Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/533,818

DETECTING LATENCY THROUGH INDEX INGESTION PIPELINE TO IMPROVE SEARCH

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
CHERY, MARDOCHEE
Art Unit
2133
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
773 granted / 873 resolved
+33.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
886
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.1%
+4.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 873 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 18/533,818 CTNF 80576 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilko (US 20170199989) and Azam (US12099515) . Regarding claim 1, Lilko discloses a computer implemented method, comprising: generating an index request to perform an indexing operation based on a change to content in a content computing system [FIG. 4: integration services, unified index, indexer, ingestion pipeline]; providing the index request to a first processing component in an index ingestion pipeline [FIG. 4, 7: Indexer through ingestion pipeline]; performing a first processing operation at the first processing component [FIG. 7: perform search at search system]. Lilko does not explicitly disclose a processing timestamp. Azam, however, discloses generating a first processing timestamp at the first processing component, the first processing timestamp indicating a time when the index request is received at the first processing component [FIG. 5: add time stamp to data to generate time series data]; providing the first processing timestamp and request data from the index request to a subsequent processing component in the index ingestion pipeline [FIG. 3: Data ingestion layer]; performing a subsequent processing operation at the subsequent processing component [FIG. 3: trigger processing stored time series]; generating a subsequent processing timestamp at the subsequent processing component, the subsequent processing timestamp indicating a time when the request data from the index request is received at the subsequent processing component [FIG. 6: generate more time stamp, adjust time stamp]; and generating an action signal based on the first timestamp and the subsequent timestamp [FIG. 6: take actions based on the time stamp added and adjusted]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a processing timestamp being generated in order to determine and detect anomalies in data (Col. 1: 5-15). Regarding claim 2, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein generating an action signal comprises: generating a latency output indicative of a latency in processing the index request at the first processing component and a latency in processing the index request at the subsequent processing component [Col. 13: 1-25]. Regarding claim 3, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein generating an index request comprises: detecting a set of properties of the change to the content in the content computing system [FIG. 5]; and generating the index request to include the set of properties [FIG. 6]. Regarding claim 4, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3 wherein detecting a set of properties comprises: detecting an event object type property indicative of whether the change to the content is based on an action performed on an individual content item or an action performed on a set of a plurality of content items [FIG. 6]. Regarding claim 5, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3 wherein detecting a set of properties comprises: detecting an event identifier property identifying an action that resulted in the change to the content [FIG. 3]. Regarding claim 6, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3 wherein detecting a set of properties comprises: detecting an event type property indicative of a type of action that triggered generating the index request to perform the indexing operation [FIG. 4]. Regarding claim 7, Lilko discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3 wherein detecting a set of properties comprises: detecting a priority property indicative of a priority of the indexing operation [Paragraph 95, 101]. Regarding claim 8, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3 wherein detecting a set of properties comprises: detecting a partition identification property identifying a location in the content computing system where the change to the content occurred [FIG. 5]. Regarding claim 9, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 3 wherein generating an index request comprises: detecting an initial timestamp indicative of a time when the detected change was made [FIG. 3]; and generating the index request including the initial timestamp [FIG. 6]. Regarding claim 10, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 2 wherein generating an action signal comprises: generating a reconfiguration step based on the latency output, the reconfiguration step identifying a step for reconfiguring a selected component, of the first component and the subsequent component, is to be reconfigured to improve latency in the selected component [Col. 13: 1-25]. Regarding claim 11, Azam discloses the computer implemented method of claim 2 wherein generating an action signal comprises: generating an alert signal indicating that a component, of the first component and the subsequent component, has a latency that is a threshold value above a desired latency value [Col. 13: 1-25]. Regarding claims 12-20, the rationale in the rejection of claims 1-11 is herein incorporated . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stumpe et al. (US 20220261668) discloses an index pipeline ingests, updates and processes data . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARDOCHEE CHERY whose telephone number is (571)272-4246. The examiner can normally be reached 900-500. 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, Rocio del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at (571) 270-5935. 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. /MARDOCHEE CHERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133 Application/Control Number: 18/533,818 Page 2 Art Unit: 2133 Application/Control Number: 18/533,818 Page 3 Art Unit: 2133 Application/Control Number: 18/533,818 Page 4 Art Unit: 2133 Application/Control Number: 18/533,818 Page 5 Art Unit: 2133
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602318
MEMORY CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602319
MEMORY SYSTEM EXECUTING FLUSH COMMAND AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING NONVOLATILE MEMORY UPON RECEIVING FLUSH COMMAND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597454
MEMORY CONTROL COMPONENT WITH INTER-RANK SKEW TOLERANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591384
HOST-ENABLED BLOCK SWAP TECHNIQUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585407
EFFICIENT ERROR SIGNALING BY MEMORY
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 (+10.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 873 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