Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/625,121

EDGE DETECTION FOR GREYSCALE IMAGES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 02, 2024
Examiner
PATEL, JAYESH A
Art Unit
2677
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Applied Materials Israel Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
739 granted / 887 resolved
+21.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
920
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 887 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 . 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 5-7 and 15-17 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. Claims 5-7 and 15-17 recites “or any mathematical equivalent thereof” in lines 3 and 4 respectively. The recital of “or any mathematical equivalent thereof” in the claims renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear as to what is the scope of “any mathematical equivalent thereof” is?. Specification as filed page 19 para 0078 recites “Regarding the equations included in this patent application, they serve to demonstrate the mathematical principles related to the disclosed subject matter, and are offered as examples, without limiting the scope to the specific forms described. Recognizing that identical mathematical principles can be represented by different equations, which may vary in form, but share the same meaning, the inclusion of particular equations is solely for illustrative purposes. Consequently, this application contemplates all equivalent formulations of these principles, ensuring that patent protection is not restricted to the examples provided, but extends to any mathematical expressions that embody the underlying concepts. The term "equivalent thereof" or "any mathematical equivalent thereof" is used in the specification and claims to express the above principle.”. The specification recites the equations as mere exemplary, non-limiting and extending to any mathematical expressions (i.e indefiniteness) therefore does not define the scope of “any mathematical equivalent thereof” as recited in the claims rendering the claims indefinite. Applicant is advised to delete the phrase in order to make the claim definite and overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections. Claims 9-10 and 19 depends directly or indirectly on claims 5-7 and 15, therefore they are rejected. Regarding claim 5, the phrase "(e.g., multiplying)" in line 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Allowable Subject Matter Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 are allowed. Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 20, Lin et al., (US20170287137) hereafter Lin discloses “applying a shape-based analysis to a region of interest (ROI) in a grey level image, to thereby obtain a transformed ROI comprising pixels transformed by the shape-based analysis; wherein the ROI comprises the entire image or part thereof;” in fig 1 paras 0036-0048. Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 20, Sutton et al. (US5978505) hereafter Sutton discloses forming a regularized image (fig 4 element 118) of the input image (fig 4 element 102). Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 20, Lin and Sutton alone or in combination and other cited arts in PTO 892, however do not disclose “calculating for each transformed pixel i,j in the transformed ROI a respective regularized pixel value A r i , j , based on a ratio between a respective transformed pixel value Ai,j or a functional variation thereof and a difference between the original grey level pixel value Pi,j before transformation and a target grey level pixel value Pt or a functional variation of the difference; wherein the target grey level pixel value Pt represents a grey level value of at least one sought-after edge in the grey level image; and generating an output image, composed of the regularized pixel values, in which visibility of the at least one sought-after edge in the grey level image is emphasized, while visibility of other edges in the grey level image is diminished.”. The combination of these features as recited in the claims in combination with other limitations in the claims are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior arts of record therefore claims 1, 11 and 20 are allowed. Dependent claims 2-4, 8, 12-14 and 18 depends directly or indirectly on claims 1, 11 and 20, therefore they are allowed. Claims 5-7, 9-10, 15-17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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. JAYESH PATEL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2677 /JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 02, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597170
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMMERSIVE VIDEO ENCODING AND DECODING, AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING A BITSTREAM GENERATED BY THE IMMERSIVE VIDEO ENCODING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579770
DETECTION SYSTEM, DETECTION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561949
CONDITIONAL PROCEDURAL MODEL GENERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555346
Automatic Working System, Automatic Walking Device and Control Method Therefor, and Computer-Readable Storage Medium
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12536636
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING QUALITY OF A DOCUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
83%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+5.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 887 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