Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/300,590

MANAGING COMPUTING WORKLOADS AT AN INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 14, 2023
Examiner
WU, QING YUAN
Art Unit
2199
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Dell Products L.P.
OA Round
2 (Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
687 granted / 758 resolved
+35.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
775
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
§103
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 758 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17-18 and 20 are pending in the application. Specification The amendment to the disclosure as well as the original disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: configuration rules as shown in Fig. 3 is recited in plural, such that the recitations of “the configuration rule 336” [paragraph 74] and “a configuration rule 336” [paragraphs 59, 61 and 70] should read --the configuration rules 336-- or if referring to a particular instance, --one of the configuration rules 336--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1, 4, 11, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: As to claims 1, 4, 11, 14 and 20 - all references to “the characteristics” should read --the one or more characteristics--. As to claims 1, 11 and 20 – semicolon at the end of the step “in response to the execution of the additional workload at the information handling system” should be replace with a colon such that subsequent steps further indented under this step are further limits the step. Appropriate correction is required. 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 5, 7-8, 15 and 17-18 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. The following lack antecedent basis: Claims 5 and 15 – lines 6 and 8, "the audio workload”. Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected based on dependencies. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4, 10-14 and 20 are allowed. Claims 5, 7-8, 15 and 17-18 are allowable by overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Characterizing audio/video streaming related workloads in training ML models and ensuring synchronization of audio and video was disclosed in US Patent 10,904,488. The prior arts of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole, the limitation of “automatically increasing the speed of the fan…while maintaining synchronization of the audio stream to a corresponding video stream” as a whole as recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 20. Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claims 1, 11 and 20 as a whole. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 2/17/26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In the remarks, Applicant argued in substance that: Applicant has amended the specification, hence the objection is moot. Amendment to or cancellation of claims 5-6, 9, 15-16 and 19 render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) moot. Examiner respectfully traversed Applicant's remarks: As to point (a), the examiner further clarifies that the reference number “336” refers to a plurality of “rules” such that the amendment to the specification failed to address the objection in its entirety. As to point (b), applicant’s amendment failed to address the rejection in its entirety, therefore portion of the rejection that have not been addressed is maintained by the examiner. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST. 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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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. /QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 14, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 07, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 16, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 17, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596560
HETEROMORPHIC I/O DISCOVERY AND HANDSHAKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596579
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ACCELERATING APPLICATION PERFORMANCE IN SOLID STATE DRIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585256
Software Defined Automation System and Architecture
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585505
EXCESS CAPACITY GRID FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MACHINE LEARNING, AND LOWER PRIORITY PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572383
REPORT REEXECUTION FRAMEWORK
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 758 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month