Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/804,703

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING ALERT BASED ON MONITORING OF NECK ALIGNMENT OF USER

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Aug 14, 2024
Examiner
FRISBY, KESHA
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
397 granted / 755 resolved
-17.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
781
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 755 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: The claims are directed to a method, a device and a medium which falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim 1, recites determining, evaluating and generating and Independent claims 10 & 19, recites determining, evaluating and generating, one or more sensors, memory and processors. The claims and background of the application do not put any limits on the plain meanings of determining, evaluating and generating. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because one or more sensors, memory and processors are just used to carry out the steps of the claims. These claims recite at a high level of generality, i.e. as a one or more sensors, memory and processors performing generic functions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall with the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, selection by a human and/or can be presented using a piece of paper, including determining, providing, receiving and displaying. Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite one or more sensors, memory and processors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. Again, the one or more sensors, memory and processors perform their generic functions and is recited at a high level of generality. With these limitations, the one or more sensors, memory and processors are used as a tool to perform the generic function of processing and storing data. Therefore, in these limitations the one or more sensors, memory and processors are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step, 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor and memory. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practice application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Step 2B: As explained in the Step 2A, Prong Two, these are two additional elements. The additional elements of a “one or more sensors, memory and processors” in the limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary determining, evaluating and generating. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “one or more sensors, memory and processors” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to processing information and storing information and are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception with a one or more sensors, memory and processors and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. So, these claims are in eligible. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections are moot in view of amendments filed 10/25/2025. The manner in which the claims have been amended does not overcome the current 35 USC 101 rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHA FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)272-8774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 730AM-4PM. 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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. /KESHA FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2024
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jun 30, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 18, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Oct 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586483
MODULAR CIRCUIT CARD ASSEMBLY FOR ADVANCED TRAINING APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573310
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING A VOCATIONAL MASK WITH A HYPER-ENABLED WORKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12555489
Large Language Model-Enabled Artificial Intelligence-Based Virtual Interactive Reading Assistant
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12542066
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING PERSONALIZED INTERFACE CONTENT PLANS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12536920
TRANSFORMER TRAINING LAB
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 755 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