Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/722,022

SUSTAINABILITY-AWARE DEVICE CONFIGURATION VISIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 15, 2022
Examiner
RASHID, WISSAM
Art Unit
2195
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
572 granted / 654 resolved
+32.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
679
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 654 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 is a Non-Final Office Action responsive to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed 12/30/2025. Claims 8-13 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2020/0372588) in view of Bailey et al. (US 2005/0120111). With respect to claim 8, Shi discloses: A method for generating a sustainability utilization metric associated with a computing device, the method comprising: capturing, by a sensor of the computing device, a device utilization data at least during a time segment of a predetermined time period (Abstract, [0024], where “power quantity” and “data/time” corresponds to “device utilization data” and “time segment of a predetermined time period”, [0023], where “grid monitoring device” corresponds to “sensor”) according to a predetermined sustainability forecast of the computing device for the predetermined time period ([0063] where “predetermined sustainability forecast” corresponds to “machine learning algorithm”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the training data from the predetermined time is captured/stored in accordance to a format that is used by the machine language algorithm); and presenting, to a user of the computing device through a graphical user interface, a visual indication of the sustainability utilization metric in conjunction with at least a part of the sustainability forecast, wherein the sustainability utilization metric is converted into graphical form (Figs. 8-11, where the dashed lines in Fig. 9 correspond to “sustainability forecast”. The graph itself corresponds to the “utilization metric”. According to the claim language the “utilization metric” is based on converting various captured data and forecasted data into “graphical form”). Shi does not specifically disclose: generating the sustainability utilization metric for the computing device based on both the device utilization data and a sustainability forecast entry of the sustainability forecast during the time segment. However, Bailey discloses: generating the sustainability utilization metric for the computing device based on both the device utilization data and a sustainability forecast entry of the sustainability forecast during the time segment ([0104]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bailey to ensure analysis of resource usage of a large number of computer systems does not have to be done manually which can be burdensome, thereby improving efficiency by incorporating Baileys resource usage reporting system. With respect to claim 9, Shi discloses: wherein the generated sustainability utilization metric is presented in conjunction with at least a part of the sustainability forecast (Fig. 9). With respect to claim 10, Shi discloses: wherein the visual indication comprises includes a divider and the generated sustainability utilization metric is presented on a first side of the divider and the part of the sustainability forecast is presented on a second side of the divider (Fig. 9, “actual” and “forecasted” impacts are illustrated separately and the separation space is interpreted as the divider. The first and second side is relative to the separation space. If one is side is labeled the first, then the other is the second and vice versa). With respect to claim 11, Shi discloses: wherein the captured determined device utilization includes an energy consumption of the computing device during the time segment and the sustainability forecast entry includes an estimated environmental impact associated with energy consumption (Fig. 9, carbon intensity corresponds to “impact”). With respect to claim 12, Shi discloses: wherein obtaining the sustainability forecast comprises: providing, to a sustainability platform, a sustainability forecast request; and receiving, from the sustainability platform, the sustainability forecast request for an energy grid associated with the computing device ([0021]). With respect to claim 13, Shi discloses: wherein the visual indication of the generated sustainability utilization metric is presented as one of: an indication on a lock screen of the computing device; a notification to the user; or an indication via a settings user interface (Fig. 9 “user interface”). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm. 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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. /WISSAM RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 22, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 29, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 29, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603762
DATA TRANSFER USING A VIRTUAL TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591443
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING PARTICIPATION IN A BLOCKCHAIN ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591454
PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING DATA TO A PLURALITY OF PROCESSING UNITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578991
PARALLEL PROCESSING ARCHITECTURE WITH DISTRIBUTED REGISTER FILES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572392
FLEXIBLE PARTITIONING OF GPU RESOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.3%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 654 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