Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/990,602

CUSTOMIZED INTERACTION BETWEEN NETWORKED RESOURCES AND USERS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 18, 2022
Examiner
ALGIBHAH, MAHER N
Art Unit
2165
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
214 granted / 244 resolved
+32.7% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
260
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 244 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Status of Claims Claims 1-6 remain pending and are ready for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2022 and 02/04/2026, were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-6, line 1 recites “A computer-implemented method of claim 1” and it should be “The computer-implemented method of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammitt et al., U.S. Pub No: US 7200563 B1 (Hereinafter “Hammitt”). Regarding claim 1, Hammitt discloses A computer-implemented method for a customized interaction between networked resources and users (see abstract, wherein a computer-based interpreters system that facilitates tailored (customized) interactions between human operators (users) and various distributed databases and services (networked resources)), the computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a model comprising templated resources (see col.6 line [18-34], wherein business models and domain models act as blueprints (templates) that define how different pieces of enterprise information and services (resources) should be structured); abstracting, grouping, and classifying networked resources into categories using the model, the categories being defined by and conforming to a set of predefined ontologies (see abstract, wherein an ontology, which is in communication with each of the plurality of models, provides uniform definitions for the concepts and relationships between concepts used in the plurality of models. A method for executing an interaction flow model includes receiving an event and categorizing the received event. Once the event is categorized, a situation that matches the categorized received event is identified. One or more tasks are then executed for the situation); instantiating an abstract resource using a concrete resource according to predefined criteria, wherein the abstract resource and/or the concrete resource is selected from the group consisting of an action, a condition, and data (see col.14 line [38-52], wherein concrete objects (states) are treated as instances of abstract concepts.); exchanging information including coordination of a respective information exchange among addressable resources by an event-driven process (see col. 10 line 31-58); mapping the networked resources using a mapping specification including a predefined static specification and/or a dynamic specification (see col.18 line 11-25 and col., wherein mapping service 16b provides the functionality that is required to implement aggregated objects whose attributes and relationships come from multiple physical data sources. Mapping service uses the interfaces of naming service 16a, storage system 16c, schema manager 16d (a schema may be stored in an external storage system), and data model 16f. Storage System 16c defines the abstractions that all resource adapters 102a, 102b, etc. must implement to plug into information system 10 as a data and event resource. Generally, abstractions unify different storage systems along various dimensions. More specifically, the storage system defines unification for connection management, transaction management, security management, interaction management, schema management, event management, and data structure representation.); selecting a subset of concrete conditions and concrete actions from a set of templated concrete conditions and templated concrete actions, according to at least one context selected from the group consisting of: a user profile, type of mapped networked resources, and user defined objectives (See col. 11 line 20-25, wherein based on the categorized events and categorized input data, a situation action is selected and the associated actions are executed. see col.19 line 54-67, wherein operation 302 in which the user's profile is analyzed to ascertain rules to process for the profile. See also col. 20 line 1-19, wherein the optimization algorithm generates a set of products or services that optimizes the remaining found data relative to a goal test, which may be defined by the user); and executing the selected subset of concrete actions according to the respective selected subset of concrete conditions (See also col. 11 line 20-25, wherein based on the categorized events and categorized input data, a situation action is selected and the associated actions are executed. see col.19 line 54-67, wherein operation 302 in which the user's profile is analyzed to ascertain rules to process for the profile. See also col. 20 line 1-19, wherein the optimization algorithm generates a set of products or services that optimizes the remaining found data relative to a goal test, which may be defined by the user). Regarding claim 2, Hammitt further discloses wherein at least one of the predefined criteria is selected from the group consisting of: a specific operational context of a networked resource, a monetary cost of a networked resource, a reputation of a networked resource, and quality of service characteristics of accessing a networked resource (see abstract and col.11 line 7-44, wherein when the system receives an event, it doesn’t just blindly execute a task. It first categorizes the event and identifies the specific situation that matches it. Thus evaluating a situation before executing a task is functionally identical to evaluate a specific operational context). Regarding claim 3, Hammitt further discloses wherein the event-driven process has a capability of using a dynamic exchange and/or an ad-hoc exchange (see col.10 line 55-58, wherein the ability to specify interaction in a model driven process supports dynamic and ad-hoc exchange). Regarding claim 4, Hammitt further discloses wherein the event-driven process is configured to use input and output plugins as interaction endpoints (see col.18 line 15-21, wherein in standard software engineering, a database adapter that handles I/O for external resource is identical to an input and output plugins). Regarding claim 5, Hammitt further discloses wherein the event-driven process is configured to enable ad-hoc interaction scenarios to enact at a run time and the interaction scenarios comprise essential resources (see col.10 line 55-58 and see abstract and col.11 line 7-44). Regarding claim 6, Hammitt further discloses wherein the subset of concrete conditions and the subset concrete actions are part of a goal model (see col.13 line 20-26). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0718. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday. 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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1264. 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. /MAHER N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2165
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602441
Self-Supervised Learning through Data Augmentation for Recommendation Systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602366
DISTRIBUTED TABLE LOCK APPLICATION METHODS, APPARATUSES, STORAGE MEDIA, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602405
CROSS-PLATFORM CONTENT MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602360
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO ESTIMATE AUDIENCE SIZES OF MEDIA USING DEDUPLICATION BASED ON BINOMIAL SKETCH DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591585
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADVANCED ENTERPRISE DATA STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
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
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 244 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