Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/740,811

MULTI-PROCESSOR, MULTI-DOMAIN, MULTI-PROTOCOL, CACHE COHERENT, SPECULATION AWARE SHARED MEMORY AND INTERCONNECT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 10, 2022
Examiner
PHAN, DEAN
Art Unit
2184
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
376 granted / 509 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
525
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
58.8%
+18.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 509 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claim 9, 10, 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutenberg et al (US 9842051, Schuttenberg) in view of Kamikubo (US 20190079870) and further in view of Jalal et al (US 20130042078, Jalal). As to claim 9, Schuttenberg discloses a controller comprising: a cache tag bank (fig. 3 tag array 332, 334); a memory bank (line array 340, 342); and a snoop filter (3-350) coupled to the cache tag bank and the memory bank (fig. 1 memory 104) by a cache line (fig. 5, entries in 5-350), wherein the cache line includes: a cache tag address (SnTag 506) associated with a data element; a state of the cache tag address (SnValid 504); and a value of the memory bank associated with the cache tag address (SCIO 508-512). Schuttenberg does not disclose the cache tag bank that includes a first status indicator and a second status indicator. In the same field of art (memory), Kamikubo discloses an arithmetic processing unit which includes a cache including a cache memory for storing states of data and data in a block at an index of the memory access request (col 1 ln 65-67). In one embodiment, Kamikubo a cache tag bank that includes a first status indicator and a second status indicator (fig. 3 W0-W3, par. 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schuttenberg and Kamikubo, by including the cache tag bank with a first status indicator and a second status indicator. The motivation is to improve the reliability of the system (par. 9). Schuttenberg does not disclose wherein the cache tag bank, the snoop filter, and the memory bank are in separate memory devices. In the same field of art (memory), Jalal discloses an apparatus for processing data comprising: a plurality of transaction sources, each of said plurality of transaction sources having a local cache memory (par. 7). In one embodiment, Jalal discloses a cache tag bank (fig. 1, L1$-L3$ 16), a snoop filter (filter 14), and a memory bank (memory 5) are in separate memory devices (fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schuttenberg/Kamikubo and Jalal, by configuring the cache tag bank, the snoop filter, and the memory bank in separate memory devices. The motivation is to improve the efficiency of the system (par 6 “consumed in terms of gate count, power, area and the like”). As to claim 10, Schuttenberg/Kamikubo/Jalal discloses the controller of claim 9, wherein: an entry in the snoop filter corresponds to an entry in the cache tag bank (Jalal, fig. 2 “shared cache tag values) and an entry in the memory bank (par. 42 “returned target cache line of data from the main memory 6”). As to claim 12, Schuttenberg/Kamikubo/Jalal discloses the controller of claim 9, wherein: the state of the cache tag address includes one of shared, unique, invalid, modified, owned, and exclusive (Schuttenberg, col 8 ln 50-54 “indicates whether the SnTag 506 is valid”). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuttenberg in view of Kamikubo/Jalal and further in view of Jalal et al (US 20170168939, Jalal2). As to claim 11, Schuttenberg/Kamikubo/Jalal discloses the controller of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein: the state of the cache tag address indicates a cache of a master peripheral stores a value associated with cache tag address. In the same field of art (memory), Jalal2 discloses a data processing system, having two or more of processors that access a shared data resource (abstract). In one embodiment, Jalal2 discloses that a state of the cache tag address (fig. 3, state 312 of tag 310) indicates a cache of a master peripheral (par. 14, master devices 104) stores a value associated with cache tag address (par. 26, “MOESI state of the data”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schuttenberg/Kamikubo/Jalal and Jalal2, by comprising the state of the cache tag address to indicate a cache of a master peripheral stores a value associated with cache tag address. The motivation is to improve the efficiency of the system (par 6 “consumed in terms of gate count, power, area and the like”). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 and 13-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for allowance of claims 1 and 13 in the instant application is “applying, by the controller, the tag to a snoop filter bank to determine a snoop filter result a memory bank result that includes a second status indicator; applying, by the controller, the tag to a memory bank to determine a memory bank result that includes a third status indicator; and determining, by the controller, based on the cache tag result, the snoop filter result, and the memory bank result whether to access a cached value of the data element or access the data element at the physical memory address of the data element, wherein the cache tag bank, the snoop filter bank, and the memory bank are in separate memory devices”, in combination with other steps/elements in the claims. The prior art of record including the disclosures of Tran (US 20130212585), Jamil et al (US 8990505) and Kamikubo (US 20190079870) neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above limitation. Because claims 2-8 and 14-20 depend directly or indirectly on either one of claims 1 or 13, these claims are considered allowable for at least the same reasons noted above. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00AM-4:00PM. 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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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. /D.P/ Examiner, Art Unit 2184 /STEVEN G SNYDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 25, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602335
MEMORY INTERFACE WITH REDUCED ENERGY TRANSMIT MODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591533
CONFIGURABLE STREAM SWITCH WITH VIRTUAL CHANNELS FOR THE SHARING OF I/O PORTS IN STREAM-BASED ARCHITECTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585606
CONTROL MECHANISM FOR USE WITH A MOBILE DEVICE DOCK AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS INCLUDING THE CONTROL MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579096
APPARATUS AND CONTROLLING METHOD FOR TWO-WIRE SERIAL BUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560955
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SEMICONDUCTOR SYSTEM
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 509 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