Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/669,266

SESSION MONITORING FOR SELECTIVE INTERVENTION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 20, 2024
Examiner
MEKY, MOUSTAFA M
Art Unit
2457
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Session Ai, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
677 granted / 725 resolved
+35.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
7 currently pending
Career history
732
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§103
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§102
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 725 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 Claims 1-20 are presenting for examination. Non-statutory double patenting rejection The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 7-11, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 10-11, 14, 16, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,741. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 6, 10-11, 14, 16, and 20 of patent 741 anticipates claims 1, 7-11, and 17-20 as been shown in the table below. 18/669,266 12,045,741 (Original) | A network computer system comprising: one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors access the set of instructions to perform operations that comprise: detecting, from monitoring a website in a given time interval, each of multiple users performing a corresponding initiating event to access the website; for each of the multiple users, (i) recording, in connection with the initiating event, one or more events in sequence, the one or more events reflecting a series of activities of the user; and (ii) based at least in part on the recorded sequence of events, making a determination as to whether the user is likely to be influenced into performing a desired action through intervention; for at least a first user of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is not likely to be influenced by intervention, performing no intervention; and for at least a second user of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is likely to be influenced by intervention, triggering performance of an intervention. 10. (Original) ©The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the user is unknown. 1. A network computer system comprising: one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors access the set of instructions to: detect, from monitoring a website in a given time interval, multiple users of an unknown classification that each perform an initiating event to access the website; for each of the multiple users, record one or more events that follow the initiating event in sequence, the recorded sequence of events reflecting a series of activities the user performed to access the website; based at least in part on the recorded sequence of events, make a determination as to whether the user is (i) firm in their intent, such that an outcome of the user's activities with respect to the website is not likely to be influenced through intervention, or (ii) likely to be influenced into a-performing a desired action through intervention; for at least one of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is likely to be influenced, select a particular intervention that is more likely to cause the user to perform the desired action; and trigger the particular intervention to the selected user. 7. (Original) The network computer system of claim 1, wherein for each of the multiple users, the recorded event includes an initial request to access a web resource of the website in an initial visit. 4. The network computer system of claim 2, wherein for each of the multiple users, a recorded event of the recorded sequence of events includes at least one of (i) a device type for an end user device, (ii) a browser of the end user device, and/or (iii) information provided with an initial request to access a web resource of the website in an initial visit. 8. (Original) |The network computer system of claim 1, wherein for each of the multiple users, making the determination includes implementing a predictive model to make the determination for the user. 6. The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors implement a predictive model to make the determination for each of the multiple users. 9. (Original) The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the desired action corresponds to a conversion action. 10. The network computer system of claim 1, wherein the desired action corresponds to a conversion action. 11. (Original) A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a network computer system, cause the network computer system to perform operations that include: detecting, from monitoring a website in a given time interval, each of multiple users performing a corresponding initiating event to access the website; for each of the multiple users, (i) recording, in connection with the initiating event, one or more events in sequence, the one or more events reflecting a series of activities of the user; and (ii) based at least in part on the recorded sequence of events, making a determination as to whether the user is likely to be influenced into performing a desired action through intervention; for at least a first user of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is not likely to be influenced by intervention, performing no intervention; and for at least a second user of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is likely to be influenced by intervention, triggering performance of an intervention. 19. (Original) ©The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the user is unknown. 11. A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a network computer system, cause the network computer system to perform operations that include: detecting, from monitoring a website in a given time interval, multiple users of an unknown classification that each perform an initiating event to access the website; for each of the multiple users, recording one or more events that follow the initiating event in sequence, the recorded sequence of events reflecting a series of activities the user performed to access the website; based at least in part on the recorded sequence of events, making a determination as to whether the user is (i) firm in their intent, such that an outcome of the user's activities with respect to the website is not likely to be influenced through intervention, or (ii) likely to be influenced into performing a desired action through intervention; for at least one of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is likely to be influenced, selecting a particular intervention that is more likely to cause the user to perform the desired action; and triggering the particular intervention to the selected user. 17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein for each of the multiple users, the recorded event includes an initial request to access a web resource of the website in an initial visit. 14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein for each of the multiple users, a recorded event of the recorded sequence of events includes at least one of (i) a device type for an end user device, (ii) a browser of the end user device, and/or (iii) information provided with an initial request to access a web resource of the website in an initial visit. 18. (Original) ©The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein for each of the multiple users, making the determination includes implementing a predictive model to make the determination for the user. 16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions include instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network computer system to perform operations that include implementing a predictive model to make the determination for each of the multiple users. 20. (Original) A computer-implemented method comprising: detecting, from monitoring a website in a given time interval, each of multiple users performing a corresponding initiating event to access the website; for each of the multiple users, (i) recording, in connection with the initiating event, one or more events in sequence, the one or more events reflecting a series of activities of the user; and (ii) based at least in part on the recorded sequence of events, making a determination as to whether the user is likely to be influenced into performing a desired action through intervention; for at least a first user of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is not likely to be influenced by intervention, performing no intervention; and for at least a second user of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is likely to be influenced by intervention, triggering performance of an intervention 20. A method for operating a network computer system, the method being implemented by one or more processors and comprising: detecting, from monitoring a website in a given time interval, multiple users of an unknown classification that each perform an initiating event to access the website; for each of the multiple users, recording one or more events that follow the initiating event in sequence, the recorded sequence of events reflecting a series of activities the user performed to access the website; based at least in part on the recorded sequence of events, making a determination as to whether the user is (i) firm in their intent, such that an outcome of the user's activities with respect to the website is not likely to be influenced through intervention, or (ii) likely to be influenced into performing a desired action through intervention; for at least one of the multiple users for whom the determination is that the user is likely to be influenced, selecting a particular intervention that is more likely to cause the user to perform the desired action; and triggering the particular intervention to the selected user. Claims 2-6 & 12-16 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. The prior art of record doesn’t teach triggering performance of an intervention includes selecting a particular intervention for the second user, based on the set of attributes recorded for the second user [claims 2 & 12]. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moustafa M Meky whose telephone number is (571)272-4005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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. MOUSTAFA M. MEKY Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 2457 /MOUSTAFA M MEKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 07/31/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592858
SMOOTH DISTRIBUTION OF DATASETS IN A MESH NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592864
USER INTERFACES FOR CLOUD LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574280
ITERATIVE INITIALIZATION OF MACHINE-LEARNING AGENT PARAMETERS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574294
HARDWARE BASED EVALUATION OF UNFORMATTED DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563122
METHOD FOR ALLOCATING GROUP ID FOR GROUP TRANSMISSION OF PFCP SESSION CONTEXTS, AND APPARATUS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
93%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+2.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 725 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month