Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/162,564

EFFICIENT GRAPH QUERY PROJECTIONS ON TOP OF PROPERTY VALUE STORAGE SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 29, 2021
Examiner
CONYERS, DAWAUNE A
Art Unit
2152
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Oracle International Corporation
OA Round
6 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
341 granted / 522 resolved
+10.3% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
543
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§103
58.4%
+18.4% vs TC avg
§102
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 522 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 12, 2025 has been entered. Status of Claims Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-22 are pending and rejected in the application. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Regarding claims 1 and 12 the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations “when the lazy materialization buffer is filled with data: performing storage access operations to retrieve one or more properties corresponding to entries in said lazy materialization buffer; and generating at least part of a result for the path pattern expression based on the first data structure and the lazy materialization buffer” are not found in the specification. Thus, claims 1, 9, and 17 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-11 depends from rejected claim 1 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 1 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection. Claims 13-22 depends from rejected claim 12 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 12 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection. Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Regarding claims 1 and 12 the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitations “when the lazy materialization buffer is filled with data: performing storage access operations to retrieve one or more properties corresponding to entries in said lazy materialization buffer; and generating at least part of a result for the path pattern expression based on the first data structure and the lazy materialization buffer” are not found in the specification. Thus, claims 1 and 12 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-11 depends from rejected claim 1 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 1 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection. Claims 13-22 depends from rejected claim 12 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 12 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Katzenberger et al. U.S. Patent (12,153,900) teaches data buffering in reusable buffer arrays. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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. /DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 November 15, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 29, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 02, 2022
Response Filed
Jun 08, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
Nov 07, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 10, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 07, 2023
Response Filed
May 10, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 16, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 16, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 15, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 15, 2023
Notice of Allowance
Sep 29, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 30, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 23, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Feb 23, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 26, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602263
TRANSPARENT DATA TRANSFORMATION AND ACCESS FOR WORKLOADS IN CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602437
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596718
PREDICTIVE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SEARCH AND SELECTION TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591857
MAINTENANCE HISTORY VISUALIZER TO FACILITATE SOLVING INTERMITTENT PROBLEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579134
DATABASE QUERY GENERATION AND AUTOMATED SEQUENCING OF QUERY RESULTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 522 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