Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/612,676

MARKER, EDGE DETECTION DEVICE, AND EDGE DETECTION METHOD

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Examiner
NAKHJAVAN, SHERVIN K
Art Unit
2672
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Panasonic Automotive Systems Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
544 granted / 616 resolved
+26.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
639
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 616 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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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 limitation(s) is/are: “the edge detection device determines that an edge is present between two pixels . . .”, and “the edge detection device determines that no edge is . . .” in claim 14. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 § 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. 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I). Claims directed toward purely data such as alphanumeric data, image data, video data or music data are not directed toward a process since the data by itself does not perform any steps or acts. And, the claims are not directed toward machine, manufacture or composition of matter because those categories require a tangible object which is not satisfied by pure data. Furthermore, even if the data is placed on a non-transitory computer readable media (i.e. manufacture) the claims would still be ineligible because the thrust of the claims are directed toward the data with the non-transitory computer readable media acting as merely a carrier of that data. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter since the claims are directed toward a marker comprising pure data which is not found in any of the four eligible categories of invention. Specifically, claim 1 is referring to an article of manufacture, i.e. a marker, however the claimed data fails to exist in some physical or tangible form that can qualify under any of 101 categories (MPEP 2106.03). Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible under 101. Claims 2-13 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claim they depend from and are thus themselves ineligible under 101. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14 and 15 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art or the prior art of record specifically, US 2026/0038407 A1 to Barber et al and CN 112477438 A to Zhao et al, does not disclose: the marker comprising: N first areas that are arranged adjacent to one another in a predetermined direction, N being an integer greater than or equal to 3, wherein at each of N-1 first boundaries between the N first areas, an amount of change in a color property corresponding to positions in the predetermined direction is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, in each of the N first areas, the amount of change in the color property corresponding to positions in the predetermined direction is less than or equal to a second threshold value that is less than the first threshold value, combined with other features and elements of the claims 14 and 15. Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Please refer to the same reasons for allowance discussed above with respect to claims 14 and 15. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-05:00 PST. 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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached at (571)272-3638. 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. /SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Mar 11, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602766
METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE, MEDIUM AND PRODUCT FOR DETECTING ALIGNMENT OF BATTERY ELECTRODE PLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597159
SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592313
ANALYZING SURGICAL VIDEOS TO IDENTIFY A BILLING CODING MISMATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579671
MINIATURIZED PHASE CALIBRATION APPARATUS FOR TIME-OF-FLIGHT DEPTH CAMERA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561791
METHOD TO CALIBRATE, PREDICT, AND CONTROL STOCHASTIC DEFECTS IN EUV LITHOGRAPHY
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
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 616 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