Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/770,251

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROCESSING DATABASE RECORDS USING PREDEFINED LOW FRICTION ACTIONS

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Jul 11, 2024
Examiner
WALDRON, SCOTT A
Art Unit
2152
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Ensemble Rcm LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
387 granted / 474 resolved
+26.6% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
491
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§103
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 474 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s Response, filed 03/11/2026, amended claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17 & 20. Claims 1-20 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Khan fails to teach the claims as amended. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Khan teaches reasons, which are equivalent to root cause condition, at paragraphs [0121] – [0124]. Further, Khan teaches business rules decision matrix, which is equivalent to resource overhead considerations, at paragraphs [0103] – [0105]. 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. Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 has been amended to recite “determining the one or more next actions”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation as amended. Claim 7 recites “determining resource overhead”. It appears this should be amended, based on the amendments to claim 1, to recite “determining the resource overhead”. This would also be consistent with amendments to corresponding claims 14 & 20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khan et al. (US 2023/0316408 A1, hereinafter “Khan”). Khan teaches: 1. A method for managing and processing database records, the method comprising: maintaining, by a records management and processing system, a plurality of records in a database, each record of the plurality of records comprising a record of a service provided to a consumer by a service provider of a plurality of service providers and identifying at least one required action by at least one responsible entity of a plurality of responsible entities [Khan, ¶ 0002] and wherein the records management and processing system comprises an intermediary between systems of the plurality of service providers and systems of the plurality of responsible entities [Khan, Fig. 1B and ¶ 0009]; training, by the records management and processing system, one or more models for processing of the plurality of records using machine learning and based on past routing of and actions performed on one or more records of the plurality of records [Khan, ¶ 0059]; selecting, by the records management and processing system, a subset of records of the plurality of records based on an event associated with each record of the subset of records [Khan, ¶ 0060]; applying, by the records management and processing system, a model of the one or more models to the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶ 0061]; and processing, by the records management and processing system, the selected subset of records based on the applied model [Khan, ¶ 0061], a root cause condition for an actual or expected event for each record of the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶¶ 0121-0124], and a resource overhead in the records management and processing system for processing records within the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶¶ 0103-0105]. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the machine learning comprises supervised learning [Khan, ¶ 0057]. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein processing the selected subset of records based on the applied model comprises: finding previous routing in the records management and processing system for each record of the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶ 0089]; finding previous actions performed in the records management and processing system for each record of the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶ 0089]; determining the root cause condition for the actual or expected event for each record of the selected subset of records based on the applied model, the previous routing in the records management and processing system for each record, and the previous actions performed in the records management and processing system for each record [Khan, ¶¶ 0121-0124]; and initiating further routing and actions in the records management and processing system based on the determined root cause condition for the actual or expected event for each record of the selected subset of records and the applied model [Khan, ¶ 0125]. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the actual or expected event for at least one record of the selected subset of records comprises an actual event that has occurred and wherein the further routing and actions in the records management and processing system are directed to corrective action for the actual event [Khan, ¶ 0122]. 5. The method of claim 3, wherein the actual or expected event for at least one record of the selected subset of records comprises an expected event that can occur and wherein the further routing and actions in the records management and processing system are directed to preventative action for the expected event [Khan, ¶ 0122]. 6. The method of claim 3, further comprising updating the applied model based on a result of the further routing and actions in the records management and processing system [Khan, ¶ 0104]. 7. The method of claim 1, wherein processing the selected subset of records based on the applied model comprises: identifying one or more activities performed on each record of the selected subset of records in the records management and processing system [Khan, ¶¶ 0096-0098]; grouping the records of the selected subset of records into a plurality of groups based on the identified activities performed on each record [Khan, ¶¶ 0096-0098]; determining the one or more next actions for each group of the plurality of groups based on the applied model [Khan, ¶¶ 0096-0098]; determining resource overhead in the records management and processing system for each group of the plurality of groups based on the determined one or more next actions for each group [Khan, ¶¶ 0103-0105]; prioritizing the plurality of groups based on the determined resource overhead for each group [Khan, ¶¶ 0103-0105]; and performing the determined one or more next actions on one or more groups of the plurality of groups based on the prioritization of the plurality of groups [Khan, ¶¶ 0103-0105]. Claims 8-14 recite limitations which are similar to those recited in claims 1-7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above. Claims 15-20 recite limitations which are similar to those recited in claims 1-5 & 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above. 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 Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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. /Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 03/22/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Mar 11, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596704
Error Prediction Using Database Validation Rules and Machine Learning
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591784
DECISION-MAKING METHOD FOR AGENT ACTION AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585667
PROVIDING INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH A CONTENT BASED ON CONTEXT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585701
IDEATION PLATFORM DEVICE AND METHOD USING DIAGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579155
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTERFACE GENERATION USING EXPLORE AND EXPLOIT STRATEGIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+31.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 474 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