Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/798,656

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MONITORING BUILDING HEALTH

Non-Final OA §101§102§112§DP
Filed
Aug 08, 2024
Examiner
BROWN, MICHAEL J
Art Unit
2115
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
905 granted / 1029 resolved
+32.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1053
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1029 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §112 §DP
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2024 and 1/16/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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, 12, and 19 recite the limitation "a message" in lines 2, 2, and 3, respectively. It is unclear whether “a message” of claims 5, 12, and 19 are the same “thermal alert message” that is cited in claims 1, 8, and 15; respectively; and is transmitted to a user device via wireless communication. 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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 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): 1. A building monitoring computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors, the one or more processors coupled to a thermal sensor positioned at a first selected position of a building and configured to detect a temperature level, the one or more processors configured to: determine a profile temperature level based upon a plurality of historical temperature levels; compare a sample temperature level detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position to the profile temperature level for the first selected position to generate a temperature level difference; generate a thermal alert message based upon determining that the temperature level difference exceeding a pre-determined threshold; and transmit the thermal alert message to a user device via wireless communication. 8. A computer-implemented method implemented using a building monitoring computing device including a memory and one or more processors, the one or more processors coupled to a thermal sensor positioned at a first selected position of a building and configured to detect a temperature level, method comprising to: determining a profile temperature level based upon a plurality of historical temperature levels; comparing a sample temperature level detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position to the profile temperature level for the first selected position to generate a temperature level difference; generating a thermal alert message based upon determining that the temperature level difference exceeding a pre-determined threshold; and transmitting the thermal alert message to a user device via wireless communication. 15. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by a building monitoring computing device including a memory and one or more processors, the one or more processors coupled to a thermal sensor positioned at a first selected position of a building and configured to detect a temperature level, the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to: determine a profile temperature level based upon a plurality of historical temperature levels; compare a sample temperature level detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position to the profile temperature level for the first selected position to generate a temperature level difference; generate a thermal alert message based upon determining that the temperature level difference exceeding a pre-determined threshold; and transmit the thermal alert message to a user device via wireless communication. Step 1: The claims recite a building monitoring computing device, a method implemented using a building monitoring computing device, and computer-executable instructions executed by a building monitoring computing device. Thus, the claims are to a manufacturer, machine, and/or process which are statutory categories of invention. Step 2A Prong One: The limitation of “determining a profile temperature level based upon a plurality of historical temperature values” (claims 1, 8, and 15) fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas because the “determining” can practically be performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or calculator) to help them to perform the determination, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Similarly, the limitation of “comparing a sample temperature level detected by the thermal sensor…” also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas because the “comparing” can practically be performed in the human mind. Also, the limitation of “generating a thermal alert message based on the determining…” also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas because the “generating” can practically be performed in the human mind. Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claims recite additional elements of “detecting a temperature level” and “transmitting the thermal alert message to a user device via a wireless communication”. These additional elements represent mere data gathering and transmitting that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims also recite additional elements such as “a memory”; “one or more processors”, and “a thermal sensor”. These additional elements are merely tools used to obtain temperature measurements and perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One and are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply to the judicial exceptions. As such, it is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a building monitoring computing device. 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. Step 2B: The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The cited additional elements, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for the purposes of Step 2A Prong Two were considered insignificant. The recitation of the memory and one or more processors to obtain temperature measurements are mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality and are well-known. The claims therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply to an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Note: Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 further include limitations that fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. Each listed dependent claim includes multiple steps of “determining” and “causing” steps which could practically be performed in the human mind. Further additional elements cited in the listed dependent claims provide steps of “transmitting” and “receiving” which are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not provide an inventive concept. Each of the dependent claims listed are also not eligible. