Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/889,454

MEMORY AID DEVICE, MEMORY AID METHOD, AND MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 19, 2024
Examiner
LIN, ALLEN S
Art Unit
2153
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Jvckenwood Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
160 granted / 242 resolved
+11.1% vs TC avg
Strong +63% interview lift
Without
With
+63.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
273
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§103
52.3%
+12.3% vs TC avg
§102
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§112
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 242 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 103 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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wired, “This is a computer on your brain” 7/12/2006, https://www.wired.com/2006/07/this-is-a-computer-on-your-brain/ in view of Yehzkel et al. US2014/0093187 Regarding claim 1, Wired teaches: acquire any one of visual information and auditory information, and acquires brain activation information; (Wired see page 1 and 3, analyzing EEG neural signatures or brain signals based on images and examine information brain deemed as important where EEG neural signatures and information read on brain activation information) generate a tag in which any one of the visual information and the auditory information, the brain activation information, and acquire any one of visual information and auditory information, and acquires brain activation information; (Wired see page 1 and 3, analyzing EEG neural signatures or brain signals based on images and examine information brain deemed as important where EEG neural signatures and information read on brain activation information) generate a tag in which any one of the visual information and the auditory information, the brain activation information, and a keyword are associated with an object identified from the visual information; and (Wired see page 3 tagging images based on brain emitting signal detected by EEG) identified from the visual information; and (Wired see page 3 tagging images based on brain emitting signal detected by EEG) determine whether a reproduction recollection signal of the object is present from the brain activation information (Wired see page 3 brain emits a signal as soon as it sees something an “aha” signal to be detected tagging images that elicit a signal) search of the object based on the brain activation information when it is determined that there is the reproduction recollection signal of the object output any one of the visual information and the auditory information recorded in the searched tag (Wired see page 1 and 3 user to examine information and perform search based on tagged images when user is sifting through video and images) Wired does not distinctly disclose: At least one processor configured to: a keyword are associated with an object store the tag. Search from the tag However, Yehzkel teaches: At least one processor configured to: (Yehezkel see paragraph 0019 processor) a keyword are associated with an object (Yehezkel see paragraph 0002 0003 0025 textual tagging of images) store the tag. (Yehezkel see paragraph 0026 tag stored in index) Search from the tag (Yehezkel see paragraph 0028 searching using text retrieving images tagged with matching text) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of analyzing brain signal data as taught by Wired to include tagging as taught by Yehzkel for the predictable result of more efficiently organize and manage data Regarding claim 4, Wired as modified further teaches: wherein the at least one processor further configured to generate the tag associating a priority based on the brain activation information. (Wired see page 3 tagging images from brain signals based on rank in order of strength of brain signatures indicating importance) Regarding claim 5, see rejection of claim 1 Regarding claim 6, see rejection of claim 1 Claim(s) 3 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wired, “This is a computer on your brain” 7/12/2006, https://www.wired.com/2006/07/this-is-a-computer-on-your-brain/ in view of Yehzkel et al. US2014/0093187 in view of Erera et al. US2016/0321363 Regarding claim 3, Wired as modified further teaches: wherein the at least once processor further configured to when detecting the tag based on the brain activation information. (Wired see page 3 tagging images based on brain emitting signal detected by EEG) Wired does not teach: changes set number of the keyword used Errera teaches: changes set number of the keyword used (Erera see paragraph 0017 initial query with query terms and adding additional keyword is concatenated to initial query term to create additional query terms) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of analyzing brain signal data as taught by Wired to include additional query terms as taught by Erera for the predictable result of more efficiently organize and manage data Response to arguments Applicant’s argument: 101 and 112 rejections should be withdrawn in light of new amendments Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is persuasive and 101 and 112 rejection are withdrawn Applicant’s argument: 103 should be withdrawn in light of new amendments Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. Newly amended claims deal with a brain signal resulting in tagged information to be searched. Wired reference teaches the concept of having a user look at images and tagging information when brain illicits a signal for user to go back and look at information. This teaches the amended concept. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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. /ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599842
Anonymizing User Location Data in a Location-Based Application
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596687
PRIORITIZING CONTENT ITEM SYNCHRONIZATION BASED ON SHARING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12561370
RANKING GRAPH ELEMENTS BASED ON NODE PROPERTY CRITERIA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12487892
BACKUP DATA CONSOLIDATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12461825
MULTI-PHASE FILE RECOVERY FROM CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
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
66%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+63.2%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 242 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