Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/628,891

ONLINE CODE COMPILATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 08, 2024
Examiner
WANG, RONGFA PHILIP
Art Unit
2199
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
454 granted / 536 resolved
+29.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
554
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
§103
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 536 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Detail Action This office action is in response to the application filed on 4/8/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirkazemi et al. (US 2007/0055964 A1) in view of Boyd (“Getting started with JavaScript Source Maps” Posted Feb 28, 2014, retrieved on 4/15/2026, from Getting started with JavaScript Source Maps · Raygun Blog) Per claim 1, Mirkazemi discloses receiving, via a web browser, a source code in a first computing language from a user; converting the source code to a JavaScript; ([0048], disclose developer programming a fully object-oriented high-level programming language then compiled into browser-side JavaScipt… client side engine…throughout the entire user’s web experience. [0051]-[0054], [0092]-[0094] see browser input) executing the JavaScript; ([0100], discloses browser-side code…JavaScript…executed on the client machine.) and Mirkazemi does not, however, Boyd discloses creating a mapping between the source code and the JavaScript; (pp. 1, discloses JavaScript source map file between JavaScript and source.) based on an error occurring during the execution of the JavaScript, identifying via the mapping a portion of the source code corresponding to the error and transmitting a notification to the user, the notification including the portion of the source code.(pp. 4, disclose watch an error and stack information will appears based on original source file; pp5, discloses decode stack traces in errors…translated back to original source file.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Boyd into the teachings of Mirkazemi to include the limitation disclosed by Boyd. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to assist in understanding what has occurred in the original source code as suggested by Boyd (pp. 5) Per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mirkazemi/Boyd discloses wherein the first computing language is one of Java, Python, Dart, C#, Scala, and Kotlin. (Mirkazemi, [0083], discloses C#, Java)) Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mirkazemi/Boyd discloses wherein the mapping between the source code and the JavaScript includes a correspondence between lines of the JavaScript and lines of the source code. (Boyd, pp. 5, 4th bullet item, see mapping line number, column number…) Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mirkazemi/Boyd discloses wherein the converting the source code to the JavaScript, ( Mirkazemi, ([0048], disclose developer programming a fully object-oriented high-level programming language then compiled into browser-side JavaScipt… client side engine…throughout the entire user’s web experience. [0051]-[0054], [0092]-[0094] see browser input ) the executing the JavaScript are performed by the web browser.([0100], discloses browser-side code…JavaScript…executed on the client machine. ) the creating the mapping between the source code and the JavaScript, (Boyd, pp. 5, see browser loads source map) Per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mirkazemi/Boyd discloses based on a successful execution of the JavaScript, converting an output of the JavaScript into an output format corresponding to the first computing language.(pp. 5, see stack is translated back against original source file. The stack trace back feature is available regardless if there is error or not. ) Per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mirkazemi/Boyd discloses wherein the notification further includes a type of the error. (Mirkazemi , [0136], see type checking error) Per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mirkazemi/Boyd discloses wherein the converting the source code to the JavaScript is performed by a source-to-source compiler embedded in a code of a website that is loaded in the web browser. (Boyd, pp. browser loads source map file ) Per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mirkazemi/Boyd discloses further comprising receiving, from the user via the web browser an identification of the first computing language. ([0049], disclose using high-level programming language….compiled into JavaSript.) Per claims 9-18, see rejections of claims 1-8. Per claims 17-20, see rejections of claims 1 and 3-5. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12613793
EMBEDDED DEVICE TESTING METHOD USING HOST VIRTUALIZATION AND COMPUTING DEVICE EXECUTING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12596341
OPERATION LOOP FORMATION FOR ADAPTIVE POWER GRID MANAGEMENT
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596622
VENDOR ONBOARDING AND PRE-DEPLOYMENT SERVICE TESTING
2y 6m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591503
DEBUGGING INSTRUCTION EXECUTION ERRORS IN A SIMULATED COMPUTER SYSTEM
2y 3m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579054
APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACE TEST METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 7m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
85%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+6.8%)
3y 0m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 536 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