Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 19/060,194

Managing Service Capacity

Final Rejection §103§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Priority
Mar 28, 2019 — continuation of 11/516,286 +2 more
Examiner
YE, ZI
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Comcast Cable Communications LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
413 granted / 485 resolved
+25.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
503
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
§103
55.2%
+15.2% vs TC avg
§102
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 485 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION Examiner’s Remarks Examiner contacted attorney of record, Joshua Davenport, on 9/11/2026 regarding filing e-Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection to move the application into condition for allowance. Attorney stated that he would need more time to work with the applicant, and not sure when he would be able to respond. Double Patenting 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11516286. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11516286 alone or in combination teach each and every limitation of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowable if applicant overcomes the double patenting rejection. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fail to explicitly disclose each and every limitation recited in the amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of the Remarks, filed on 09/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. The prior art of record fail to explicitly disclose each and every limitation recited in the amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15. 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 ZI YE whose telephone number is (571)270-1039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm. 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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. /ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §DOUBLEPATENT
Jul 17, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 17, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 01, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 23, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12739199
EFFICIENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR ROLE-BASED TRAFFIC SEGMENTATION IN AN OVERLAY NETWORK
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12732564
CROSS-MOBILE NETWORK OPERATOR SERVER
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12732421
SYSTEM AND APPLICATION FOR DYNAMIC CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
2y 1m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12683811
ENCRYPTED PHYSICALLY UNCLONABLE FUNCTION CIRCUIT HELPER DATA
4y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12671627
COMPUTING POWER NETWORK NODE EVALUATION AND OPERATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 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
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.8%)
2y 3m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 485 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