Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 19/257,625

DATA FEDERATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 02, 2025
Examiner
SUBEDI, DEEPROSE D
Art Unit
2627
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
449 granted / 515 resolved
+25.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
534
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§112
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 515 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 . All the claims have been examined on the basis of the merit of the claims. Priority The present application is a continuation of application 18/884750 filed 09/13/2024 which is now patent 12375453. Application 18/884750 claims benefits from provisional application 63/627018 filed 01/30/2024. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2025 is considered and attached. Double Patenting The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 e-Terminal 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 1-28 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12375453 B1 as outlined in the table below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated by the already patented claims. Present application US Patent No.: 12375453 B1 Claim 1 Claim 1 and claim 8 Claim 2 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 1 Claim 4 Claim 3 Claim 5 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 5 Claim 7 Claim 6 Claim 8 Claim 7 Claim 9 Claim 1 and claim 8 Claim 10 Claim 14 Claim 11 Claim 1 Claim 12 Claim 15 Claim 13 Claim 16 Claim 14 Claim 17 Claim 15 Claim 18 Claim 16 Claim 19 Claim 17 Claim 20 Claim 18 Claim 22 Claim 19 Claim 23 Claim 20 Claim 24 Claim 21 Claim 25 Claim 22 Claim 26 Claim 23 Claim 22 Claim 24 Claim 23 Claim 25 Claim 24 Claim 26 Claim 12 Claim 27 Claim 25 Claim 28 Claim 26 Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-28 are allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claim 1, KUNDU discloses a smart display system for displaying content on multiple display screens, the smart display system (para 0023, a plurality of displays in an airport, fig. 2-4) comprising: multiple display screens ; one or more processor operatively connected to the multiple display screens; and at least one of a memory device and a non-transitory storage device storing computer program instructions executable on the one or more processor, wherein execution of the computer program instructions by the one or more processor configures the one or more processor to implement modules, servers, databases, components, and services (processors, program codes, para 0179, para 0114, 0106 to operate modules, servers, databases and components and services, fig. 2-4), in which: a multi-user flight information display (MUFID) Services module is operatively associated with a smart display services module, operatively associated with a Smart Data Entry module, and operatively associated with a smart display frontend module (figs. 2-4, fig. 6); an official airline guide (OAG) provides timely and actionable realtime flight data (figs. 2-4, real-time data feed, para 0073-0074 & 0078-0079); an Information Integrator component provides smart display MUFID services for fetching the flight data from the OAG and storing the flight data into a My SQL database (para 0081, airline data feed is received directly from airlines but may also be received from flight data feed vendors. Airline and flight data includes flight number, destination airport, departure airport, flight arrival and departure time, and flight status); an Open Integrator Hub component providing smart display services, which contain business logic to manage flight content and reads latest flight data from the My SQL database and provides realtime changes to a Smart Display Admin App called Smart Data Entry and Smart Display App (para 0041, providing a web server connected to the internet, wherein the web server is programmed to access the remote travel operations display system, wherein the web server has a data storage device, fig.2, data repository 141, para 0093); and one or more processor controls the multiple display screens to display content comprising at least a portion of the flight data (figs. 2-3, fig. 6 and 8. 8. These claimed modules and technology stack as claimed are equivalent modules or elements that essentially perform the same function as the prior art elements. MPEP 2186 Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997). In determining equivalence, "[a]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element." 520 U.S. at 40, 41 USPQ2d at 1875." The claimed modules are used for "fetching and reading flight data and controlling display screens to display content." These functions are fully met by the prior art of Kundu's elements)), KUNDU does not disclose “wherein a smart data entry application permits at least two different types of user authentication comprising: one in which the smart data entry application can integrate with Azure; and another based on a database login.” Accordingly, the independent claim 1 would be allowed. The independent claim 9 would be allowed by same rationale. In particular, the limitations of “wherein a smart data entry application permits at least two different types of user authentication comprising: one in which the smart data entry application can integrate with Azure; and another based on a database login,” are not taught by KUNDU. The dependent claims 2-8 and 23-26 would also be allowable based on their respective dependencies from the independent claim 1. The dependent claims 10-22 and 27-28 are would also be allowable based on their respective dependencies from the independent claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPROSE SUBEDI whose telephone number is (571)270-7977. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST. 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, KE XIAO can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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. /DEEPROSE SUBEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 02, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578830
TOUCH STRUCTURE, TOUCH DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572237
TOUCH DISPLAY DEVICE AND TOUCH DRIVING CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572247
ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING SUBSTRATE, CIRCUIT LAYER, AND LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENT LAYER ON THE CIRCUIT LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12561054
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR UNLOCKING BASED ON USER INPUT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562099
LIGHT EMITTING MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
87%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+3.4%)
1y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 515 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