 recites the limitation “the centre” in line 9, “the total” in line 13, “the shifting” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: No prior art found disclose or render obvious independent claims 1, 12 and 20. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1. Xiao et al., U.S Patent Application Publication No.20030161443 –A fast method for divergent-beam backprojecion is proposed for generating an electronic image from a preprocessed divergent-beam sonogram, the sinogram being a collection of divergent beam projections. The method can include the following steps: subdividing the sinogram into multiple sub-sinograms; performing a weighted backprojection of said sub-sinograms, to produce multiple corresponding sub-images; and aggregating said sub-images to create the electronic image. The subdivision of the sinogram into sub-sinograms can be performed in a recursive manner. A dual of the proposed method provides a fast means for reprojecting an electronic image, i.e., generating a divergent-beam sinogram from the image. 2. Basu et al. U.S Patent No.7215731- a reprojection/backprojection technique and apparatus for carrying out such a technique provides a hierarchical solution to speeding-up reprojection and backprojection of tomographic images. In the context of reprojection, a tomographic image is divided into a series of subimages. Each subimage is shifted to the origin, projected at a reduced number of views, and then up-sampled and shifted back (in the sinogram space). The resulting sinograms are then combined to provide a single sinogram. This process is applied one or more times recursively. In the context of backprojection, the above steps are transposed such that a sinogram is divided into a series of subsinograms. The subsinograms are then shifted and decimated by a given decimation factor. The decimated subsinograms are then backprojected onto hexagonal tiles whereupon the tiles are composited into a final image. 3. Xiao, Shu, et al, NPL, "An N 2 logN back-projection algorithm for SAR image formation." Conference Record of the Thirty-Fourth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (Cat. No. 00CH37154). Vol. 1. IEEE, 2000.- a fast algorithm for far-field SAR imaging based on a new fast back-projection algorithm developed for tomography. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8AM-4:30PM EST, Tuesday: 8 AM-3:30PM EST, Wednesday: 8AM-2:30PM EST, Thursday and Friday off. 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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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. /SARAH LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569321
PROPOSING DENTAL RESTORATION MATERIAL PARAMETERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573128
Progressive Compression of Geometry for Graphics Processing
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12536715
GENERATION OF STYLIZED DRAWING OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL SHAPES USING NEURAL NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12505585
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OVERLAY OF VIRTUAL OBJECT ON PROXY OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12505590
NODE LIGHTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
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
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.4%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 258 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