Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/867,292

DATA AGGREGATION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §101§102§112
Filed
Nov 19, 2024
Examiner
MURPHY, JOSEPH B
Art Unit
2435
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NTT Docomo Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
569 granted / 631 resolved
+32.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
642
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
§103
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §112
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to an application filed on November 19, 2024, in which claims 1 through 11 are pending, and ready for examination. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for benefit as a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/JP2023/012842, filed on March 29, 2023. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on November 19, 2024. 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 19, 2024 and December 20, 2024 were filed before the mailing date of a first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Japan on or about May 23, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. 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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “the basis of [the collation identifiers]”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this element in the claim(s). Claims 2-11 are each dependent upon claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 based upon that dependency. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to a device; however, said device is merely collating and aggregating data. Correlation of the data is achieved using collation identifiers. Thus, the claim simply recites a mental process of collating and aggregating data, which can be “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only other claim limitation with patentable weight is the preamble’s “processing circuitry”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed “processing circuitry” is/are generically-recited computer element(s) that does/do not add any meaningful limitation to the aforesaid abstract idea, because it/they amount(s) to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Claim 2-11 fail to remedy the aforesaid deficiency of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §101, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0218173 (hereinafter referred to as Perkins). With regard to claim 1, Perkins discloses a data aggregation device that collates and aggregates data which is possessed by each of two or more organizations and which is correlated with individuals and groups, the data aggregation device comprising processing circuitry configured to (Perkins, [0017]; 0025]-[0031]; Fig. 3): collate and aggregate the data, which is correlated with collation identifiers which are identifiers for identifying the individuals and the groups, for each group on the basis of the collation identifiers (Perkins, [0025]-[0031]; Fig. 3). With regard to claim 2, Perkins further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform a predetermined calculation on an aggregation result for each group (Perkins, [0028]; Fig. 3, Refs. 305-311). With regard to claim 3, Perkins further discloses wherein the predetermined calculation is a calculation which is designed in advanced by a user (Perkins, [0022]-[0023]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if Applicant should overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth herein, supra. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. Brant Murphy whose telephone number is (571)272-6433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 4pm. 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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. /J. BRANT MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435 February 7, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 19, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603779
AUTHORIZING THIRD PARTY SPECIFIC USER IDENTITIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587854
DOWNLINK MESSAGE PROTECTION FOR AMBIENT WIRELESS DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580743
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581299
SENSOR DATA CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567983
VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY OF A DATA SOURCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.1%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 631 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