Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/465,916

ATTENTION-BASED DEEP REINFORCEMENT LEARNING FOR AUTONOMOUS AGENTS

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Sep 12, 2023
Examiner
SHUDY, ANGELINA M
Art Unit
3668
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Amazon Technologies, Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
349 granted / 455 resolved
+24.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
485
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§103
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§102
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 455 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 . Response to Arguments Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection, the previous 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in light of the present claim amendments. Regarding the previous Double Patenting rejection, Applicant’s arguments, page 8, filed 03/17/2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicants argue that “Applicant respectfully requests that these rejections be held in abeyance for the time being, until some subject matter is indicated to be otherwise allowable in the present application, at which time Applicant will consider whether or not a terminal disclaimer should be submitted”. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner called and left voicemails, on 25 March 2026, to Applicants’ representatives, Mr. Robert Kowert, Reg. No. 39255, and Mr. Scott Waite, Reg. No. 61829. No responses from Applicants’ representatives were received. Accordingly, the previous Double Patenting rejection is maintained. 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 21-24, 27-31, 34-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,900,244. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite similar subject matter with minor variations. Conclusion 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 ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm. 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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. Angelina Shudy Primary Examiner Art Unit 3668 /Angelina M Shudy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 19, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Aug 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 22, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 02, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 02, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 17, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600359
TARGET OBJECT SELECTION FOR A LONGITUDINAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM AND ELECTRONIC VEHICLE GUIDANCE SYSTEM OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591243
PATH DETERMINATION FOR AUTOMATIC MOWERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583456
PROBABILISTIC DRIVING BEHAVIOR MODELING SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583446
Systems and Methods to Determine a Lane Change Strategy at a Merge Region
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570280
VEHICLE COMPRISING VEHICLE CONTROL APPARATUS
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+9.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 455 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