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,880. Please see chart below for comparison between claim 1 of the instant application and the US Patent. Instant Patent Application US Patent No. 12,079,880 Note 1. A building monitoring computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors, the one or more processors coupled to a thermal sensor positioned at a first selected position of a building and configured to detect a temperature level, the one or more processors configured to: 1. A building monitoring computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors, the one or more processors coupled to a moisture sensor positioned at a first selected position of a building and configured to detect a moisture level, the one or more processors configured to: Instant application uses a thermal sensor while the patent uses a moisture sensor Instant application detects a temperature level while the patent detects a moisture level determine a profile temperature level based upon a plurality of historical temperature levels; determine a profile moisture level based upon a plurality of historical moisture levels; Instant application determines a profile temperature level based on historical levels while the patent determines a profile moisture level based on historical levels compare a sample temperature level detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position to the profile temperature level for the first selected position to generate a temperature level difference; compare a sample moisture level detected by the moisture sensor at the first selected position to the profile moisture level for the first selected position to generate a moisture level difference; Instant application compares sample temperature level to the profile temperature level to generate a temperature level difference while patent compares moisture level to profile moisture level to generate a moisture level difference generate a thermal alert message based upon determining that the temperature level difference exceeding a pre-determined threshold; and generate a moisture alert message based upon determining that the moisture level difference exceeds a pre-determined threshold; and Instant application generates a thermal alert message while the patent generates a moisture alert message transmit the thermal alert message to a user device via wireless communication. transmit the moisture alert message to a user device via wireless communication. Instant application transmits the thermal alert message while the patent transmits the moisture alert message Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant patent application and the US Patent No. 12,079,880 teach comparing sample levels to profile levels and transmitting alert messages based on the difference between the sample levels and profile levels. The instant application being directed to thermal levels instead of moisture levels (as in the US Patent) does not make the instant patent application patentably distinct from the US Patent. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wedig et al. [Wedig] (US PGPub 2014/0358592). As to claim 1 Wedig discloses a building monitoring computing device (sensory node 200, see Fig. 2) comprising a memory (memory 215, see Fig. 2) and one or more processors (processor 240, see Fig. 2), the one or more processors coupled to a thermal sensor (sensors 205, see Fig. 2) positioned at a first selected position (office, each bathroom, each common area, etc.; see paragraph 0022, line 13) of a building and configured to detect a temperature level (see paragraph 0046, lines 1-6), the one or more processors configured to: determine a profile temperature level (data regarding the usual or normal temperature; see paragraph 0046, lines 8) based upon a plurality of historical temperature levels (see paragraph 0046, lines 6-11); compare a sample temperature level (sensed temperature data; see paragraph 0046, line 10) detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position to the profile temperature level for the first selected position to generate a temperature level difference (see paragraph 0062, lines 6-11; paragraph 0084, lines 8-15; and paragraph 0113, lines 8-13); generate a thermal alert message (notification; see paragraph 0053, line 10) based upon determining that the temperature level difference exceeding a pre-determined threshold (threshold temperatures; see paragraph 0046, lines 12-13) (see paragraph 0046, lines 5-13 and paragraph 0048, lines 1-6); and transmit the thermal alert message to a user device (computing device of the user; see paragraph 0048, line 9) via wireless communication (see paragraph 0048, lines 1-10 and paragraph 0053, lines 6-8). As to claim 2 Wedig discloses the building monitoring computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the thermal profile level by averaging a plurality of historical sample temperature levels detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position (see paragraph 0046, lines 6-11). As to claim 3 Wedig discloses the building monitoring computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine, based upon the sample temperature level, a severity of an abnormal condition, wherein the determination includes at least one of: (i) determining a length of time that the abnormal condition has existed; and (ii) determining a size of an area of the building associated with the first selected position that is affected by the abnormal condition (see paragraph 0075, lines 1-16). As to claim 4 Wedig discloses the building monitoring computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit data representing the sample temperature level to an insurance provider remote server; receive, from the insurance provider remote server, at least one of: (a) an insurance-related recommendation, (b) an insurance policy update, and (c) a pre-populated insurance claim associated with any damage to the building caused by heat or freezing at the first selected position; and cause the at least one of (a) the insurance-related recommendation, (b) the insurance policy update, and (c) the pre-populated insurance claim to be displayed on the user device (see paragraph 0071, lines 9-12 and paragraph 0095, lines 1-12). As to claim 5 Wedig discloses the building monitoring computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit a message to an insurance provider remote server, the message causing the insurance provider remote server to adjust at least one insurance policy associated with the building based upon the thermal sensor being included within the building (see paragraph 0037, lines 3-11). As to claim 7 Wedig discloses the building monitoring computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive one or more of: (i) vibration data from one or more vibration sensors configured to detect vibration in the building; (ii) water data one or more thermal sensors configured to detect water in the building; and (iii) insect data detected by one or more insect sensors configured to detect insect related damage in the building (see paragraph 0045, lines 1-5). As to claim 8 Wedig discloses a computer-implemented method implemented using a building monitoring computing device (sensory node 200, see Fig. 2) including a memory (memory 215, see Fig. 2) and one or more processors (processor 240, see Fig. 2), the one or more processors coupled to a thermal sensor (sensors 205, see Fig. 2) positioned at a first selected position (office, each bathroom, each common area, etc.; see paragraph 0022, line 13) of a building and configured to detect a temperature level (see paragraph 0046, lines 1-6), method comprising to: determining a profile temperature level (data regarding the usual or normal temperature; see paragraph 0046, lines 8) based upon a plurality of historical temperature levels (see paragraph 0046, lines 6-11); comparing a sample temperature level (sensed temperature data; see paragraph 0046, line 10) detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position to the profile temperature level for the first selected position to generate a temperature level difference (see paragraph 0062, lines 6-11; paragraph 0084, lines 8-15; and paragraph 0113, lines 8-13); generating a thermal alert message (notification; see paragraph 0053, line 10) based upon determining that the temperature level difference exceeding a pre-determined threshold (threshold temperatures; see paragraph 0046, lines 12-13) (see paragraph 0046, lines 5-13 and paragraph 0048, lines 1-6); and transmitting the thermal alert message to a user device (computing device of the user; see paragraph 0048, line 9) via