Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/919,468

DATA COMPRESSION WITH SIGNATURE-BASED VERIFIABLE INTRUSION DETECTION AND PREDICTION

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 18, 2024
Priority
Oct 30, 2017 — provisional 62/578,824 +26 more
Examiner
ALSIP, MICHAEL
Art Unit
2139
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
AtomBeam Technologies Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
489 granted / 653 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
677
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
58.3%
+18.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 653 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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. 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 1-8 are 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. Claims 1 and 5 recites the limitation "the compression codewords comprise a plurality of reference codes….". The term “compression codeword” is not present in the specification. In the previous claim language this term was interpreted as being a compressed codeword that was reconstructed (decompressed). However with the addition of this new limitation adding more context to the term, there does not appear to be support for a “compression codeword comprising a plurality of reference codes…”, but rather [0112] of the specification states that a codeword refers to the reference code form. It is unclear whether these two terms are synonyms or not. The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon a rejected base claim. Claims 1-8 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 1 and 5 recites the limitation "the compression codewords". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term appears as though it should read “the one or more compression codewords”. Consider claims 1 and 5, these claims now state that reconstruction of the original data is enabled by the newly added limitations. However, it is unclear whether this reconstruction process is a decompression process or another process in addition to decompressing. Are these limitations stating that the reference codes are in a compressed form of the codeword or does the codeword need to be decompressed first to get the reference codes? Further the term “compression codeword” does not appear in the specification. Paragraph [0112] of the specification describes that a codeword refers to the reference code form, not that compression codewords do. It is unclear if a compression codeword is something different. The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon a rejected base claim. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Reginald G Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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. /MICHAEL ALSIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Feb 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 05, 2025
Response Filed
May 21, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Nov 07, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12632176
CHOOSING AMONG STORAGE OPTIMIZATIONS WHEN STORING CANDIDATE DATA
2y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12632193
SELECTING DATA RELOCATION OPERATIONS BASED ON AN ENERGY THRESHOLD AND A PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD
2y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12622627
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM SIGNAL CLASSIFICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM AND PROGRAM PRODUCT
3y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12619546
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA STORAGE, TRANSFER, SYNCHRONIZATION, AND SECURITY USING AUTOMATED MODEL MONITORING AND TRAINING WITH A LOAD-ADAPTIVE CACHE
1y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12596685
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR BANDWIDTH-EFFICIENT DATA ENCODING
1y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+5.4%)
2y 11m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 653 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