Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/446,974

Server, Client, Methods and Program Codes

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 06, 2021
Examiner
KIM, DONG U
Art Unit
2197
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
6 (Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
621 granted / 716 resolved
+31.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
743
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
80.6%
+40.6% vs TC avg
§102
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
§112
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 716 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 . This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/1/2026. This Action is made FINAL. Claims 26, 27, 29-31, 33-35 and 37 are pending and they are presented for examination. Response to Amendment Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 26, 27, 29-31, 33-35 and 37 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. 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. Claim(s) 26, 27, 29-31, 33-35 and 37 is/are 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. 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. Claim 26 (similarly claims 30 and 34) recite: “wherein the update message specifies a predefined time to initiate the inactive operation state, wherein the update message further includes information relating to one or more of termination of the inactive operation state or a timeout delay between a pause request and transmitting a new request”. After careful search of the instant specification. The examiner was unable to find any teachings which discloses the above mentioned claim limitation. Claims 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 and 37 are rejected based on rejection of its corresponding dependent claim. The 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. Claim(s) 26, 27, 29-31, 33-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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. Claim 26 (similarly claims 30 and 34) recite: “wherein the update message specifies a predefined time to initiate the inactive operation state, wherein the update message further includes information relating to one or more of termination of the inactive operation state”. The examiner is unclear how the same update message contains information to initiate the inactive operation state and termination of the inactive operation state. Additionally, the examiner is unclear what happens first, the termination of the inactive operation sate or the initiation of the inactive operation state or vice versa. Furthermore, if more than one information relating to the termination of the inactive operation state is present. Is it terminating the operation state of the computing device multiple times? Claims 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 and 37 are rejected based on rejection of its corresponding dependent claim. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DONG U KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1313. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 5712723338. 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. /DONG U KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 11 earlier events
Sep 22, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 04, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 01, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 23, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12681774
CLOUD FITNESS ENGINEERING
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12670004
FAIL-SAFE POST COPY MIGRATION OF CONTAINERIZED APPLICATIONS
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12670030
COMPUTING NETWORKING SYSTEM FOR CONTAINER ORCHESTRATION AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12670022
SERVICES DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT FOR BACKEND SYSTEM INTEGRATION
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12664026
HYPERTUNING A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL MICROSERVICES CONFIGURATION TO OPTIMIZE LATENCY
3y 6m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.9%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 716 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