Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/763,672

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANOMALY DETECTION AND DEPLOYMENT FRAMEWORK FOR MAINFRAMES

Final Rejection §101§103§112
Filed
Jul 03, 2024
Examiner
JOO, JOSHUA
Art Unit
2445
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Jpmorgan Chase Bank N A
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
763 granted / 976 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1001
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§103
39.3%
-0.7% vs TC avg
§102
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 976 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103 §112
Detailed Action The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment submitted on January 22, 2026. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are pending in the application. Response to Arguments/Remarks Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention was directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 have overcome the rejections. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. There was insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, “the modeling.” Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to remove the limitation. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledano US Patent Publication No. 2020/0233774 in view of Bigdelu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2025/0036645, von Trapp et al. US Patent Publication No. 2020/0125448, and Ohana et al. US Patent Publication No. 2020/0073740. The amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 have overcome the rejections. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, in the step starting with “on determining…, training the model,” it is not clear which model “the model” is referring to since the claim recites “a model” and “an autoregressive model.” Claim 2 recites “the model” and is rejected for the same reason claim 1. Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the anomaly.” The claim recites “detecting network anomalies” but does not identify any particular anomaly. It is not clear whether the “the anomaly” is referring to a particular anomaly in the claim. Regarding claim 8, in the step starting with “on determining,” it is not clear which model “the model” is referring to since the claim recites “a model” and “an autoregressive model.” Claim 9 recites “the model” and is rejected for the same reason claim 8. Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the anomaly.” The claim recites “detecting network anomalies” but does not identify any particular anomaly. It is not clear whether the “the anomaly” is referring to a particular anomaly in the claim. Regarding claim 15, in the step starting with “on determining,” it is not clear which model “the model” is referring to since the claim recites “a model” and “an autoregressive model.” The claim recites “a model” and “an autoregressive model.” Claim 16 recites “the model” and is rejected for the same reason claim 15. Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the anomaly.” The claim recites “detecting network anomalies” but does not identify any particular anomaly. It is not clear whether the “the anomaly” is referring to a particular anomaly in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm 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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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. /JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112
Jan 22, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603875
CONNECTION ESTABLISHMENT USING SHARED CERTIFICATE IN GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING (GSLB) ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587590
SERVER APPARATUS, MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580871
RESOURCE DEPLETION DETECTION AND NOTIFICATION IN AN ENTERPRISE FABRIC NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572647
CONNECTING ADVERSARIAL ATTACKS TO NEURAL NETWORK TOPOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572475
COMPACT REPRESENTATION OF TRANSITION SEQUENCES FOR SINGLE-STATE STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.4%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 976 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