Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/882,619

METHOD FOR INDEX DATA PROCESSING, METHOD FOR INDEX GENERATION, MEDIUM AND DEVICE

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Sep 11, 2024
Examiner
TORGRIMSON, TYLER J
Art Unit
2165
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
BEIJING VOLCANO ENGINE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
291 granted / 400 resolved
+17.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
412
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§103
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 400 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . Introductory Remarks This action is in response to communications filed on 11 September 2024 and 27 October 2025. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are presently pending in the application, of which, claim(s) 1, 7, and 11 is/are presented in independent form. This application properly claims priority to Chinese Application No. CN202311279423.7 filed on 28 September 2023. The requirements of 35 USC 119(a-d) are considered met. An IDS was received on 26 September 2024. The reference has been considered for its English language portions only. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of group I in the reply filed on 27 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 7, 8, and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 October 2025. Examiner’s Note The rejections below group claims that may not be identical, but whose language and scope are so substantively similar as to lend themselves to grouping, in the interests of clarity and conciseness. Any citation to the instant specification herein is made to the PGPub version (if applicable). The examiner notes that no statement has been entered regarding the inventorship of individual claims as required under 37 CFR 1.56, and therefore assumes that all claims have the same inventorship or are directed to inventions that were commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the invention. 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 3, 6, 13, and 16 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. Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation "the target data table". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6 and 16 recite the limitation "the each data table sent by the scheduler", but the scheduler is not described as sending data, rather having data sent to it. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 1-6, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process steps of receiving data, processing that data, and writing the results of the data processing. In this analysis, only those claim limitations stipulated as additional elements are considered to be limitations distinct from the abstract idea itself. With respect to the independent claims, claim 1 is representative. Claim 1 recites, “in response to data being written into a data table, obtaining index data corresponding to target data written in the data table, wherein the index data is data corresponding to an index field used for constructing an index in the target data”, which is merely receiving data. The claim then recites, “determining a target log queue and a target index log file into which each of the index data is to be written based on a log queue corresponding to the data table, wherein a plurality of index log files are stored under each log queue, and a plurality of index data are stored in each index log file”, which is merely processing the input data to determine an output. Finally, the claim recites, “writing the index data corresponding to the target data into the target index log file in the target log queue, wherein the index log file is a write-ahead log (WAL) file, and the index log file is used for data playback to generate an index corresponding to the index data”, which is nothing more than writing the results of the data processing. This closely parallels the holding of Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There are no additional elements in the claim and therefore the claim does not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. The other independent claim adds further generic computing components in the form of “an electronic device”, “a memory”, and “a processor” (claim 11), which do nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims add nothing more than additional abstract idea limitations, which again do nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-16 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, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art appears to be Beedgen et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0146978 A1) (hereinafter Beedgen). Beedgen teaches many of the limitations of the independent claims, but does not appear to teach at least “writing the index data corresponding to the target data into the target index log file in the target log queue, wherein the index log file is a write-ahead log (WAL) file, and the index log file is used for data playback to generate an index corresponding to the index data”. No combination of prior art references has been found that would teach all of the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the independent claims are considered novel and unobvious, and the dependent claims likewise overcome the prior art at least by virtue of their dependence. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J TORGRIMSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 5:30 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, Aleksander Kerzhner can be reached at 571.270.1760. 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. /TYLER J TORGRIMSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12566824
METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR DATA PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566803
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING A GUIDED COLLABORATION PLATFORM FOR SPECIFIC DOMAINS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561287
DUPLICATE FILE MANAGEMENT FOR CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND FOR MIGRATION TO SUCH SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12561380
COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING CLUSTERS OF CODED DOCUMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12530624
PROVISIONING RESOURCE-EFFICIENT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
73%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+12.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 400 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