Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/226,527

NEURAL ARCHITECTURE SEARCH

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 26, 2023
Examiner
STEINLE, ANDREW J
Art Unit
2497
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
479 granted / 547 resolved
+29.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
564
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.2%
+6.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 547 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4 and 19 of U.S. Patent 11,030,523. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because aside from a few minor differences, these claims contain the same limitations and perform the same functions. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be in condition for allowance if the Double Patenting rejection was obviated for Claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 17. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, the closest prior art of record, Andreas ("Learning to Compose Neural Networks for Question Answering", https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.01705v3.pdf, arXiv: 1601.01605v4 [cs.CL] 7 June 2016, pp. 1-10) (Year: 2016), Young et al ("Optimizing Deep Learning Hyper-Parameters Through an Evolutionary Algorithm", MLH PC2015, November 15-20, 2015, Austin, Tx, pp. 2-15) (Year: 2015), He et al. ("identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networks", https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05027, arXiv:1603.05027v3 [cs.CV] 25 July 2016, pp. 1-15 (Year: 2016), and Jozefowicz et al ("An Empirical Exploration of Recurrent Network, Architectures", 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Lille France, 6-11 July, 2015, pp. 1-9) (Year: 2015) teaches A method performed by one or more computers, comprising: determining, using a controller, a plurality of respective architectures of a child neural network that is configured to perform a particular neural network task; for each respective architecture in the plurality of respective architectures: to perform the particular neural network task; and after the training, determining, based on evaluating a performance of the trained instance of the child neural network, a performance metric for the trained instance of the child neural network on the particular neural network task; and using the performance metrics for the trained instances of the child neural network to adjust the controller. However, the references do not explicitly teach nor suggest in detail, training an instance of the child neural network having the respective architecture on training data that includes a plurality of training inputs each associated with a respective target training output using validation data that includes one or more different training inputs than the training data in view of other limitations of the intervening claims. Thus the prior arts of record taking singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the above-stated limitations taking wholly in combination with all the elements of each independent claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J STEINLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm CT. 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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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. /ANDREW J STEINLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598068
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HANDLING ENCRYPTED DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596771
SECURE ENFORCEMENT OF DIGITAL RIGHTS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592817
Message Service with Distributed Key Caching for Server-Side Encryption
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591680
TRUST-CHAIN BASED ADAPTABLE TELEMETRY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587365
SECRET MANAGEMENT IN DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.5%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 547 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