Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 18, 2026
Application No. 19/070,357

MANAGING EXPIRATION TIMES OF ARCHIVED OBJECTS

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Mar 04, 2025
Priority
Feb 25, 2022 — continuation of 12/271,340
Examiner
BULLOCK, JOSHUA
Art Unit
2153
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Cohesity Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
532 granted / 644 resolved
+27.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
675
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§102
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
§112
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 644 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Claims 1-2, 12, & 15-19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 & 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the current amendments. 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 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,340. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use similar limitations to produce the same end result of deleting expiration times of the identified one or more nodes, one or more archived objects associated with the identified one or more nodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,340 to arrive at the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application because one would realize that the remaining elements would perform the same functions as before. 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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. /JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 June 29, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 04, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Apr 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 15, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 15, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 23, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 02, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12670164
DATABASE MANAGEMENT BASED ON PREDICTED RETRIEVAL OF DATA
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12670147
PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL VALUES FOR EVENTS
1y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12670152
READING QUERY RESULTS FROM AN EXTERNAL DATA SYSTEM
1y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12619650
TECHNIQUES FOR SECURING COMPUTING INTERFACES USING CLUSTERING
1y 11m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12602401
NON-DISRUPTIVE TRANSITION TO SYNCHRONOUS REPLICATION STATE
4y 7m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 0m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 644 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