Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/891,142

APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR INITIATING PERFORMANCE OF ONE OR MORE OBJECT RELATED ACTIONS

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Priority
Sep 22, 2023 — provisional 63/584,648
Examiner
JOSEPH, TONYA S
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Honeywell International Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
24%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
Est. Remaining
44%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 24% of cases
24%
Career Allowance Rate
142 granted / 595 resolved
-36.1% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
645
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
§103
62.2%
+22.2% vs TC avg
§102
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§112
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 595 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 non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1 The claims recite: identifying production data representative of an object process and an object, wherein the object process comprises a plurality of subsidiary object processes generating an object process state representation template using the production data, wherein generating the object process state representation template comprises associating a first processing system of a plurality of processing systems with a first subsidiary object process of the plurality of subsidiary object processes and a second processing system of the plurality of processing systems with a second subsidiary object process of the plurality of subsidiary object processes; receiving, from at least one of the plurality of processing systems, operational data; processing the operational data to determine an object process state, wherein processing the operational data comprises applying the operational data; generating an object process state representation in response to determining the object process state; and initiating performance of one or more object related actions based on the object process state representation. The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)** The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “varied systems, object, processor, memory, computer program product and object process state model”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activities. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2 The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, varied systems and object process state model. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f); - (object process state model, memory, processor, computer program product) iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(varied systems and object) The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106 Step 2B Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception Dependent Claims Step 2A: The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A — Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; Claim 2-4 and 9 recites instances of an object interface and interface component. However, these elements generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as in the independent claims. Claim 7 recites a client device. However, these elements generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as in the independent claims. This analysis applies to all analogous claims. Dependent Claims Step 2B: The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under §101. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yuen [U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110251865 A1] describes a system, and customer module and/or contractor module may have one or more templates to facilitate creation of customer requests and contractor responses. These templates may be selected by a user or suggested by system, for example, based on the user having created the template, having previously used the template, or having created a customer request or contractor response for a similar service. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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. /TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12675765
INFORMATION OUTPUT METHOD, INFORMATION OUTPUT APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12670448
PERSONALIZING A SHARED RIDE IN A MOBILITY-ON-DEMAND SERVICE
5y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12614129
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DIGITAL CHECK IN AT A STORE LOCATION
1y 9m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12547950
SECURE TICKETING PLATFORM AND RELATED METHODS
1y 6m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12417416
Multi-Modal Directions with a Ride Service Segment in a Navigation Application
10m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
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
24%
Grant Probability
44%
With Interview (+19.7%)
4y 5m (~2y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 595 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