Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/973,146

TRANSACTION CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN A FILE-SYSTEM-BACKED DATABASE SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 09, 2024
Examiner
PENG, HUAWEN A
Art Unit
2169
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Rapid7, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
586 granted / 712 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
726
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 712 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION 1. This communication is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed 7/17/2025. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-40 have been added. Claims 21-40 are presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Objections 3. Claims 21-40 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 21 and 33 recite “determine that that a committed….”; “that” has been typed twice. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 5. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,463. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. U.S. Patent Application 18/973,146 Claim 21 A system, comprising: one or more processors with associated memory that implement a transactional database system, configured to: manage transactions for a database, wherein the database is stored in a file system as plurality of data objects, wherein individual data objects are files in the file system that store table data associated with respective tables of the database and individual tables of the database are stored under respective table directories in the file system; initiate a first transaction that accesses a plurality of data items in the database, including to create a first copy of one or more first data objects to be accessed by the first transaction, wherein updates in the first transaction are performed on the first copy; determine that that a committed state of the one or more first data objects has not changed since the initiation of the first transaction, and in response: commit the first transaction, including to update one or more metadata objects in the file system to refer to the first copy as the committed state of the one or more first data objects; and initiate a second transaction that accesses the database, including to create a second copy of one or more second data objects to be accessed by the second transaction; determine that a committed state of the one or more second data objects has changed since the initiation of the second transaction, and in response: roll back the second transaction, including to abandon the second copy of the one or more second data objects so that the second copy is not referred to as the committed state of the one or more second data objects; and execute an asynchronous garbage collection process to remove copies of data objects that have been abandoned due to rollbacks, including the second copy of one or more second data objects. U.S. Patent No. 12,242,463 Claim 1 A system, comprising: one or more processors with associated memory that implement a transactional database system, configured to: manage transactions for a database, wherein the database is stored in a file system as plurality of data objects, wherein individual data objects are files that store table data associated with respective tables of the database, and individual tables of the database are stored under respective table directories in the file system; initiate a transaction that accesses a plurality of data items in the database, including to: determine one or more of the data objects that are to be accessed by the transaction; and create a copy of the one or more data objects in the file system, wherein updates in the transaction are performed on the copy; and commit the transaction, including to: verify that a committed state of the one or more data objects has not changed since the initiation of the transaction; update one or more metadata objects in the file system to refer to the copy as the committed state of the one or more data objects; and generate a message indicating that the transaction has been committed. Claim 2 The system of claim 1, wherein the transactional database system is configured to: initiate a second transaction on the database; create a copy of a data object in the file system for use by the second transaction; determine that a committed state of the data object has changed since the initiation of the second transaction; abandon the copy of the data object so that the copy is not referred to as the committed state of the data object; and generate a message indicating that the second transaction has failed. It is noted that the claimed limitations of claims 21-40 of Patent Application 18/973,146 are not patentably distinct from that of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,463. It appears to be proper to apply the judicially created doctrine of obvious-type double patenting to the claims at issue. Allowable Subject Matter 6. Claims 21-40 would become allowable if the obvious-type double patenting rejection is overcome. As noted above, this rejection can be overturned by filing a terminal disclaimer. Claims 21 and 33 would be considered allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose each and every element of the Applicant’s claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach and/or suggest “initiate a first transaction that accesses a plurality of data items in the database, including to create a first copy of one or more first data objects to be accessed by the first transaction, wherein updates in the first transaction are performed on the first copy; determine that that a committed state of the one or more first data objects has not changed since the initiation of the first transaction, and in response: commit the first transaction, including to update one or more metadata objects in the file system to refer to the first copy as the committed state of the one or more first data objects; and initiate a second transaction that accesses the database, including to create a second copy of one or more second data objects to be accessed by the second transaction; determine that a committed state of the one or more second data objects has changed since the initiation of the second transaction, and in response: roll back the second transaction, including to abandon the second copy of the one or more second data objects so that the second copy is not referred to as the committed state of the one or more second data objects; and execute an asynchronous garbage collection process to remove copies of data objects that have been abandoned due to rollbacks, including the second copy of one or more second data objects”. The preceding limitations, when combined with the rest of the limitations recited in claims 21 and 33 results in a combination of elements that is both novel and unobvious over the prior art of record. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAWEN A PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-5215. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Fri 9 am to 5 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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. /HUAWEN A PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 09, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598135
TECHNIQUES TO BALANCE LOG STRUCTURED MERGE TREES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579160
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR GENERATING, EXTRACTING, CLASSIFYING, AND FORMATTING OBJECT METADATA USING NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN AN ELECTRONIC NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567274
GEOGRAPHIC MANAGEMENT OF DOCUMENT CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12554493
IMPLEMENTING SPECIALIZED FLOATING POINT INSTRUCTIONS ON AN INTEGER PIPELINE FOR ACCELERATING DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING ALGORITHMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12541530
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR METADATA DRIVEN DATA RECONCILIATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 712 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month