Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/100,574

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SECURING DATA CLONING AND SHARING OPTIONS ON DATA WAREHOUSES

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Jan 24, 2023
Examiner
PLECHA, THADDEUS J
Art Unit
2438
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Theom Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
548 granted / 631 resolved
+28.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
644
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
§103
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§102
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
§112
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on January 24, 2023. Claims 1-7 are pending and addressed below. Specification For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Specification submitted on January 24, 2023 has been accepted. Drawings For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Drawings submitted on January 24, 2023 have been accepted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “the data asset” in several places in the last limitation. There are two previously recited data assets and it is unclear as to which particular data asset the limitation is referring. Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claim 1 without further remedying the indefinite language. Claim 3 recites the limitations “the data base” and “the data warehouse”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the data asset”. There are two previously recited data assets and it is unclear as to which particular data asset the limitation is referring. Dependent claims 6-7 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claim 5 without further remedying the indefinite language. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the data asset”. There are two previously recited data assets and it is unclear as to which particular data asset the limitation is referring. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 1 is directed towards a system comprising a clone determiner engine, the engine comprising various parts. An “engine” is well-known in the art as a software term. Neither the claims nor the instant specification define the “engine” as hardware. Since the system only comprises the “engine”, the claim is considered to be directed towards software per se and is non-statutory. Applicant may overcome this rejection by adding a specific piece of hardware (e.g. memory or CPU) to store/run the engine. Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected for failing to further define parent claim 1 as statutory. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein the timestamp analyzer engine determines the data asset is a primary asst or a secondary asset… wherein the fingerprints analyzer then uses the fingerprints to determine that the data asset is the clone data asset of an already known asset in conjunction with an output of the timestamp analyzer engine and the log data analyzer”. The closest prior art made of record are: Taylor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0050601) which discloses determining if a file is an original or duplicate based on a hash (paragraphs [0005], [0049] and claim 5) Bateman (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0037133) which discloses fingerprinting a video for later verification on whether a video is a copy (Abstract) Barrett et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0004582) which discloses using a timestamp and hash as identifiers for original data (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]) While the prior art does generally disclose determining if a file is original or a copy using hashes and verification using hashes/timestamps, the prior art was not found to disclose the particular cited claim limitations. Therefore, claim 1 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Dependent claims 2-7 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on their dependency. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30. 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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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. /THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592943
SESSION ANALYSIS FOR IDENTITY POSTURE MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587370
IDENTIFIERS FOR COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF GROUPS OF INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562926
Method to Validate Application Programming Interface (API) leveraging Non fungible Token (NFT)
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563031
APPARATUS, METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12561429
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATIC GRADING, IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MAPPING TO THE CIA TRIAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 631 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