Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 23, 2026
Application No. 18/600,843

QUANTUM MIRROR MODE FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) MODELS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 11, 2024
Examiner
HAN, JOSEP
Art Unit
2122
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Bank of America Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allowance Rate
13 granted / 27 resolved
-6.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
61
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 27 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 . Detailed Action The following action is in response to the communication(s) received on 03/11/2024. As of the claims filed 03/11/2024: Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent 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 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. Claims 1, 11, and 18 recite details for one of the conditional embodiment “and when the hash of the first output and the hash of the second output are not identical,” which include “pausing…; identifying…; deleting…; resuming…; and mirroring….” However, the claims do not provide disclosure for the alternate embodiment in the event when the hashes of the first and second outputs are identical. Additionally, the claims further recite, “identifying a latest timestamp when a hash of the first output and a hash of the second output are identical,” which suggest there was a point in time when the hashes were identical, but as mentioned above, there is no disclosure in what the claims perform in this embodiment. At least for these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claims are indefinite. Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency on their respective parent claims identified as indefinite. Claims 2 and 12 recite, “and when the AI-based operation/search ends, collapsing the quantum circuit.” Similarly to above, the disclosure does not reveal what the claimed invention does in the alternate embodiment when the AI-based operation does not end. Claims 2 and 12 also fail to disclose the metes and bounds of the invention and thus are indefinite. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency on their respective parent claims identified as indefinite. Claims 10 and 17 recite, “adding a quantum circuit to a quantum thread when a hashing task has a duration that is longer than a threshold duration; and adding a quantum thread when a hashing task has a volume that is greater than a threshold volume.” Similarly to above, the disclosure does not reveal what the claimed invention does in the alternate embodiment when the hashing task does not have a volume that is greater than a threshold volume. For these reasons, Claims 10 and 17 also fail to disclose the metes and bounds of the invention and thus are indefinite. Additionally, since the metes and bounds of the invention could not be determined for the reasons provided above, the art rejection analysis could not be performed on claims 1-20. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEP HAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1346. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Kakali Chaki can be reached on (571) 272-3719. 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. /J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2122 /MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 11, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12737435
DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS VIA PROTOTYPE FACTORIZATION
4y 10m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12718087
DEEP LEARNING SOFTWARE MODEL MODIFICATION
5y 0m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12705465
METHOD FOR OPERATING NEURAL NETWORK
4y 3m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12688425
PREDICTION OF CLASSIFICATION OF AN UNKNOWN INPUT BY A TRAINED NEURAL NETWORK
4y 11m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12651042
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MACHINE LEARNING FAIRNESS TESTING
4y 8m to grant Granted Jun 09, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+11.0%)
4y 2m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 27 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