Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/358,755

DYNAMIC SELECTION AND PRESERVATION OF TID-TO-LINK MAPPING IN MULTI-LINK OPERATIONS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 25, 2023
Priority
May 13, 2023 — IN 202341033811
Examiner
BARRY, LANCE LEONARD
Art Unit
2457
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Cisco Technology Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
339 granted / 402 resolved
+26.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
431
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§103
67.0%
+27.0% vs TC avg
§102
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 402 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 . Information Disclosure Statement Based on the previously filed IDS, Applicant has access to documents filed in PCT/US2024/29166 that are unavailable to the examiner. Applicant is asked to please keep the examiner informed of subsequently filed Office actions in the aforementioned application. 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 1-20 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. Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, the meaning of “least link availability” is unclear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 and Specification Objection The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter that was not described in the original specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the claims 1, 8, and 15, have been amended to recite “least link availability.” The Examiner cannot find support for this limitation. Similarly, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the aforementioned subject matter of claims 1-20. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Other Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20230300663 teaches each TID must be mapped to a link or a link set to ensure that the service flow corresponding to the TID can be transmitted (¶ 12). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630. 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 email the Examiner. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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. /LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Jul 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Oct 31, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Mar 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12671622
ADAPTIVE NETWORK TRACE ANALYSIS USING REFERENCE COMMUNICATION FLOWS
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12647491
Handling Discovery Requests in a Network
1y 11m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12641161
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REAL-TIME REPOSITORY MANAGEMENT FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICE DEPLOYMENT
1y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12634374
TRAFFIC INFLUENCE FOR INITIAL EAS SELECTION
2y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12627630
TECHNIQUES FOR ROTATING SERVICE ENDPOINTS IN PREFAB REGIONS
2y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+4.9%)
2y 10m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 402 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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