Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/626,248

DYNAMIC CACHING OF RESOURCES BY RESOURCE TYPE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Examiner
GOFMAN, ALEX N
Art Unit
2163
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Oracle International Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
369 granted / 538 resolved
+13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
567
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 538 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10, 2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sucharitakul (US Patent 7,454,571) in view of Kohno (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0144853) and further in view of Hassan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0006855). Claims 1, 8 and 15: Sucharitakul discloses a method, a system and a tangible computer program product including a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: operating a database system with caching of resources (Fig. 1, Col 4 ln 51-62). tracking statistics for use and reuse of the resources on a resource type basis (Col 5 ln 1-13). [See at least “monitoring the cache and accumulating statistics as operation continues.”] using the statistics that were tracked for use and reuse of the resources on the resource type basis to adjust the caching of one or more resource types in the database system (Col 7 ln 31-45). [See at least identifying frequently used/reused items and modifying what gets cached.] Sucharitakul alone does not explicitly disclose wherein a resource type for a corresponding resource is specified in a name or metadata of the corresponding resource and individual ones of the statistics represent use or reuse of multiple resources of a respective single resource type. However, Hassan [0033, 0065] discloses at least resource metadata, which identifies at least the resource type. The metadata also includes resource usage. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sucharitakul with Hassan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify which resources to use for running a process. Sucharitakul alone also does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the statistics tracks a number of requests to obtain a lock on one or more of the resources. However, Kohno [0056, 0068, 0076] discloses a lock request counter for specific resources. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sucharitakul with Kohno. One would have been motivated to do so in order to track lock requests for further statistical processing for resources. Claims 2, 9 and 16: Sucharitakul as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and Sucharitakul further discloses wherein the statistics for use and reuse of the resources on the resource type basis comprise at least one of a cache use statistic, a cache reuse statistic, a cleanup statistic, or a cache miss statistic (Col 5 ln 1-13). Claims 3, 10 and 17: Sucharitakul as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Kohno, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the requests to obtain the lock on one or more of the resources comprise convert messages [0056, 0068, 0076]. [Convert messages seem to be at least lock requests (see instant specification at [0045]) Kohno, in at least the cited portions, discloses sending lock requests.] Claims 4, 11 and 18: Sucharitakul as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and Sucharitakul further discloses wherein a counter is maintained that increments when an event corresponding to use or reuse occurs for a resource of a given resource type (Col 7 ln 16-45). [See at least identifying when items are accessed (i.e. used or reused) frequently.] Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sucharitakul (US Patent 7,454,571) in view of Kohno (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0144853) further in view of Hassan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0006855) and further in view of Durbhakula (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0289915) Claims 5, 12 and 19: Sucharitakul discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Sucharitakul alone does not explicitly disclose wherein a reuse rate is calculated for a given resource type over a time interval, and the reuse rate is analyzed to determine whether to adjust the caching for the given resource type. However, Sucharitakul (Col 7 ln 31-45) discloses identifying frequently used/reused items and modifying what gets cached; And Durbhakula [0113] discloses monitoring a hit rate for a cache over a period of time and adjusting a cache based on the rate. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sucharitakul with Durbhakula. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify how frequently items are used in a cache during particular time intervals in order to identify most used items in a cache. Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sucharitakul (US Patent 7,454,571) in view of Kohno (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0144853) further in view of Hassan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0006855) further in view of Durbhakula (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0289915) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0401529). Claims 6, 13 and 20: Sucharitakul discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 5, 12 and 19 above, but Sucharitakul alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the reuse rate is determined by dividing a difference in a reuse counter value from a start of a time interval to an end of the time interval by a number of cached resources for the given resource type. However, Durbhakula [0113] discloses monitoring a hit rate for a cache over a period of time and Zhang [0034] discloses calculating a reuse ratio as “the number of reuses divided by a sum of the reuses and no-reuses such as the value of the reuse field 204 divided by the sum of the reuse field 204 and the no-reuse field.” Furthermore, Zhang, as described earlier, discloses calculating a reuse rate. However, using a particular formula to identify a reuse, but in a different manner may be considered as an obvious variation of identifying a particular attribute (i.e. reuse rate). As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sucharitakul with Durbhakula and Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify cached items. Claims 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sucharitakul (US Patent 7,454,571) in view of Kohno (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0144853) further in view of Hassan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0006855) further in view of Christofferson et al (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0039886) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0333958), hereinafter Zhang 2. Claims 7, 14 and 21: Sucharitakul discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Sucharitakul alone does not explicitly disclose wherein rolling average and standard deviation values for the statistics are used to determine whether to adjust the caching of the resource types in the database system. However, Christofferson [0059] discloses identifying a particular cache statistics using a rolling average; Zhang 2 [0014] further discloses identifying a particular cache statistics using a standard deviation; And Sucharitakul (Col 7 ln 31-45) discloses at least adjusting what gets cached based on statistics. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sucharitakul with Christofferson and Zhang 2. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify what to cache. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5. 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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. /ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 10, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591577
METHOD FOR APPLYING DYNAMIC DATA BLOCK CACHING AUTOMATION FOR HIGH-SPEED DATA ACCESS BASED ON COMPUTATIONAL STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585633
HYBRID SHADOW PAGING FOR STORING A DATABASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579122
USED IDENTIFIER CACHE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12517953
KEYWORD DATA LINKING SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12517910
METHOD FOR STABLE SET SIMILARITY JOINS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+24.6%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 538 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