Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 05, 2026
Application No. 18/895,709

POWERING COMPUTING DEVICES OF A DATABASE SYSTEM FOR EXECUTION OF A DATABASE OPERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A POWER SUPPLY STRATEGY

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Sep 25, 2024
Priority
Oct 27, 2022 — provisional 63/381,218 +2 more
Examiner
MCQUITERY, DIEDRA M
Art Unit
2166
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Ocient Holdings LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
249 granted / 342 resolved
+17.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
357
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§103
69.4%
+29.4% vs TC avg
§102
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 342 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to claims 21-42 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner presents a new grounds of rejection based upon the applicant's amendments to the claims. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. 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 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se. Claim 21 is directed to a database system with pluralities of processing core resources of pluralities of computing nodes of pluralities of computing devices. As described in the applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0391]-[0392] recite “in performing various database functionality, processor-based energy utilization can be induced by processing resources of the database system 10 (e.g. processors on computing devices 18 and/or nodes 37, such as processing core resources 48, central processing units (CPUs), microprocessors, multi-core processors, integrated circuits, processing modules, and/or other processing resources implemented to generate and/or process data). As another example, in performing various database functionality, memory-based energy utilization can be induced by memory resources (e.g. non- drive/non-long term storage memory resources) of the database system 10 (e.g. resources used to store intermediate/temporary data/computing instructions in conjunction with performing database operations, such as main memory 40, random access memory (RAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static ram (SRAM), cache memory, heap memory, huge page memory, memory modules, and/or CPU registers; for example DRAM requires refreshing via power, where use of DRAM memory for various operations can thus impact energy utilization due to power consumed for this refresh)… the energy utilization of the database system (and/or categorized utilization by different hardware types) can be particular to and/or a function of database operations being performed at a particular time, where the energy utilization is thus a function of software-based functionality of the database system, rather than simply being a function of the hardware, for example, of a corresponding one or more data centers housing the database system 10.” As such, it is not clear from the specification paragraph [0391]-[0392] that the system comprises necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101, and may be directed to a system that is merely software and is ineligible. Therefore, the claims fail to fall within a statutory category of invention. Claims 32-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to signals per se. Claim 32 is directed to a computer-readable memory which comprises memory sections that store operational instructions. As described in the applicant’s specification, paragraph [1098] recites “a computer readable memory includes one or more memory elements. A memory element may be a separate memory device, multiple memory devices, or a set of memory locations within a memory device. Such a memory device may be a read-only memory, random access memory, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, static memory, dynamic memory, flash memory, cache memory, a quantum register or other quantum memory and/or any other device that stores data in a non-transitory manner. Furthermore, the memory device may be in a form of a solid-state memory, a hard drive memory or other disk storage, cloud memory, thumb drive, server memory, computing device memory, and/or other non-transitory medium for storing data. The storage of data includes temporary storage (i.e., data is lost when power is removed from the memory element) and/or persistent storage (i.e., data is retained when power is removed from the memory element). As used herein, a transitory medium shall mean one or more of: (a) a wired or wireless medium for the transportation of data as a signal from one computing device to another computing device for temporary storage or persistent storage; (b) a wired or wireless medium for the transportation of data as a signal within a computing device from one element of the computing device to another element of the computing device for temporary storage or persistent storage; (c) a wired or wireless medium for the transportation of data as a signal from one computing device to another computing device for processing the data by the other computing device; and (d) a wired or wireless medium for the transportation of data as a signal within a computing device from one element of the computing device to another element of the computing device for processing the data by the other element of the computing device. As may be used herein, a non-transitory computer readable memory is substantially equivalent to a computer readable memory. A non-transitory computer readable memory can also be referred to as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” As such, it is not clear from the specification paragraph [1098] that the computer-readable memory excludes transitory signals such that the claimed computer-readable memory encompasses transitory forms and is ineligible. 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 DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.). 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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. /Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 25, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101
Mar 23, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 16, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12639330
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FORMATTING DATA USING A RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORK
1y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12632471
QUERY CLARIFICATION BASED ON CONFIDENCE IN A CLASSIFICATION PERFORMED BY A GENERATIVE LANGUAGE MACHINE LEARNING MODEL
1y 9m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12585922
AUDITABLE AUTHORSHIP ATTRIBUTION WITH EVENT TRACKING AND MOCK CONTENT
10m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579178
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING QUERY RESPONSES
1y 4m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572513
TECHNIQUES FOR RESOURCE UTILIZATION IN REPLICATION PIPELINE PROCESSING
1y 4m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.2%)
2y 10m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 342 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