Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/981,183

ENSURING FAIRNESS FOR TRY SPIN LOCK

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 04, 2022
Examiner
FAHERTY, COREY S
Art Unit
2183
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
737 granted / 924 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
945
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 924 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the reply filed on 03/05/2026. 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 1-7, 9, and 15-20 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 “increasing, for only the thread, a number of attempts allowed based on at least one predefined criterion”. No support for this subject matter can be found in the original teachings of the application. Claim 9 suffers from a similar deficiency. Claim 15 recites the limitation “allow the first thread to continue to attempt to acquire the TRY lock continuously until the first thread acquires the TRY lock.” No support for this limitation can be found in the original teachings of the application. Claims 15-20 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 15 recites the limitation “allow the first thread to continue to attempt to acquire the TRY lock continuously until the first thread acquires the TRY lock.” It is unclear what it means to attempt to acquire the lock “continuously”. This term is not used in the specification and therefore the precisely intended meaning is unclear. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 10-14 are allowed. 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
Oct 18, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 25, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 02, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 05, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 11, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12681806
METHOD TO RESET CONFIGURABLE UNITS IN A RECONFIGURABLE PROCESSOR
1y 11m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12681724
SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES, AND METHODS FOR CHAINED FUSED MULTIPLY ADD
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12681725
Operand Selection Circuitry
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12657027
STALLING AN INSTRUCTION FETCH OPERATION IMPACTED BY A HAZARD WITHOUT STALLING ANOTHER INSTRUCTION FETCH OPERATION NOT IMPACTED BY THE HAZARD
4y 2m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12650841
CIRCUITRY AND METHODS FOR CAPABILITY INFORMED PREFETCHES
4y 2m to grant Granted Jun 09, 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
80%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+3.8%)
3y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 924 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