Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/589,557

CROSS-PLATFORM ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT RESOURCE MONITOR AND BENCHMARK SUITE FOR VEHICLE HARDWARE ENGINEERING

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Examiner
RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Fca US LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
520 granted / 641 resolved
+21.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
668
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§103
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 641 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106. Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim. Likewise, claim 11 is a method claim. Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of execute the embedded software application according to a defined set of execution parameters; and during execution of the embedded software application, generate raw key performance indicator (KPI) data indicative of a set of KPI metrics. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are obtain the raw KPI data for the plurality of microcontrollers; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generate a visualized display representative of a side-by-side comparison of the raw KPI data for each of the plurality of microcontrollers, which is an extra solution activity such as outputting data (i.e. generating a visualized display). Other additional elements: a plurality of microcontrollers with embedded software, client computing system, hardware engineer and a control system, these elements are found to be merely generic computer hardware and/or software components, e.g. see Fig. 3 and Spec. [0005]: and therefore, merely amount to a general-purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “during execution of the embedded software application, generate raw key performance indicator (KPI) data indicative of a set of KPI metrics”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the generated visualized displayed representing a side by side comparison of the raw KPI data. Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the hardware/software and abstract steps of claims 1 and 20 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00. 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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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. /MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12670388
AGRICULTURAL DATA INTEGRATION AND ANALYSIS PLATFORM
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12656326
CONSTRUCTION METHOD OF ABNORMALITY DIAGNOSIS MODEL, ABNORMALITY DIAGNOSIS METHOD, CONSTRUCTION DEVICE OF ABNORMALITY DIAGNOSIS MODEL, AND ABNORMALITY DIAGNOSIS DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12654669
METHOD FOR CALIBRATING AN ACQUISITION CHAIN OF A BRAKING DEVICE OR BRAKING SYSTEM OF AT LEAST ONE VEHICLE, IN PARTICULAR AT LEAST ONE RAILWAY VEHICLE
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12651991
ARRANGEMENT AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF A ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12645204
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND ANALYSIS METHOD
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+11.8%)
3y 0m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 641 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