Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/072,300

APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACE TO INDICATE OPERATIONS TO BE PERFORMED BY CORRESPONDING STREAMING MULTIPROCESSORS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 30, 2022
Priority
Nov 21, 2022 — GR 20220100957
Examiner
HUISMAN, DAVID J
Art Unit
2183
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
NVIDIA Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allowance Rate
392 granted / 678 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 8m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
764
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
61.9%
+21.9% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 678 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the reply filed on 02/23/2026. Claims 1, 3-11, 14-18, and 21-25 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, 3-11, 14-18, and 21-25 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 “circuitry to execute one or more instructions on a plurality of compute units to, in response to an indication that threads in a first compute unit of the plurality of compute units are grouped into one or more warp groups: cause matrix multiply accumulate (MMA) operations to be performed by the first compute unit to cause two or more second instructions to be performed”. This limitation requires executing one or more instructions to cause matrix multiply accumulate operations to be performed, wherein the matrix multiply accumulate operations themselves cause two or more different instructions to be performed. No support for this subject matter can be found in the original teachings of the application. In contrast, the specification (and the original claims) teaches the concept of executing an instruction that causes other instructions to execute, where the other instructions then cause the matrix multiple accumulate operations to occur. The claim therefore fails to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claims 9 and 15 suffer from the same deficiency. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully 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 10 earlier events
Jun 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Nov 17, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 19, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 19, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 23, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 23, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12645635
COMPUTE NEAR MEMORY CONVOLUTION ACCELERATOR
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12639145
RESILIENT POST-PROCESSING ARCHITECTURE FOR ABNORMAL PROCESS TERMINATION
3y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12613704
SHARING SNAPSHOTS BETWEEN RESTORATION AND RECOVERY
6y 4m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12613703
TIGHTLY-COUPLED SLICE TARGET FILE DATA
4y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12602229
NEURAL NETWORK ACCELERATOR FOR OPERATING A CONSUMER PIPELINE STAGE USING A START FLAG SET BY A PRODUCER PIPELINE STAGE
4y 10m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+33.6%)
4y 8m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 678 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