Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/062,183

INTELLIGENT CONTENT DELIVERY FACILITATION WITH EDGE COMPUTING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 06, 2022
Examiner
KIM, HEE SOO
Art Unit
2443
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
430 granted / 545 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -0% lift
Without
With
+-0.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
579
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 545 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to application filed on December 6th, 2022. Claims 1~18 are examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/22 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1~4, 7~10, and 13~16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cui et al. hereinafter Cui (U.S 2022/0294656). Regarding Claim 1, Cui taught a method comprising collecting, by an intelligent agent, a user activity data set, with the user activity data set including information indicative of current and historical scheduled activities for a first set of users [¶33, calendar data, global positioning system (GPS) data, directional data, and/or historical location trends]; determining, by a machine learning module, a content consumption schedule for the first set of users [¶44, based on the voice, schedule, and the historical usage data, predicting a time for a utilization of the application by the user equipment in relation to the scheduled meeting, and a location for the utilization of the application by the user equipment in relation to the scheduled meeting], responsive to the determination of the content consumption schedule, receiving, by the intelligent agent, a set of content data, with the set of content data including information indicative of relevant information that will be utilized by the first set of users [¶63, edge node 208 can receive data from the UE 102 such as historical use of applications and content, and then send, via the cloud server 204, the predicted future location (e.g., 123 Airport Dr.) and/or predicted situation (e.g., wait for flight) to the edge node 402 for use at the time the user will be at that location; ¶44]; determining, by the intelligent agent, that a first user will perform a first action at a first point in time [¶63, predict one or more applications and/or one or more content files from the user's content that the user will most likely want or need to access at a destination (e.g., the airport)], and sending, by the intelligent agent, the first set of content data to a first edge gateway at the first point in time [¶65, Fig. 4 example, at time t1, when the UE 102 is at/near the edge node 208, the display screen of the UE can display mobile applications and/or content that are of use to the UE 102 at that time (e.g., route guidance to the airport, books to read at the airport, travel itinerary, boarding pass, etc.). However, mobile applications and/or content that the user is predicted to use at/near the edge node 216 can be pre-positioned at the edge node 216 for access during his pitch time. Accordingly, once the edge node 216 is in communication with the UE 102, the edge node 216 can send the UE 102 a modification request to modify the screen (e.g., home screen) of the UE 102 at time t2 such that the content (e.g., the pitch) is more readily accessible for the user during the time of the pitch]. Regarding Claim 2, Cui taught wherein the content consumption schedule for the first set of users includes information indicative of a plurality of time periods where at least one user of the first set of users accessed content during a scheduled activity [¶63, maintain historical usage data, profile data, and other data for the user of the UE 102. When the cloud server 204 receives the data from edge node 208, it can use the data to predict one or more applications and/or one or more content files from the user's content that the user will most likely want or need to access at a destination]. Regarding Claim 3, Cui taught wherein the intelligent agent sends the first set of content data to an edge gateway that is physically close to a location in which the first set of users will perform the first action [¶34, a predicted situation can include a predicted type of location (e.g., conference room, home, airplane, hospital)]. Regarding Claim 4, Cui taught wherein the intelligent agent sends the first set of content data to an edge gateway that is regularly accessed by the first set of users [¶34, a predicted situation can include a predicted type of location (e.g., home)]. Regarding Claims 7~10 and 13~16, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~4 respectively and therefore, rejected under the same rationale. 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. Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Athas et al. hereinafter Athas (U.S 2015/0254557). Regarding Claim 5, Cui-Athas taught wherein the intelligent agent receives a set of recommended content for consumption by the first set of users from an origin content request server based, at least in part, upon a current location of the first set of users [¶38, the recommendation platform 101 processes content usage or access patterns to determine popularity data or traction for content items under specific contexts (e.g., location). The system 100 enables users to be able to receive contextual content suggestions by way of the recommendation platform 101]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Athas’s teaching with the teachings of Cui, because the combination would enable efficient content suggestion and discovery [Athas: ¶4]. Regarding Claim 6, Cui-Athas taught the origin content request server acts as a proxy to receive the first set of content data and send it to a network of edge gateways [¶42, the proxy server 103 detects the access by the UEs 109 by, for instance, receiving requests from the proxy clients 111 to route communication traffic to the intended communication endpoints providing associated content items or links. In addition, the proxy server 103 can route return communication traffic from the communication endpoints to the any of the proxy clients 111 and/or UEs 109]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 5, applies here as well. Regarding Claims 11, 12, 17, and 18, the claims are similar in scope to claims 5 and 6 respectively and therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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. /HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592968
Cloud-based deception technology with granular scoring for breach detection
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587522
DATA CLASSIFICATION LABEL MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587573
REPORTING OF DELTA CHANNEL QUALITY INDICATOR (CQI)-MODULATION AND CODING SCHEME (MCS) INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579296
DATA SECURITY TRANSACTIONS USING SOFTWARE CONTAINER MACHINE READABLE CONFIGURATION DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574245
HEALTHCARE DATA MANAGEMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS USING HASH VALUES ON CLOUD SERVER
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (-0.1%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 545 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