Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/566,640

METHOD FOR ACCELERATED COMPUTATION OF DATA AND RELATED APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 02, 2023
Examiner
SUN, CHARLIE
Art Unit
2198
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Suzhou MetaBrain Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
440 granted / 484 resolved
+35.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
507
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 484 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8, and 17-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 1, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale (US 2021/0357267 ) (hereinafter Beale) in view of Zhu et al (US 2023/0168919) (hereinafter Zhu). As per claim 1, Beale teaches: A method for accelerated computation of data, comprising: acquiring, by an accelerating device, computation acceleration control information from a memory of a host (Beale, [0002]—under BRI, acquiring computation acceleration control information can acquiring a first processor state from register grouping A); acquiring, based on the input parameter address information, parameters to be computed from the memory of the host (Beale, [0002]—under BRI, acquiring, based on the input parameter address information, parameters to be computed from the memory of the host can be acquiring data from register grouping A); and controlling, based on the computation configuration information, a computation unit to perform a computation operation on the parameters to be computed, and obtaining a computation result (Beale, [0002]). Beale does not expressly teach: wherein the computation acceleration control information comprises input parameter address information and computation configuration information; However, Zhu discloses: wherein the computation acceleration control information comprises input parameter address information and computation configuration information (Zhu, [0009]); Both Zhu and Beale pertain to the art of processor configuration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Zhu’s method to use input parameter address information and computation configuration information because it is well-known in the art that using input parameter address information and computation configuration information has the benefit of controlling system in run time to avoid static configuration and restart costs. As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 1. As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 1. As per claim 14, Beale/Zhu teaches: The method for accelerated computation of data according to claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the computation acceleration control information is information data for managing and controlling a process of the accelerating device (Beale, [0002]—under BRI, a process of the accelerating device can be the act of process data). As per claim 15, Beale/Zhu teaches: The method for accelerated computation of data according to claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1 ) , wherein the input parameter address information is used to determine an address of an input parameter in the host (Zhu, [0009]). As per claim 16, Beale/Zhu teaches: The method for accelerated computation of data according to claim 1(see rejection on claim 1) , wherein the computation configuration information is information for configuring a computation process (Beale, [0002]). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale/Zhu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keely et al (US 2023/0195664 ) (hereinafter Keely). As per claim 9, Beale/Zhu teaches: The method for accelerated computation of data according to claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1). Beale/Zhu does not expressly teach: further comprising: sending an interrupt signal to the host when the writing of the computation result completes. However, Keely discloses: further comprising: sending an interrupt signal to the host when the writing of the computation result completes (Keely, [0068]). Both Keely and Beale/Zhu pertain to the art of memory access. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Keely’s method to interrupt a host after writing of the computation result completes because it is well-known in the art that interrupt enables the system to perform other tasks while waiting for the write to complete, thus reducing latency and improving overall system performance Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10664181 teaches a method of using in memory configuration registers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM. 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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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. /CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 02, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596586
MANAGING STATE OF DISTRIBUTED CLOUD ENVIRONMENT IN PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596577
RESOURCE PROVISIONING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596587
CLOUD DISTRIBUTED DATABASE CAPACITY PLANNING AND ADJUSTMENT USING TIME-SERIES DATA ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596588
Edge Computing Method and System, Edge Device and Control Server
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596589
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WORKLOAD MANAGEMENT BETWEEN HARDWARE COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 484 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