Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/605,939

Method and System for Automatically Disconnecting a Data Link Between a Transmitting Device and an Object, and Computer Program Product

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Mar 15, 2024
Priority
Mar 16, 2023 — DE 10 2023 106 578.5
Examiner
RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
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 §112
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. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to ineligible computer software per se. The claims recite "a computer program product... ", without any positive recitation of hardware structure within the scope of the claimed system e.g. the computer program is [intended] "to cause the processor to" perform functions. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 20 is found to be directed to ineligible software per se (see MPEP 21.06.03(I)). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. Applicant is suggested to amend claim 20 to add the limitation “non- transitory” to the claim to overcome the non-statutory subject matter rejections. 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. Regarding claim 1, it recites removing the transmitting device from the object in step (a.) and measuring the translational/rotational acceleration during removal in step (b.). However, in step (d). it recites determining whether the transmitting device has been removed. It is unclear to why the system needs to determine whether the device has been removed if it was already removed in step (a.). Clarification is required. Claims 2-20 are dependent from, and inherit the limitations of claim 1. Thus, claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph for at least the same reasons specified above with respect to claim 1. . 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

Mar 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112 (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 (~8m 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