Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/978,347

INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 12, 2024
Examiner
ULLAH, ARIF
Art Unit
3625
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
157 granted / 338 resolved
-5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+37.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
387
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§103
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§102
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§112
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 338 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Double Patenting The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,991 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. Claims of instant App. dated 12/12/2024 Claims of US Pat. No. 12,210,991 Independent claim 1 Independent claims 15 Independent claim 1 Independent claim 13 The apparatus (claim 1) of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,991 is configured with the functionality to perform the corresponding functions described by the apparatus (claim 1) of the instant application. The system (claim 13) of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,991 are configured with the functionality to perform the corresponding functions described by the system (claim 15) of the instant application. The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent 12,210,991 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of corresponding claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences. Accordingly, claims 1 and 15 of the instant application would have been deemed obvious in view of the above-noted claims of the ‘676 patent since "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." See In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tan; Huan. SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR ROBOTIC AUTONOMOUS MOTION PLANNING AND NAVIGATION, .U.S. PGPub 20190219409 The subject matter disclosed herein relates to task planning and navigation of a robot in an occupied environment. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”)./Arif Ullah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12572860
EXTRACTION OF ACTIONABLE INSIGHTS THROUGH ANALYSIS OF UNSTRUCTURED COMPUTER TEXT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12555049
RIDE REQUEST MAP DISPLAYING UNDISCOVERED AREAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12536557
RISK ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12505461
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RECOGNIZING USER SHOPPING INTENT AND UPDATING A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12499457
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR PREDICTING RENTAL VEHICLE USE PREFERENCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+37.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 338 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