Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/229,199

HANDLING CONTAINER VOLUME CREATION IN A VIRTUALIZED ENVIRONMENT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 02, 2023
Priority
Jun 02, 2023 — IN 202341038176
Examiner
BELKHAYAT, ZAKARIA MOHAMMED
Art Unit
2139
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
VMware, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
15 granted / 17 resolved
+33.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
41
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
89.8%
+49.8% vs TC avg
§102
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§112
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 17 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 1, “container cluster” should read “a container cluster” . In claim 11, line 3, “container cluster” should read “a container cluster” . Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims are seen as having the same deficiencies, including claims 2-10 and 12-14. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 2-4, 12, and 16-18 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. Claims 2, 12, and 16 include the limitation “in response to an identifier of the container, an identifier of the virtual disk, and an identifier of the volume”. It is unclear whether this is an incomplete limitation requiring an additional step to be performed on the identifiers or if this limitation would be better expressed using the term “based on” instead of “in response to”. Claims 3 and 17 include the limitation “in response to the volume name, the volume size, and a reference to a unit of the available space consumed by the volume”. It is unclear whether this is an incomplete limitation requiring an additional step to be performed on the identifiers or if this limitation would be better expressed using the term “based on” instead of “in response to”. Claims 4 and 18 are also rejected as they depend from claims 3 and 17, respectively, and so are seen to contain the same deficiencies. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 5-11, and 13-14 are otherwise allowable if amended to overcome objections. Claims 15 and 19-20 are allowable over the prior art of record. No prior art was found to teach all of the limitations of claim 1 including particularly requesting, by the container volume driver, the container agent to retry the request to create the volume. Prior art references such as Mimatsu et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0204701; relevant paragraph 0078), Silvers et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0010620; relevant paragraph 0044), and Sivasubramanian et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,849,758; relevant Column 26, specifically lines 17-25) disclose retrying or repeating virtual volume allocations either automatically (Mimatsu, Sivasubramanian) or at a later point in time not directly linked to a failed request (Silvers). However, no prior art was found to teach, alone or in combination, the entirety of the limitations of claim 1 as written, and as such the claim is found allowable. Claims 11 and 15 include the allowable limitations of claim 1, and as such are also found allowable. Claims 5-10, 13-14, and 19-20 are found allowable by virtue of dependence on allowable claims 1, 11, and 15. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST. 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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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. /ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT/Examiner, Art Unit 2139 /REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12639201
METHOD FOR SUPPORTING INCREASED LOGICAL CAPACITY USING THIN PROVISIONING WITHOUT INCREASING DRAM SIZE
2y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12639232
DATA STORAGE APPARATUS GUARANTEEING PROGRAM SEQUENCE AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
2y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12632191
DYNAMICALLY DETERMINING A RATIO OF MEMORY BLOCKS TO INCLUDE IN A GARBAGE COLLECTION PROCESS
2y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12613817
DATA PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD
1y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12561248
SNOOP FILTER ENTRY USING A PARTIAL VECTOR
2y 4m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+11.7%)
1y 11m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 17 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