wireless communication (see paragraph 0048, lines 1-10 and paragraph 0053, lines 6-8). As to claim 9 Wedig discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 8, further comprising determining the thermal profile level by averaging a plurality of historical sample temperature levels detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position (see paragraph 0046, lines 6-11). As to claim 10 Wedig discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 8, further comprising determining, based upon the sample temperature level, a severity of an abnormal condition, wherein the determination includes at least one of: (i) determining a length of time that the abnormal condition has existed; and (ii) determining a size of an area of the building associated with the first selected position that is affected by the abnormal condition (see paragraph 0075, lines 1-16). As to claim 11 Wedig discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 8, further comprising: transmitting data representing the sample temperature level to an insurance provider remote server; receiving, from the insurance provider remote server, at least one of: (a) an insurance-related recommendation, (b) an insurance policy update, and (c) a pre-populated insurance claim associated with any damage to the building caused by heat or freezing at the first selected position; and causing the at least one of (a) the insurance-related recommendation, (b) the insurance policy update, and (c) the pre-populated insurance claim to be displayed on the user device (see paragraph 0071, lines 9-12 and paragraph 0095, lines 1-12). As to claim 12 Wedig discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 8, further comprising transmitting a message to an insurance provider remote server, the message causing the insurance provider remote server to adjust at least one insurance policy associated with the building based upon the thermal sensor being included within the building (see paragraph 0037, lines 3-11). As to claim 14 Wedig discloses the computer-implemented method of Claim 8, further comprising receiving one or more of: (i) vibration data from one or more vibration sensors configured to detect vibration in the building; (ii) water data one or more thermal sensors configured to detect water in the building; and (iii) insect data detected by one or more insect sensors configured to detect insect related damage in the building (see paragraph 0045, lines 1-5). As to claim 15 Wedig discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by a building monitoring computing device (sensory node 200, see Fig. 2) including a memory (memory 215, see Fig. 2) and one or more processors (processor 240, see Fig. 2), the one or more processors coupled to a thermal sensor (sensors 205, see Fig. 2) positioned at a first selected position (office, each bathroom, each common area, etc.; see paragraph 0022, line 13) of a building and configured to detect a temperature level (see paragraph 0046, lines 1-6), the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to: determine a profile temperature level (data regarding the usual or normal temperature; see paragraph 0046, lines 8) based upon a plurality of historical temperature levels (see paragraph 0046, lines 6-11); compare a sample temperature level (sensed temperature data; see paragraph 0046, line 10) detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position to the profile temperature level for the first selected position to generate a temperature level difference (see paragraph 0062, lines 6-11; paragraph 0084, lines 8-15; and paragraph 0113, lines 8-13); generate a thermal alert message (notification; see paragraph 0053, line 10) based upon determining that the temperature level difference exceeding a pre-determined threshold (threshold temperatures; see paragraph 0046, lines 12-13) (see paragraph 0046, lines 5-13 and paragraph 0048, lines 1-6); and transmit the thermal alert message to a user device (computing device of the user; see paragraph 0048, line 9) via wireless communication (see paragraph 0048, lines 1-10 and paragraph 0053, lines 6-8). As to claim 16 Wedig discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 15, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine the thermal profile level by averaging a plurality of historical sample temperature levels detected by the thermal sensor at the first selected position (see paragraph 0046, lines 6-11). As to claim 17 Wedig discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 15, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine, based upon the sample temperature level, a severity of an abnormal condition, wherein the determination includes at least one of: (i) determining a length of time that the abnormal condition has existed; and (ii) determining a size of an area of the building associated with the first selected position that is affected by the abnormal condition (see paragraph 0075, lines 1-16). As to claim 18 Wedig discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 15, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to: transmit data representing the sample temperature level to an insurance provider remote server; receive, from the insurance provider remote server, at least one of: (a) an insurance-related recommendation, (b) an insurance policy update, and (c) a pre-populated insurance claim associated with any damage to the building caused by heat or freezing at the first selected position; and cause the at least one of (a) the insurance-related recommendation, (b) the insurance policy update, and (c) the pre-populated insurance claim to be displayed on the user device (see paragraph 0071, lines 9-12 and paragraph 0095, lines 1-12). As to claim 19 Wedig discloses the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media of Claim 15, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to transmit a message to an insurance provider remote server, the message causing the insurance provider remote server to adjust at least one insurance policy associated with the building based upon the thermal sensor being included within the building (see paragraph 0037, lines 3-11). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6, 13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (with resolution to above 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection) 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: Wedig, or any other identifiable prior art, fails to specifically teach the building monitoring computing device, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine: (i) a type of damaged material at the first selected position, and (ii) a type of replacement material to replace the damaged material. Accordingly, dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 include allowable subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Michael J Brown/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600093
Information Processing Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594602
Systems and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594727
EXTRUSION-BASED ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING: METHOD AND 3D PRINTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570051
CONVOLUTION MODELING AND LEARNING SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING GEOMETRIC SHAPE ACCURACY OF 3D PRINTED PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574794
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AND/OR OPERATING AN AUTOMATION COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
97%
With Interview (+8.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1029 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