Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/761,138

GRANULAR QUERY PROCESSING VIA A PLANAR DATA MODEL

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 01, 2024
Examiner
OWYANG, MICHELLE N
Art Unit
2168
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Vaayu Tech GmbH
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
464 granted / 610 resolved
+21.1% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
626
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§103
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
§102
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 610 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending. Claim 10 is cancelled. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections previously made and the amended claims filed on 1/20/2026 have been fully considered. In view of the claim amendments, the rejections are being updated accordingly. Double Patenting The double patenting rejections are maintained and the reason is set forth in the updated rejections below; see the updated rejections and mappings below for detail. Double Patenting 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 1-9, 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US 12,332,900 (Application No. 18/829155). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to similar invention with similar limitations as demonstrated in the table below: Claims 1-9 of instant application recite similar limitations as claim 11-20, hence claims 1-9 are being used as representative for demonstration in the table below. Similarly, claims 1-10 of Patent No. US 12,332,900 recite similar to limitations as claims 11-20. Hence claims 1-10 are being used as representative for demonstration in the table below. Instant Application Patent No. US 12,332,900 1. A computer-implemented method for processing a query of a life cycle assessment database, the method comprising: receiving the query comprising a first set of parameters specifying properties of an entity; storing, in an in-memory tree structure, a root node that (i) represents the query and (ii) includes the first set of parameters; searching a set of hierarchical structures included in the life cycle assessment database for a first set of data nodes that match the first set of parameters included in the root node; after the first set of parameters is matched to the first set of data nodes, storing, in the in-memory tree structure, the first set of data nodes in one or more paths under the root node; determining, based on a traversal of the one or more paths in the in-memory tree structure, a first set of functional units included in the first set of data nodes, wherein each functional unit included in the first set of functional units comprises a numeric value and a unit associated with an emission or a consumption; 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the data node comprises an unknown data node that represents the unknown consumption or the unknown emission and includes the second set of parameters. computing one or more environmental impacts associated with the entity based on one or more aggregations or one or more transformations of the set of numeric values and the set of units included in the first set of functional units; and causing the one or more environmental impacts to be outputted in a response to the query. 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein searching the set of hierarchical structures comprises: matching one or more parameters included in the first set of parameters to a second set of data nodes in the set of hierarchical structures; and filtering the second set of data nodes based on one or more additional parameters included in the first set of parameters. 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a class associated with the entity and the one or more additional parameters comprise an attribute associated with the class. 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that a data node included in the first set of data nodes is associated with an unknown consumption or an unknown emission; searching the set hierarchical structures for a second set of data nodes that match a second set of parameters associated with the data node; and further computing the one or more environmental impact based on a second set of functional units included in the second set of data nodes. 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the one or more environmental impacts comprises combining a plurality of distributions of the set of numeric values associated with the first set of functional units into an additional emission. 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the one or more environmental impacts comprises computing an additional emission using a non-linear transformation of one or more numeric values included in the first set of functional units. 8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more environmental impacts is computed based on one or more constraints that are (i)specified in the query and (ii)include modifications to the data included in the first set of data nodes. 9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the response comprises a breakdown of the one or more environmental impacts into the one or more paths that include the first set of data nodes. 1. A computer-implemented method for processing a query of a life cycle assessment database, the method comprising: receiving a query comprising a first set of parameters specifying properties of an entity; in response to receiving the query, storing, in an in-memory tree structure, a first data node that (i) represents the query and (ii) includes the first set of parameters; searching one or more hierarchical structures included in the life cycle assessment database for a first set of data nodes that match the first set of parameters included in the stored first data node; after the first set of parameters is matched to the first set of data nodes, storing the first set of data nodes in the in-memory tree structure; upon determining that a second data node included in the first set of data nodes includes an unknown consumption or an unknown emission: searching the one or more hierarchical structures for a second set of data nodes that (i) match a second set of parameters included in associated with the second data node and (ii) include one or more known emissions corresponding to the unknown emission or one or more known consumptions corresponding to the unknown consumption; and resolving the unknown consumption or the unknown emission by computing one or more environmental impacts associated with the entity based on one or aggregations of a set of functional units that (i) correspond to the one or more known emissions or the one or more known consumptions and (ii) are included in at least one of the first set of data nodes or the second set of data nodes; and causing the one or more environmental impacts to be outputted in a response to the query. 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein searching the one or more hierarchical structures for the second set of data nodes comprises: matching a class included in the second set of parameters to the second set of data nodes; and filtering the second set of data nodes based on one or more additional parameters included in the second set of parameters. 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the first data node comprises a first unknown data node that represents the query and includes the first set of parameters; and the second data node comprises a second unknown data node that (i) includes the second set of parameters and (ii) is a child of the first unknown data node. 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that a third data node included in the second set of data nodes includes an additional unknown consumption or an additional unknown emission; searching the one or more hierarchical structures for a third set of data nodes that match a third set of parameters associated with the second data node; and computing the one or more environmental impacts based on a third set of functional units included in the third set of data nodes. 10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of functional units comprises at least one of a probability distribution or a multi-dimensional functional unit. 9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more environmental impacts comprise at least one of a total emission, a production, a consumption, or a waste product allocation associated with the entity. 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein: the first set of parameters comprise at least one of a class of the entity or one or more constraints associated with the properties of the entity. 4.The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the properties of the entity comprise at least one of a location, a time, a source, an attribute, a unit, a value associated with the unit, a name, an alias, a process, a consumption, an emission, or a type of node included in the one or more hierarchical structures. 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the one or more additional parameters comprise at least one of an attribute, a time, or a location. 8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein searching the one or more hierarchical structures for the second set of data nodes comprises: upon determining that the second set of parameters do not match any nodes included in the one or more hierarchical structures, searching the one or more hierarchical structures for one or more parent parameters associated with the second set of parameters; and matching the one or more parent parameters to the second set of data nodes. As demonstrated by the mappings in the table above, Patent No. US 12,332,900 discloses or renders obvious all the features of the claims of the instant application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle Owyang whose telephone number is (571)270-1254. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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. /MICHELLE N OWYANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 29, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 18, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12566764
Ambient Multi-Device Framework for Agent Companions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566799
TRANSACTION EXCHANGE PLATFORM HAVING CONFIGURABLE MICROSERVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561286
COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES FOR VERTICES OF GRAPHIC MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12547605
PERFORMING LOAD ERROR TRACKING DURING LOADING OF DATA FOR STORAGE VIA A DATABASE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12536235
USING A MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEM TO PROCESS A CORPUS OF DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH A USER TO DETERMINE A USER-SPECIFIC AND/OR PROCESS-SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCE INDEX
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 610 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