Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/153,308

CONCURRENT SONIFICATION OF MULTIPLE DATA STREAMS

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Jan 11, 2023
Examiner
SCHREIBER, CHRISTINA MARIE
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Collegenet Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
768 granted / 963 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
996
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§102
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 963 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 . 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 22-24 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 22, line 9, the recitation “musical tones for multiple data sets” is indefinite. It is unclear whether these “multiple data sets” are related to, or include, the previously recited “plurality of data sets” or “each data set”. Please clarify the correlation between data sets. Claims 23 and 24 depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitation outlined above. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-7 recite determining, selecting and presenting data. These limitations of determining, selecting and presenting, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and includes no the recitation of computer/processing components or presentation means. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining, selecting and presenting data. These limitations, as drafted, are instructions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance or functionality of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer implemented method”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer implemented” language, “determining” in the context of the claims encompass the user manually calculating or constructing elements. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – computer implemented. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-21 are believed to be allowable. After a thorough search and consideration of the prior art, no references could be found, which teach, or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, all the claimed elements of the present invention. The closest prior art found at this time, are the references to Childs, Jr. et al. (WO 2004/012055 A2; 7,138,575; 7,511,213; 7,629,528), Mahadevan et al. (US 2022/0319525) and Goldstein et al. (US 2008/0046246). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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. /CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 02/27/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 11, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586554
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO EXTRACT A PITCH-INDEPENDENT TIMBRE ATTRIBUTE FROM A MEDIA SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580985
ELEVATOR SYSTEM WITH A MULTIPURPOSE EDGE-GATEWAY AND METHOD FOR DATA COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565401
ELEVATOR SWITCH MONITORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565402
MULTI-CAR ELEVATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567395
MUSIC GENERATION METHOD, MUSIC GENERATION APPARATUS AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.3%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 963 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