Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 18, 2026
Application No. 17/957,969

DEVICE, METHOD AND SYSTEM TO DETERMINE A MODE OF PROCESSOR OPERATION BASED ON PAGE TABLE METADATA

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 30, 2022
Examiner
VICARY, KEITH E
Art Unit
2183
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allowance Rate
399 granted / 692 resolved
+2.7% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
740
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§103
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§102
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
§112
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 692 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the reply filed on 01/13/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “detect an availability of metadata”. The examiner can find no support in the original teachings of the application for the concept of detecting availability of metadata. Claims 10 and 16 suffer from the same deficiency. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “detect an availability of metadata”. The unusual phrasing of this limitation makes its intended definition unclear, and no description of this language can be found in the specification. More specifically, what does it mean for metadata to be “available”? Is it possible for metadata to exist but not be available? Or does “available” just mean that the data exists? Appropriate clarification is required. Claims 10 and 16 suffer from the same deficiency. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Corey Faherty whose telephone number is (571)270-1319. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays between 7:30 and 4:00 ET, with every other Friday off. 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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at (571) 270-3995. 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. /COREY S FAHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Dec 01, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 13, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Mar 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12699569
SELF-PROVISIONING AND FLEXIBLE HARDWARE ACCELERATOR ARCHITECTURE
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12688397
PARTITIONABLE DIGITAL HARDWARE SYSTEM FOR IMPLEMENTING RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORKS
5y 2m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12663994
Supporting Multiple Vector Lengths with Configurable Vector Register File
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12663990
Apparatus and Method for Remote Atomic Floating Point Operations
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12657031
Coprocessor Prefetcher
1y 10m 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.0%)
3y 11m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 692 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