Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/858,531

CONFIGURATION BASED DATASET GENERATION FOR CONTENT SERVING SYSTEMS

Final Rejection §101§112
Filed
Oct 21, 2024
Priority
Jan 11, 2023 — nonprovisional of PCTUS2023010585
Examiner
AHSAN, SYED M
Art Unit
2491
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
217 granted / 293 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
326
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.6%
+12.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 293 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 . Priority The instant application claims priority to a European Application PCT/US23/10585 filed on 01/11/2023. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2026 and 05/29/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 02/05/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to an Amendment Application received on 05/4/2026. In the application, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 2, 9, and 16 remain original. No claim has been cancelled and no new claim has been added. For this Office Action, claims 1-20 have been received for consideration and have been examined. Response to Arguments Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 Applicant’s amendments to claims have been reviewed and amendments overcome the 35 USC § 101 Abstract Idea rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 Applicant’s amendment to claims 4, 11, and 18 have been reviewed and amendment has overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections – 35 USC §§ 102 & 103 Applicant’s amendment to claims have been reviewed and amendments has overcome the 35 USC §§ 102 & 103 rejections. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner reviewed below added limitation in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 “generating, by the server of the content platform, a set of configuration files, comprising: a label builder configuration file that identifies one or more labels for extraction from the data, a feature builder configuration file that identifies one or more features for extraction from the data, an aggregation configuration file that includes instructions for aggregation of the data, and a validation configuration file that includes at least one validation criterion”, however, specification lacks support for generating, by the server of the content platform, a set of configuration files, comprising: a label builder configuration file …, a feature builder configuration file …, an aggregation configuration file …, and a validation configuration file. Applicant pointed out support from page # 9-14 in light of Fig. 2 for the amendment, however, Examiner find it as blanket support for the server generating step, however, specification does not clearly mention as to where and how the server is generating these configuration files which are used for identifying, extracting, aggregating, determining, and used this dataset for training the contextual model. Examiner recommend to amend the claim in support of instant specification to potentially overcome the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection. Dependent claims inherit these deficiencies. 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 SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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. /SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 21, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112
Apr 24, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 04, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 03, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12706943
AUTOMATED THREAT RESPONSE IN EXTENDED DETECTION AND RESPONSE (XDR) SYSTEMS
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12706944
Cybersecurity System Having a Chatbot
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12706959
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELF-CLUSTERING EDGE COMPUTING PROTECTION
1y 12m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12700990
METHOD FOR SECURING AN EXECUTION OF A CRYPTOGRAPHIC PROCESS
3y 4m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12701126
VISUAL DEEP LEARNING FOR INLINE PHISHING DETECTION
2y 3m to grant Granted Aug 04, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+18.9%)
3y 4m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 293 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