Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/702,279

APPARATUS, MATHOD AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR COMPUTATIONAL LOGIC PROCESSING

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Apr 17, 2024
Priority
Oct 18, 2021 — CN 202111211756.7 +1 more
Examiner
FIGUEROA, KEVIN W
Art Unit
2124
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Ebaotech Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allowance Rate
265 granted / 378 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
405
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 378 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, the claim is directed to a system. Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The limitations of: [the server side], configured to parse the configuration data to generate static computational subgraphs, wherein parse the configuration data to generate static computational subgraphs, comprises: serializing the computational logics with hierarchical structures, generating the static computational subgraphs by flow-based programming according to serialization results, wherein the computational logics with hierarchical structures include multiple steps, and the multiple steps include multiple sub-computational logics, and the static computational subgraphs are represented as digraphs, the computational logics are nodes of the digraphs, and data flow directions between the computational logics are sides of the digraphs; (mental process, a human can look at data, mentally parse it, and write down using pen and paper the computation subgraphs, along with serializing it in their head/using pen and paper, which would include the multiple steps as claimed, and the human can draw the graphs) [the server side], configured to connect the input data to the static computational subgraphs, to generate dynamic computational subgraphs, wherein connect the input data to the static computational subgraphs, comprises: matching data parameters that require data values in the static computational subgraphs to data values of the data parameters in the input data; (mental process, a human mentally connect data or use pen and paper and match data based on looking at it) Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The limitations of: a client side, configured to obtain and send input data and configuration data, to a server side, wherein the input data is used to describe data values required for executing computational logics, and the configuration data is used to describe configuration information of the computational logics and association information between the computational logics in a service processing process; (generic computer to carry out the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)and sending/receiving data, insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g)) the server side, configured to execute the dynamic computational subgraphs to obtain computational results (receiving the idea of a solution or outcome, MPEP 2106.05(f)) Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The limitations of: a client side, configured to obtain and send input data and configuration data, to a server side, wherein the input data is used to describe data values required for executing computational logics, and the configuration data is used to describe configuration information of the computational logics and association information between the computational logics in a service processing process; (generic computer to carry out the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)and sending/receiving data, insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g), transmitting data is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) the server side, configured to execute the dynamic computational subgraphs to obtain computational results (receiving the idea of a solution or outcome, MPEP 2106.05(f)) Dependent claim 4 recites determining values and connecting data, mental evaluation of data. Dependent claim 5 recites formatting the results, mental judgement. Dependent claim 6 recites expressions, functions, a decision tree, applying the abstract idea to particular field of use, MPEP 2106.05(h). Dependent claim 7 recites the input data being in various formats, applying the abstract idea to particular field of use, MPEP 2106.05(h). Dependent claim 11 recites assigning data values, mental judgement. Dependent claim 12 recites executing computational logic, applying the abstract idea to particular field of use, MPEP 2106.05(h). Allowable Subject Matter No art has been cited for claims 1, 4-7, and 11-12. However the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: CN111176802A Proietti, Maurizio, and Fabrizio Smith. "Reasoning on data-aware business processes with constraint logic." Proc. SIMPDA 14 (2014): 60-75. Crooks, Natacha, et al. "Obladi: Oblivious serializable transactions in the cloud." 13th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 18). 2018. Evans, Clark, Oren Ben-Kiki, and I. döt Net. "YAML Ain’t Markup Language (YAML™) Version 1.2." Mar. 2017, Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN W FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-4623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST. 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, MIRANDA HUANG can be reached at (571)270-7092. 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. KEVIN W FIGUEROA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2124 /Kevin W Figueroa/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12762432
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FAST ANNOTATION OF DATASET WITH CONSTRAINT PROPAGATION
3y 5m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12743727
Machine Learning Portfolio Simulating and Optimizing Apparatuses, Methods and Systems
5y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12743437
Method And System For Implementing Machine Learning Classifications
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12731033
NON-LINEAR LATTICE LAYER FOR PARTIALLY MONOTONIC NEURAL NETWORK
4y 10m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12731040
DEVICE, A COMPUTER PROGRAM AND A COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR DETERMINING NEGATIVE SAMPLES FOR TRAINING A KNOWLEDGE GRAPH EMBEDDING OF A KNOWLEDGE GRAPH
4y 2m to grant Granted Sep 08, 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
70%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+20.4%)
3y 11m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 378 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