Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/763,506

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRINTING UNOBSTRUCTED VEHICLE LABELS

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Jul 03, 2024
Examiner
RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ, LENNIN R
Art Unit
2683
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Autoliv ASP Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
499 granted / 610 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
621
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§103
58.8%
+18.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§112
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 610 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) identifying a portion of a label that will be blocked when assembled, altering the label design to overcome the obstruction and printing the modified label. The limitation of “identify a portion of a label that, when affixed to a first vehicle component, is blocked by a second vehicle component…”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “cause the processor to:”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “identify” in the context of this claim can reasonably encompass the user manually and visually identifying that the label will be blocked by another vehicle component. Similarly, the limitation of “alter the label so target printed information of the label is arranged on an unobscured region of the label…”, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “alter” in the context of this claim encompasses the user physically moving the label so as to not be obstructed by another vehicle component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the limitation of “ print the label with the target printed information in the unobscured region”, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation mentally but for the recitation of generic computer components. “print the label”, in the context of the claim cover the user manually and mentally moving the information on the label to an area where it could be printed (handwritten) without obstructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of using a processor to perform the identifying, altering and printing amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. A look into dependent claims 2-9 shows that the extra limitations as presented, are furthering the same claimed concept with no further requirements that would preclude the from being performed practically in the mind. Therefore, the claims are directed to abstract ideas and not patent eligible. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm. 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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. /LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101
Sep 24, 2026
Interview Requested
Sep 30, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 30, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12749565
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OBTAINING QUALITY IMAGE DATA AND MEASUREMENTS FROM A MEDICAL IMAGING DEVICE
2y 12m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12743769
SHAPE CHARACTERISTIC VALUE ESTIMATION APPARATUS, SHAPE CHARACTERISTIC VALUE ESTIMATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12718514
IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, STORAGE MEDIUM, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND PRODUCT
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12693819
SERVER APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREFOR
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12687841
METHOD AND ASSEMBLY FOR INSPECTING A PLURALITY OF ELEMENTS OF AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 21, 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
82%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+7.3%)
2y 11m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 610 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