Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/272,070

CABLE MODEM UPSTREAM BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 17, 2025
Priority
Jan 31, 2024 — continuation of 12/388,672
Examiner
DUBASKY, GIGI L
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Charter Communications Operating LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
458 granted / 617 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
636
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
85.5%
+45.5% vs TC avg
§102
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§112
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 617 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 . 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2025 was filed on or after the effective filing date of the instant application on 07/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,388,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claim 1, the instant application claim 1 and the US patent claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention. The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 1 is broader in every aspect than the patent claim 1 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 1 in that claim 1 of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Claims 2-8 correspond to the patent claims 2-8 respectively. Claims 9-10 correspond to the patent claim 1. Claims 11-18 correspond to the patent claims 9-16 respectively. Claims 19-20 correspond to the patent claim 9. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sevindik et al (US 2022/0078806) teaches “Methods and Apparatus for Wireless Data Traffic Management in Wireline Backhaul Systems”. Bashan et al (US 2004/0258094) teaches “Communication System and Method for Media Access Control”. Williams et al (US 2002/0159513) teaches “System and Method for Shared Cable Upstream Bandwidth”. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00. 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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. /GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12677035
NETWORK TIME-SHIFT BUFFERING, RECORDING CONVERSION, AND CONTENT MANAGEMENT
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677012
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ALTERING REAL TIME AUDIO AND VIDEO STREAMS
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12671870
METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND SYSTEM FOR DATA INTERACTION DURING LIVE STREAMING
2y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12659530
PROFILE-BASED CHANNEL RECOMMENATIONS FOR NEW USERS OF A STREAMING SERVICE
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12659523
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SCHEDULING A BACK-RESOURCE LINK, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
1y 12m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.4%)
2y 9m (~1y 9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 617 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