Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/305,871

DATA CONVERSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Examiner
CORRIELUS, JEAN M
Art Unit
2159
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Ice Data Pricing & Reference Data LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
849 granted / 1009 resolved
+29.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1044
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§103
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§102
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1009 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 . This office action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments filed on March 4, 2026, in which claims 1-20 are presented for further examination. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. Remark After further reviewed Applicant’s arguments, filed on March 4, 2026, in light of the original specification, it is conceivable that the claimed “apply the customized backtesting configuration to unified data to generate backtesting data specific to the user input, the unified data having a single format and generated by a data unification module configured to reformat and aggregate electronic data files comprising real-time market data obtained from the one or more data sources in a plurality of formats; and dynamically regenerate, in real-time, the results dashboard to display updates to the graphic backtesting analytic indicators responsive to user selection of the one or more filters, without generating any further windows in the interactive GUI, the one or more models being automatically reinitiated to account for the user selection of the one or more filters” are integrated into a practical application that render claims 1-20 eligible under 35 USC 101. The 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the last office action is now withdrawn. 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex). 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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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. /JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 March 23, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2025
Application Filed
Nov 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Feb 17, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 23, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 23, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 04, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596816
Performing deduplication on Multi-Tenancy dataset
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12561349
ASSIGNMENT OF APPLICATIONS (APPS) AND RELEVANT SERVICES TO SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555035
MODEL GENERATION APPARATUS, ESTIMATION APPARATUS, MODEL GENERATION METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING A MODEL GENERATION PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12541515
One-Hot Encoder Using Lazy Evaluation Of Relational Statements
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12530722
METHOD FOR ASSESSING ASSET VALUE AND MODEL TRAINING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+13.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1009 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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