Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/400,560

WORKFLOW EXECUTION STATE VARIABLES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Priority
Sep 14, 2020 — provisional 62/706,866 +3 more
Examiner
PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW
Art Unit
2183
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Box Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
624 granted / 781 resolved
+24.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
817
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.5%
+17.5% vs TC avg
§102
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 781 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/2026 has been entered. The office acknowledges the following papers: IDS filed on 4/24/2026. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are allowed. Claim 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites “an application-dependent workflow variable” at line 3 of the claim. Claims 11 and 18 recite similar limitations. Claim 1 introduces the “an application-dependent workflow variable” at line 6 of the claim. It’s unclear if these two elements are supposed to be the same or different variables. If the same, then claim 4 should be amended to show antecedent basis. If different, then claim 4 should be amended (e.g. “a second application-dependent workflow variable”). Claim 5 recites “an application-dependent workflow variable” at line 2 of the claim. Claims 12 and 19 recite similar limitations. Claim 1 introduces the “an application-dependent workflow variable” at line 6 of the claim. It’s unclear if these two elements are supposed to be the same or different variables. If the same, then claim 5 should be amended to show antecedent basis. If different, then claim 5 should be amended (e.g. “a second application-dependent workflow variable”). Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected due to their dependency. Conclusion The following is text cited from 37 CFR 1.111(c): In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A. PETRANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5988. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on (571) 270-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JACOB PETRANEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Oct 24, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2024
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 24, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12748722
COMPUTE IN-MEMORY ARCHITECTURE FOR CONTINUOUS ON-CHIP LEARNING
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12748625
LOCAL LAUNCH IN WORKGROUP PROCESSORS
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12748592
PROCESSOR EMBEDDED STREAMING BUFFER
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12724610
SIMULATION APPARATUS, SIMULATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM
1y 7m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12717583
PROCESSOR MACRO-OPERATION FUSION
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 25, 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
80%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+8.6%)
3y 9m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 781 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