Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/185,004

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RELIABLE OPINION POLLS FOR ELECTIONS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 21, 2025
Examiner
HAUPT, KRISTY A
Art Unit
2876
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1087 granted / 1239 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
1254
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§102
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
§112
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1239 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to application 19/185,004 filed 4/21/25. Claims 1-10 are pending with claims 1 and 6 in independent form. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unagami et al. US 2019/0088063 A1 in view of US 2015/0373882 A1. Unagami teaches: Re: claim 1, A system for conducting an election, causing one or more processing devices to implement one or more types of election functionality (abstract). Re: claim 6, A method for conducting an election wherein the at least one purpose-built device implements one or more types of election functionality (abstract). Unagami fails to specifically teach: Re: claim 1, a containment vessel enclosing a volume, a dielectric thermally conductive fluid at least partially filling the volume of the containment vessel, at least one purpose-built device disposed within the volume of the containment vessel, wherein the at least one purpose-built device comprises one or more processing devices and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer application program instructions that are executed by the one or more processing devices. Re: claim 6, the method comprising: providing a containment vessel enclosing a volume, filling at least partially the volume of the containment vessel with a dielectric thermally conductive fluid, disposing at least one purpose-built device within the volume of the containment vessel. However, Smith teaches Re: claim 1, a containment vessel enclosing a volume, a dielectric thermally conductive fluid at least partially filling the volume of the containment vessel, at least one purpose-built device disposed within the volume of the containment vessel, wherein the at least one purpose-built device comprises one or more processing devices and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer application program instructions that are executed by the one or more processing devices ([0037]-[0044] dielectric thermally conductive fluids contained within an enclosure for cooling electronic devices and servers). Re: claim 6, the method comprising: providing a containment vessel enclosing a volume, filling at least partially the volume of the containment vessel with a dielectric thermally conductive fluid, disposing at least one purpose-built device within the volume of the containment vessel ([0037]-[0044] dielectric thermally conductive fluids contained within an enclosure for cooling electronic devices and servers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the enclosure of Smith into the system of Unagami as an obvious matter of design choice thereby enabling cost reductions, operational efficiencies, increased security and extended longevity of electronic devices and servers ([0008]-[0009]). Re: claim 2, Unagami as modified by Smith additionally teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the election is conducted by a governmental jurisdiction (Unagami – [0002], [0057]). Re: claim 3, Unagami as modified by Smith additionally teaches the system of claim 1, that further comprises cabling extending from the at least one purpose-built device to a location that is external to the containment vessel (Smith – claims 1 and 15). Re: claim 4, Unagami as modified by Smith additionally teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the containment vessel further comprises a removable panel (Smith – claims 1 and 15 access to containment vessel for providing access). Re: claim 5, Unagami as modified by Smith additionally teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the dielectric thermally conductive fluid is at least partially in a liquid state at normal temperature and pressure (Smith – [0035]-[0036]). Re: claim 7, Unagami as modified by Smith additionally teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the election is conducted by a governmental jurisdiction (Unagami – [0002], [0057]). Re: claim 8, Unagami as modified by Smith additionally teaches the method of claim 6, that further comprises cabling extending from the at least one purpose-built device to a location that is external to the containment vessel (Smith – claims 1 and 15). Re: claim 9, Unagami as modified by Smith additionally teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the containment vessel further comprises a removable panel (Smith – claims 1 and 15 access to containment vessel for providing access). Re: claim 10, Unagami as modified by Smith additionally teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the dielectric thermally conductive fluid is at least partially in a liquid state at normal temperature and pressure (Smith – [0035]-[0036]). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTY A HAUPT whose telephone number is (571)272-8545 and email address is kristy.haupt@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sun 5:30 AM- 10PM; Flex during day. If all attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /KRISTY A HAUPT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 KAH
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602564
BIOMETRIC SMARTCARD MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599026
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGES WITH PATTERNS OF DIE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586975
EXCITATION DEVICE FOR OPTICAL AMPLIFIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580358
ACTIVE OPTICAL FIBER WITH VARIABLE CROSS-SECTION AREA, METHOD OF PRODUCTION THE SAME (VARIANTS) AND AN OPTICAL SIGNAL AMPLIFIER BASED ON IT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575764
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FOOD ANALYSIS, PERSONALIZED RECOMMENDATIONS, AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.3%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1239 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