Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/962,419

METHOD FOR CLASSIFYING AT LEAST ONE OBJECT ON THE BASIS OF HEIGHT

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Nov 27, 2024
Examiner
TRIEU, VAN THANH
Art Unit
2685
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Elmos Semiconductor SE
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
909 granted / 1076 resolved
+22.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1109
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1076 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: In Figure 1, the reference numbers 10, 20, 25, 30, 40 and 90 should be described. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because in respect to independent claims 1 and 13, it is unclear to what structure that the “method” and “evaluation device” is inoperative to carry out all the operation functions for classifying at least one object based on a height of the at least one object. The claim limitations are being treated as reciting an abstract idea because they are unclear and vague. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112The 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. (A) Claim 1 recites the term “a subtraction operation, optionally a weighted subtraction operation”; and “optionally based on a sign of the first difference value”; these limitations render the claim indefinite. (B) Claims 1 and 10 recite the term “higher power” which is a relative term and renders the claims indefinite. (C) Claim 3 recites the term “an object located substantially completely below the height” that renders the claim indefinite. (D) Claim 9 recites the term “almost extending to the height” that renders the claim indefinite. Those are relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Those terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee discloses the object detection apparatus includes an amplifier configured to amplify a reflected ultrasonic wave signal with a variable gain, a gain controller configured to set the variable gain such that the reflected ultrasonic wave signal received in at least one predetermined time zone is amplified with a high gain, compared to in other time zones, a comparator configured to compare a signal on an envelope corresponding to the signal amplified by the amplifier with a predetermined threshold and output the signal on the envelope when the signal is greater than the threshold, a calculator configured to calculate an absolute value of a first-order differential value of the signal on the envelope, and a time at which a maximum of the absolute value of the first-order differential value is calculated, and a detector configured to detect an object using a third time, the third time being a time at which the maximum is calculated, before a second time, the second time being a time at which the signal greater than the threshold is output. [US 2016/0033628] Matsuura et al discloses the crosstalk between object detection apparatuses of the same type, the transmission interval of the ultrasonic sensor in the other object detection apparatus is also varied randomly. Even though the ultrasonic sensor of one's device varies its transmission interval, if the ultrasonic sensor of the other device also changes the transmission interval and this changed interval happens to be the same as that of the one's device, the crosstalk cannot be distinguished. In order to minimize the possibility that these transmission intervals match, there needs to be as many transmission intervals as possible. With a large number of transmission intervals, however, the longest transmission interval will become longer, as compared to when there are fewer transmission intervals. This is because the longest transmission interval cannot be made shorter than a length determined by the device's minimum processing cycle multiplied by the number of transmission intervals provided. Selecting one from this large number of transmission intervals randomly causes the transmission/reception cycle to be long. [US 2017/0294125] Suleiman et al discloses the method for classifying the height of an object by means of at least one ultrasonic sensor of a vehicle is disclosed. The method includes emitting an ultrasonic signal by the ultrasonic sensor of the vehicle in a transmission cycle; and performing a reception cycle, wherein the reception cycle has a reception time window which makes it possible to receive echoes having a transit time which corresponds to at least double a reception range of the ultrasonic sensor. It is checked whether echoes were received in the reception cycle. A detected object is classified in a height class depending on whether at least a first and a second echo were received, wherein the transit time of the second echo is an integer multiple of the transit time of the first echo. [US 2024/0061094] Pampus et al discloses the method for classifying at least one object in the surroundings of a vehicle using an ultrasonic sensor system. The method includes: emitting ultrasonic signals at a plurality of successive time points using the ultrasonic sensor system; and receiving ultrasonic echo signals reflected on the one or more objects in the surroundings of the vehicle, using the ultrasonic sensor system; wherein one or more objects in the surroundings are ascertained as a function of the received ultrasonic echo signals, and wherein it is determined as a function of the received ultrasonic echo signals whether the respective object is classified as dynamic, in particular as a pedestrian. A controller for operating an ultrasonic sensor system, an ultrasonic sensor system, and a vehicle including such an ultrasonic sensor system are also described. [US 2024/0168156] Klus et al discloses the an ultrasonic sensor system (USSS), in which the ultrasonic sensor system (USSS) ascertains distance values on the basis of ultrasonic echoes, which are sensed by at least four ultrasonic sensors, and the ultrasonic sensor system (USSS) ascertains solutions from these distance values by means of a trilateration method and filters each of these solutions by means of a respective Kalman filtering method to form filtered solutions and clusters the filtered solutions by means of a clustering method to form accepted solutions and discards unaccepted un-accepted filtered solutions. [US 2024/0361454] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from examiner should be directed to primary examiner craft is Van Trieu whose telephone number is (571) 2722972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached on (571) 272-3114. 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. /VAN T TRIEU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 03/24/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 27, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599342
PATIENT REQUEST SYSTEM HAVING PATIENT FALLS RISK NOTIFICATION AND CAREGIVER NOTES ACCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599522
PATIENT SUPPORT APPARATUSES WITH WIRELESS HEADWALL COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600320
VEHICLE ANTI-THEFT DEVICE AND METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598449
SYNCHRONIZATION BETWEEN DEVICES IN EMERGENCY VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590772
Method and System for Sensing, Monitoring, Logging and Transmitting Events That Is Assembled on a Firearm
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
84%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+13.0%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1076 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